portable. His lordship said he was aware that a single word on so delicate a subject dropped in the house might produce infinite mischief without doors; but neverthe less he must remind them, that, from all they had experienced since the subject had been first agitated m parliament, it was much to be wished some means could be found out to compel the growers of corn, and the corn dealers, to bring their corn to market; in which case the price must necessarily have decreas ed. On a former occasion he had made use of a term which met with disapprobation he meant the word maximum. It was, however, a measure he had duly considered, and was convinced of the policy of adopting it. Generally understood, it might be dangerous; and there was no general rule without an exception. Corn being an article of the first necessity was of this description, respecting the application of a maximum; which might, without risk of mischief, be resorted to as a remedy in the present instance of general distress, and more particularly as there was no design to diminish the fair gain of the farmer in reward of his industry, his skill, and his attention as an agriculturist. On the contrary, if the maximum of wheat were fixed at ten shillings per bushel, the grower of corn would reap a profit of cent. per cent. It was not, howéver, his intention to bring forward a motion founded on the idea, but one of a preliminary nature, which would lead to the ascertainment of the quantity of corn in the kingdom, which it was necessary to fake, previous to any strong meadure on the subject. His lordship concluded with moving, "that directions be given to every mayor, bailiff, justice of peace, and other magistrates, to cause a return to be made, on oath, of all the wheat, barley, oats, and pulse, in possession of any farmer, factor, and corn merchant, either in granaries or on board ships, barges, or boats, within their respective districts; and also a return made, on oath, of alf that had been sold since the 10th of April, with the price charged for the same." The earl of Morton said it was impracticable. Being himself a justice of peace, he, for one, begged not to be included, at least; as he knew not by what power or authority he could compel the parties to maké a return, or even to take an oath upon the subject. Nothing short of an act of parliament (in his opinion) could enable magistrates to enforce it. The duke of Montrose observed, that the throwing out loose hints on the high price of provisións only tended to alarm the poor now suffering under the severest distress, and to irritate their minds against those who could not redress it. The fact was, that the scarcity arose from the visitation of Providence; and all descriptions of people being impressed with it, were content to bow with patient submission to an evil inflicted by the Almighty: But if they were taught by these desultory debates in parliament that it arose from monopolisers, they would, unhappily for themselves, combine to destroy the peace and property of those who dealt in corn and provisions, and aggravate their own sufferings. Much had been said of the cargoes in the Thames, &c.; but, if due inquiry was made, it would soon be found that the sailing of ships out was nothing more than the natural operation of the commerce of the kingdom. At At present, if one county had a redundancy of corn, and the next county had not enough for its con sumption, the productive county did not supply the wants of the neighbouring one, but shipped its surplus off for the port of London, as the market where the owners were most likely to get the best price. This was now the case all over the kingdom, from Bristol, Liverpool, Hull, &c., so that it was not to be supposed that all the ships in the Thames were intended for the supply of the metropolis only, but of every part of the kingdom where corn was wanting, and accounted for the river being perpetually filled with cargoes loaded with grain of various kinds. The duke gave lord Warwick full credit for the purity of his intention. He was persuaded that a better man did not exist, and that his lordship thought to do good in the present instance; but, as he was of another opinion, he could not but oppose the motion. Lord Clifton (earl Darnley) said, that if wheat was at ten shillings the bushel, as his lordship had affirmed, his labourers could not afford to support themselves, unless their wages were raised from eight to ten shillings a week. Lord Hobart reprobated this sort of propositions, especially when a committee was diligently employed in inquiring into the high prices of provisions, and find ing out the most effectual remedies. He had heard also of the corn in the river, and its being so long kept as to be obliged to be thrown overboard. A person had told him a story of a large ship then in the river, freighted with wheat, which the owner would not sell, to enhance the price; and this person desired his lordship not to give ་ credit to the matter till he had him. self examined it, and conversed with a respectable merchant whom this person recommended. His lordship declared that he did send for this merchant, who assured him there was not the least foundation for the story, and no such unfair practices, to his knowledge or belief, had ever taken place on the river. The duke of Bedford, without meaning, he said, to enter into various calculations, was convinced that, however productive from situation, superiority of soil, or cultiva tion, some portions of the kingdom might be, the average produce of the whole per acre was nearer to twenty-one or twenty-two bushels than to thirty-six. The obvious impracticability of the motion ensured its being negatived; but the question turned on two points: Was there a real scarcity, and not enough grown to feed the population of the kingdom? And what were the best means of alleviating the distresses of the people? Of the former there could be no doubt. As to the second, his grace would make no remark till the committee had finished their labours, and laid their report before most moral and certainly the most learned body of men of the representative franchise, it requires that the fact should not be entirely overlooked. We account it the only bad and arbitrary act passed in Mr. Addington's administration, and it constitutes perhaps the only blot upon his public character. A vacancy having occurred in the representation of the borough of Old Sarum, Mr. John Horne Tooke, a gentleman of most splendid talents, of various and profound knowledge, and well known in the political world, was appointed its representative by the proprietor of the borough, lord Camelford, who is first cousin to Mr. Pitt. Mr. Tooke had no sooner taken the oaths at the table, than lord Temple gave notice that he should move for his expulsion. The matter was however deferred,by various causes, till the 6th of May; and during that time a committee had been appointed to inspect precedents, and report on the case. On that day, therefore, earl Temple moved that the house should take into consideration the evidence respecting the eligibility of persons in holy orders to sit in the house of commons. It was a subject, he said, which required more than ordinary perseverance and labour, and the committee had bestowed much upon it. His lordship entered with considerable ability into a minute and historical deduction of facts relative to the rights of the clergy, and their claims to a seat in parliament. He dwelt upon that part of the English history when parliaments were called, solely at the will of the monarch; and when, though the members were chosen by the people, it belonged to the king to appoint only such as would answer his special purposes. At no very remote period the clergy composed a formidable power in this country: their influence was connected with the crown: they claimed a kind of monopoly of learning, and had an interest (which they had authority to preserve) in keeping the rest of the people in ignorance. They also had the exclusive right of taxing themselves. There was a decided line of distinction drawn between the votes of supply granted in parliament, and the subsidies voted by the clergy in convocation. This privilege was first confined to the superior, but afterwards it extended to the inferior orders of the priesthood, who were summoned to parliament. When the grants made by the lords and commons received the royal assent, they passed into a law; whereas the grants of the clergy were distinctly obliged to receive the assent both of commons and lords before they could receive that of the king. The custom was for the bishop to give orders to the clergy to send their representatives; but, though thus called, the privileges of the proctors of the clergy were very different from those of the lay members of the commons. The former sent proxies in their places when they themselves could not attend; thus laying down the fact, that they represented a distinct body, and not the commons of the land. In confirmation of this, they were styled representatives of the spiritual commons. At last the clergy, perceiving that the only object of the king was to obtain their subsidies, found this privilege a burden; and in the reign of Henry II. they made every endeavour to ged rid of it. When the power of summoning the convocation was vested in Henry the VIIIth, their parliamen tary tary interest received a complete blow; and from the hour that they renounced the pope's jurisdiction, and recognised the king's supremacy, might be dated their extinction as a legislative body of the realm. From that period their rights remained dormant, though continuing to exist. In the reign of Charles the First an act passed prohibiting them to exercise any temporal power whatever; and in the year 1666 their right to sit in parliament was given up, and in lieu of it they were allowed to vote for the members. In no one instance had they ever claimed a right of sitting as representatives of the commons. They were in that house only as proctors of their own community. In the time of Elizabeth they presented a petition on this subject, describing themselves as the fittest persons to maintain the queen's prerogative. It was rejected. A similar petition was renewed by the clergy in the reign of James I., and again thrown out. Thus it was evident that they had twice solicited as a favour what he supposed he should hear this night had existed as a right. It was a privilege which had never been exercised or claimed as such; and the annals of the English history proved it. "But the clergy had now a right, because the convocation was no more." This was not a fact: the convocation still met, though their powers were dormant; and in forming a decision on the subject, the house was to regard the duty it owed to posterity, as well as to their constituents. The clergy now knew what belonged to them, and that the people were more indebted to them for the purity of their morals and their good examples than to all the intrigues of a former turbulent priesthood. The country at large was as completely represented as circumstances would admit; but, if the eligibility of the clergy was allowed, the house would have half its number filled with clergymen. It would give the right of a double taxation-of themselves in convocation, and also of taxing members in parliament. This, if conceded to them, might be dangerous to the constitution in church and state; for, if once they had a right to vote in the house of commons, they would be tempted to desert their pulpits in order to wander in the crooked paths of politics, and to degrade their clerical characters into that of agents of prejudice and faction. But it had been said that this argument equally militated against their filling up any temporat office, such as justice of peace. No: the cases were widely diffe rent. To whom could the petty disputes in a parish be better re ferred than to those who had every inducement to maintain its peace? Or, by whom could justice be more impartially administered than by men who, from habits and inclination, were peculiarly qualified for its administration? It had been affirmed, that the rev. gentleman in question was no longer, however, in holy orders. Here the earl defied any law, civil or ecclesiastic, any authority, ancient or modern, to prove that the clergy possessed the right of divesting themselves voluntarily of their office. Indeed it had been declared by the 66th canon to be impossible; and this, with the other canons, still bound the priesthood. An abdication, if it was possible, involved the sentence of excommunication; and an excommunicated layman was not capable of possessing a seat in parliament. It was a matter of doubt whether whether the spiritual court could dis ves a man of orders by any sentence of its own, much less could a man effect it by his own voluntary act. The divestiture was contrary to law, as well as to the solemn engagements entered into at the time of ordination; and in consequence of which he had enjoyed certain privileges, and was open to them yet; for, if any patron presented him now with a benefice, though he flung off his gown, he would be under no necessity of new ordination in order to accept it. He would then say, that no person was entitled to the peculiar privileges of two distinct situations: the present then must be considered, and should be treated as one connected with religion. Let the rev. gentleman recollect the oath which he swore at his ordination, to give up his life to God, and the service of the ministry; let him call to mind the words of the bishop when he imposed hands upon him; and let him pause before he again ventured to say that he hoped by a quarantine of many years to have got rid of the infection of the priesthood. His lordship proceeded to contend that the rev. gentleman could not take his seat in that house as a clergyman, and that as a layman he could not be; and concluded with moving, that a new writ be issued out for the borough of Old Sarum, in the room of the rev. John Horne Tooke, who, being at the time of his election in holy orders, was incapacitated for his situation. The chancellor of the exchequer wished that earl Temple had solicited the attention of the house on the abstract question of the eligibility of the clergy; and then, if the house had decided negatively, the course to be pursued was plain. The subject was important, and had been discussed with labour and ability. With respect to the hoa. gentleman having been in priest's orders at the time of his election, and therefore incapable of a seat in parliament, he felt some difficulty in allowing, not from the principle of the proposition (which was the eligibility of the clergy), but the particular form of it. In ancient times the legislative body of this country sat together, and were composed of magnates, proceres, clerici, and optimates: the clergy formed an integral part of the parliament; but afterwards the magnates separated from the optimates, and then the clergy from both, constituting a house of convocation. There was no occasion to state that the clergy never sat in parliament as individual members of the realm, but as representatives of their order,because it was minutely detailed in the report of the committec then before the house. An important change took place with regard to them in the year 1664; for they ceased then to tax themselves, and the house taxed them as well as the laity. It should be recollected that even in former periods they were only exempted from taxes in spiritual matters, not in secular concerns; and during this privilege their rules and orders were not valid till they had received the sanction of parliament. The point came to this: whether, when the ground of exclusion of the clergy had been taken away, the exclusion itself ceased with it? It. was a favourite modern doctrine, that, when the reason for enacting a law was at an end, the law was annulled. But to this maxim he did not subscribe; and he was clearly of opinion, that, if the clergy were eligible to seats in that house, it might sülly |