[954 it to the risk of seizure, it would be diffi- | that session in extending the trade of the cult to carry on such a trade from the country, by getting rid of monopolies and United States without detection. Some restrictions. And, would any man be jealousy, he was aware, existed on the part of Ireland; but he saw no reason why Canada should be placed under greater restrictions than Ireland, nor was he aware that she could avail herself of the privilege to such an extent as would be injurious to the interests of that country. Canada, it might be said, was likely, in the course of time, to become cultivated to a considerable extent; but, they were not to condemn her to perpetual sterility by any par partial course of policy; especially as it would be in their power, when an extraordinary importation should arrive, to alter the law, so as to meet the difficulty. The Earl of Lauderdale thought that the bill ought to be divided. There was no reason that he could see for making the questions of the bonded corn, and the importation from Canada, parts of the same bill. Of the effect which the importation from Canada would be likely to have, they had at present no means of judging; for no return of the price of grain had been received since 1820. It was legislating in the dark, to encourage importation from a country, with the average produce of whose grain they were utterly unacquainted. The Earl of Liverpool observed, that the two subjects were united in the bill, as the bill referred to another measure in which both subjects were included in the year 1815. As to the merits of the question itself, he looked at it in an inverse ratio from the view which his noble friend the mover of the amendment seemed to have adopted. He considered that part of it which affected the bonded corn objectionable, because he considered all temporary measures objectionable in principle; but, under the present circumstances of the country, it was an advantage both to the consumer and to the landed interest, that it should be resorted to; for, in the first instance, it would prevent any immediate rise of price, and ultimately it would operate against that extreme depression which an extraordinary advance would produce, by throwing open the ports and causing a glut in the market. As to the other provision, for admitting the introduction of Canadian corn, it was in the spirit of the changes which they were already occupied in making. They had been occupied during lieve that they could carry such a principle into effect, and exclude at the same time from its operation the most important of all commodities, that of corn? The system of monopoly from which this country had recently been engaged in extricating herself, was not our fault. It was the system of the whole world. But now, when other countries were becoming free and independent with respect to trade, did it become us to act upon such a contracted, such a dangerous principle, as would lead us to withhold from our own colonies the benefit of a free trade? It was idle to talk of the quantity of grain that Canada would be able to send into the market. The freight and insurance alone would amount to about 12s. 6d. a quarter, and besides that, it was subject to a duty of 5s. Then, with respect to the United States, he found that the price of corn fluctuated from 36s. to 40s. a quarter, which, on a comparison with our own prices, would not be found to afford any strong temptation to the American exporters. Indeed, so much did the measure lean to the safe side, he would prefer, as more liberal, a duty of 2s. 6d. to 5s. on the importation of Canadian corn. Then, the benefits of an increased shipping trade, was not to be overlooked. Looking, therefore, at the question in every point of view, he had no doubt that it would be most favourable to Canada, as well as to this country, by putting them in a better condition to consume our manufactures. As the main object was, to extend the commerce of the country generally, it was a part of the plan to put the dependencies on an equal footing, and, in pursuance of that plan, Canada and Ireland would be placed in juxta position, as to the corn trade. Something had been said as to the position in which Ireland stood, by which it was contended, that from the pressure of taxation, it was not fair to put that country into competition with Canada. Now, he was far from grudging Ireland the advantages she enjoyed, but he would contend, that that country was inore free from taxes than Poland. He would be sorry to support any measure which took from Ireland all fair advantages; but he was bound to deal fairly with all parts of the empire. It should be recollected, that Ireland had already experienced the most liberal treatment at the hands of this country, and that in the very article of corn. The importation of corn from Ireland made no part of the articles of Union; and though that importation was a subject of jealousy to some, yet who would say that it had produced any inconvenience, or that, with the proximity of the English market, the Irish farmers could not compete with those of Canada? Again, when it was considered what steps were taking in other parts of North America, could any one deny that, consistently with the preservation of Canada, there ought not to be an extension of the most liberal treatment towards that colony? It was a measure called for by every principle of free trade, of justice, and of sound policy. The House should recollect that, by rejecting this bill, they did not leave things as they were; for they would inflict a wrong, which must operate as a check to the prosperity of the colony. He had had frequent opportunities of hearing the principles of free trade applauded, but every particular manufacture claimed an exemption from its operation. It was unnecessary to say, that the general object must be marred by attending to particular interests; and he therefore called upon the House to sanction a measure which was calculated to be of so much general benefit. The Earl of Rosslyn said, that this was no present boon to the Canadians, for the ports were now open to Canadian corn, and no one could say when they would be shut. But the noble earl had contended, that it was the principle that was of value. What, then, was the principle? It was that of doing away the present system of the Corn laws. The noble earl had spoken out candidly, and the direct inference from his speech was, that this was the first step towards the abrogation of the whole system of the Corn laws. He should not enter into the danger arising from excessive importation from Canada, as he had no information to direct him to any opinion on that subject. If the bill passed, it ought to contain a clause to destroy all existing leases and bargains previously formed, as this was the first step towards the destruction of the system under which they had been formed originally. As to the low rate of taxation to which Ireland was subject, he thought it rather a grievance than a favour, that the misgovernment from which she had suffered, should have rendered her incapable of paying her fair proportion towards the burthens of the country. If they did put Canada in the same situation with respect to trade, that Ireland and England were placed in, they were bound to lay upon her the same prohibitions and the same taxes; in short, to incorporate her with the mother country, by an act of union, in which situation she might fairly expect to share in the advantages and defects to which her fellow-subjects here were exposed. The Earl of Liverpool said, that the noble lord had completely misunderstood his argument. He had not contended for the adoption of the measure as opposed to the principle of the Corn laws, but had called upon their lordships to agree to it as a favour to our own colonies, even if we should resolve to maintain our present system of Corn laws against all the world. The Earl of Limerick opposed the bill, the operation of which, he believed, would be no less injurious to the landed interest than to other national interests, which would, perhaps, engage more of the consideration of the House. The shipping interests, and the useful nursery for seamen which our coast-trade at present formed, would be destroyed by the admission of foreign corn in the way that was now proposed; and, at some future time, when perils threatened the country, we should look in vain for that host of able defenders who had heretofore made our navy the pride of England and the terror of the rest of the world. He saw no grounds upon which this measure was recommended, excepting by a vote of a public meeting in the city of London. Now, with all the highest opinion of the respectability of the persons composing that meeting, he thought, from their habits, and from the motives by which they were swayed, that they were not the fittest judges upon the subject. As little was he disposed to coincide with the crude opinions of the professors of political economy, no two of whom agreed as to the doctrines of their sect. He resisted this measure, because he considered it as the advanced guard of an attack hereafter to be made on the general Corn laws of the country. He could not regard any alteration in those laws otherwise than as an evil of the deepest dye in England, and as absolutely ruinous to Ireland. It pained him to see Ireland and Canada placed in juxta position. Between those two countries, in point of importance, there was no resemblance. The consumption of English manufactures by Ireland was beyond all proportion larger than in Canada. The House were not aware of the extent of injury which this opening of the corn trade with Canada was likely to produce. In the year 1824, there entered the port of London alone, 66 British ships, and no less than 444 foreign ships laden with corn. Until Canada was placed on the same footing with Ireland as to charges of government, tithes, &c., it was not a fair competition which parliament was about to institute between them. Lord Ellenborough expressed his dissent from those noble lords who viewed a departure from the Corn laws, as injurious to the interests of the country. The present question was not, however, necessarily mixed up with that; and he could give it his support, without committing himself to any particular course when the general question of the Corn laws came to be discussed. This bill had two objects; the first one almost of humanity, that of giving facilities to certain persons who had speculated in the Corn trade, of bringing to market corn, of which there was otherwise no chance of their disposing. The quantity of corn so situated was too small to have any sensible effect upon the relations of landlord and tenant. Of this proposition he entirely approved; but of the second, he approved more warmly. The question seemed to resolve itself into this; "Shall we or shall we not keep Canada?" The time appeared particularly well chosen, as it was most important not to displease the Canadians by treating them illiberally, whilst we were acknowledging the independance of states in South America. He rejoiced to see the trade of Canada assimilated with that of Ireland. He did not apprehend the same consequences from the assimilation, as a noble lord who had just sat down. But it surprised him to hear the noble earl opposite express fears for the effect of commercial restrictions in Canada, and be so indifferent to the effect of civil restrictions in Ireland. If he really dreaded a separation of that colony on account of commerce, it was a little strange that he had no apprehensions from a people whose attachments were likely to be affected by the bereavement of every thing that rendered life dear and valuable. He concluded by guarding himself against giving any pledge on the general question of the Corn laws. The Earl of Enniskillen saw in this bill, the ominous forerunner of a change in the Corn laws. He deprecated any alterations in that system as calculated to extinguish the small efforts which Ireland was making towards a resuscitation. The farmers of Ireland had been living upon borrowed money; but they would never be able to recover themselves, if they were exposed to competition with Canadian corn. He called upon the agriculturists to resist this bill. If they did not, there was every prospect of their being borne down by the monied interest altogether. The Earl of Carnarvon said, he did not object to a partial alteration of the Corn laws, particularly such an one as would substitute a permanent duty on imported corn, in lieu of the inconvenient mode of opening and shutting the ports occasionally. The importation of American corn could not, under any circumstances, be brought into question until next session, and therefore, as many serious considerations were mixed up with this question, he would suggest its postponement for the present. Lord Redesdale said, it appeared to him, that one very important point had been kept out of their lordships view. The constitution of this country was founded upon, and could never be separated from, the landed interest. To talk, therefore, of a free trade in corn, was at once absurd and dangerous. It was impossible that such a free trade could ever exist, consistently with the safety and prosperity of the kingdom. As to what had been said with respect to our trade with Canada, he had every wish that the interests of that colony should be attended to; but, he could not consent to advance them at the expense of the interest, of Great Britain. If the principle of admitting the corn grown in Canada into this country were once adopted, it must be carried to its fullest extent; and, were they, he would ask, prepared to state that they would give an unqualified admission to the corn of that colony? The landed interest of England were connected with the very spirit and essence of the British constitution, and could not be separated from it. It was, therefore, their duty to take care that those interests were not injured. Landed property, it was well known, had been assessed beyond any other kind of property. This he conceived incorrect, and he should always oppose himself to every measure which would have the effect of placing our corn trade on a footing with his view that observation of Mr. Burke that of foreign countries. Upon these -that serious reformers would never grounds he objected to the bill; and even choose the authors and abettors of if they did not exist, he should object no the system to be reformed as instruless to any measure which might have the ments for its correction. But, to say the effect of placing the Corn trade of Eng-truth, he had had from the first, no exland upon the same footing as that of pectation from the labours of that comany foreign country. To do this would be mission. He thought the appointment to adopt a policy, and one which was opposed to the soundest maxims of national economy. The land was the foundation of all our wealth, and from it every other description of advantage flowed. This had been the idea entertained by all our old writers on political economy, and experience had proved that they were not mistaken. The House then divided: Content 27; Proxies 7-34; Not Content 24; Proxies 15-39. Majority against the amendment 5. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Tuesday, May 31. of it was nothing but a parliamentary manœuvre of the right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Peel). He was not blaming him for it. He would admit that if he sat at the same side, had the same object, and possessed the countenance of the right hon. gentleman, he should follow the same course. [hear, and a laugh.] When he made this admission, he would only express his surprise that the right hon. gentleman could have mentioned the commission with a serious countenance, [a laugh]. The right hon. gentleman did laugh; and he believed that not even the gravest of his majesty's ministers, from the noble and learned lord to the right hon. gentleman, could peruse the list of commissioners, and reflect on the object for which they were appointed and refrain from laughter. However, he was not sorry that thecommission had been so tardy in their proceed DELAYS IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY.] Mr. John Williams, in rising to present certain petitions complaining of Delays, and other grievances to suitors in the court of Chancery, said, that though it was competent to him to submit a dis-ings. The period which they had suftinct motion on the subject to which those fered to elapse, had given the system time petitions referred, yet, from the length of to work, as the phrase was. It had time that had elapsed since he had before brought things to maturity, which more introduced the question, and from the strikingly showed the necessity of the reform for which he had contended. It now appeared that the number of causes and appeals which remained for hearing were upwards of four hundred. The judgments to be given in causes, appeals, petitions, and other other matters and things," as they expressed it in that court, amounted to 1,200, including the causes to be heard. Now, looking at the mode in which business had proceeded in Chancery since the year 1813, and taking the average of causes heard in each year in that time, as the measure by which to judge of the future progress of the court, the last cause now on the list would come on for a hearing (he would not say when for judgment) in forty years from the present date [hear, hear]. The maturity to which the evils had now arrived, would soon call for a more serious inquiry than that of the commission to which he al sufferings of others. When he first ven-luded-an inquiry embracing the proceed tured to express his suspicions that no good would result from the appointment of that commission, he had, perhaps, in ings of the court from the issuing of the subpœna, to the putting in of the final answer. But, from the present commission he ex pected nothing. If thirty years should be considered a little too long for the duration of a chancery suit, or 10,000/. a sum a little too large to be expended on it, perhaps they would receive from the commission some such copious relief, as a reduction of the time to twenty-nine years and nine months, and of the expense to 9,999l. That was the quantum of relief to be expected from a commission thus constituted, and thus tediously, if not laboriously, employed [hear, hear!]. to the conscience of him that is chancellor, and as that is larger, or narrower, so is equity. It is all one as if they should make the standard for the measure we call a foot, a chancellor's foot; what an uncertain measure would this be! One chancellor has a long foot, another a short foot, a third an indifferent foot: it is the same thing in the chancellor's conscience." Now, if this was a fair description of the foundation on which the jurisdiction of the court of Chancery rested-if it depended on the consciences of he knew not what lawyer, or what priest-could it be rested on a more unsound, a more impolitic, or a more unprofitable foundation for the people of England? That circumstance by itself would form a sufficient reason for inquiry into the jurisdiction of the court of Chancery, even if there were not other reasons which rendered that inquiry unavoidable; and he was certain, that the length of time during which the present commission had been engaged in examining into it, would greatly accelerate, mature, and consummate, that good work. But, he did not despair: If such evils had arisen under the direction of consummate wisdom, it was time for folly to see what it could do in the reform of them. The time would come, when the country would not be satisfied with going merely to the rind and surface of this jurisdiction-a jurisdiction depending on no legal enactments, nor resting, like the common law, on any immemorial usages. He said " resting on no immemorial usages," for hon. gentlemen must be aware, that sir William Blackstone had said, that though there had been many accurate writers who treated on courts and their several jurisdictions before the period when the time of immemorial usage commenced, not one of them had taken any notice, or said a single syllable about the equitable jurisdiction of the court of Chancery-of that court, which had now swollen to such a magnitude that it actually reeled and staggered under its own weight, and was unable to bear the remedies which ought to be applied to it. Some persons might be inclined to ask, if this jurisdiction were founded neither in legislative enactment nor in immemorial usage, how wasit founded? The answer was direct and easyit was founded in the conscience of the keepers of the great seal, of which, as they had generally been priests or law-ments, and not the conscience of any yers, he would merely say, that it was a sandy foundation, if ever there was one, for a great paramount jurisdiction. As his own opinion might have but little weight with the audience he was addressing, he would venture to state to the House what an eminent lawyer of former times had said upon this subject. Selden, whose learning was as unbounded as his attachment to the genuine principles of the constitution-Selden, in speaking of the origin of the court of Chancery, and its way of conducting business, made use of thefollowing expressions:-"Equity is a roguish ⚫ thing; for law we have a measure-know what to trust to; equity is according VOL. XIII. He had now spoken of the jurisdiction. He would further state, that it would become worthy of consideration to the people of England, whether, in place of such a system as now existed, it was not high time in this " thinking country," as Mr. Cobbett had ironically called it, to substitute another-whether it was not high time to give over resting on such a foundation as he had described, and to try and attempt a system on the authoritative foundation of the legislature of the country, ascertaining, describing, defining, limiting, and laying down, certain rules for the guidance of suitors, so that they may in future have to trust to legislative enact chancellor (hear). He trusted that no long time would elapse before this subject was fully considered, either in parliament or elsewhere. He thought, indeed, that it was impossible that the country would long allow the question to remain unexamined, how far it was in theory just, and in practice expedient, that there should be twosystems of judicature, co-existentat the same time, in one and the same country -a phenomenon in jurisprudence, which he had the authority of Blackstone for saying, "was not at present known, nor diditseem ever to have been known, in any other country at any time." He apprehended that that it it w would be convenient for the peo3 Q |