§ The Duke of Clevelandpresented a petition from the county of Durham, praying for the repeal of the Corn-laws. He regarded the present high price of bread as the cause of the distress and poverty that existed in many parts of the country, and, although there were many strenuous advocates for the continuance of the Corn-laws, yet, in his opinion, they ought to be revised. Much of the property and the comforts he enjoyed were derived from agriculture, and he could not, therefore, be supposed to be influenced by interested views in advocating an alteration in the Corn-laws. His wish was, to follow the maxim of "Live, and let live."
The Marquess of Londonderrysaid, that although he could not boast of the same power, influence, and property in the county of Durham as the noble Duke who had just spoken, yet he knew, that not an inconsiderable portion of the agriculturists of that county were hostile to any change in the Corn-laws. He had risen, however, to ask a question of the noble Viscount at the head of her Majesty's Government. He wished to know whether what he had seen stated in the journals of this day, relative to a certain meeting in Downing-street of a number of delegates, to the amount of about 200, and who seemed to have taken Downing-street by surprise, and to have entered into a discussion on the Corn-laws to a considerable extent with the noble Viscount, was correct? He wished also to know in what manner that meeting was to be viewed; because, at the close of it, the report stated, that the declarations of the noble Viscount were made in his private, and not in his official, capacity. Now, he could not understand how such a meeting could be received by the noble Viscount 258 except in his official capacity; and he should, therefore, like to know whether the statement in the report were true, and whether the communication of the noble Viscount to the delegates was to be considered by the people of England as merely his private opinion, or whether it were given as an official Minister of the Crown. There was a remarkable discrepancy between what was stated in the report to have been said by the noble Viscount, and his statement of last year, and also of the other night, in answer to a question by a noble Lord on his side of the House. He wished, therefore, to know what the noble Viscount intended to do. There was a mystification in this case, which he thought wholly unworthy of the position which the noble Viscount held, and unbecoming of a Minister of the Crown.
§ Viscount Melbournecould not say whether the report referred to by the noble Marquess were a correct statement of what had passed on the occasion of the meeting in Downing-street or not, for he had not read that statement. But what he apprehended the noble Marquess referred to was, not that which had formed the main object of the discussion that took place, but some opinions which he had stated in the course of that discussion. The subject of foreign trade having been mentioned, he certainly had stated it as his opinion, that they could not, by relaxing the Corn-laws, obtain any great facility with foreign Governments for the introduction of our own manufactures. But when he was asked by some person at the meeting whether he delivered that as his own opinion, or as that of the Government, he said generally, it was his own opinion.
The Marquess of Londonderryread an extract from the report of the interview in the newspaper, to the effect that Lord Melbourne said, that "the total repeal at present would be most injudicious; to give all at once was not the way to obtain concessions from Foreign Powers." He wished to know whether that was to be one of Mr. O'Connell's instalments. He thought the noble Viscount should state the determination of the Government on the subject.
The Earl of Radnorwas understood to say, that, in consequence of the lateness of the two last Sessions, there would be a famine, if the Corn-laws were not repealed. He begged their Lordships to attend to 259 the effect of the Corn-laws on the Poor-laws. The object of the Poor-laws was, to produce a free competition of labour, but that ought to be accompanied with a free trade in food. Although he was favourable to the Corn-laws, yet he would support a modification of them, if an alteration were not made in the Poor-laws. The avowed object of the Corn-laws was to keep up the price of bread. That was declared to be the object when they were established, and it was said at that time, that if the landlords were not protected in that way, they would be ruined.
§ The Duke of Richmondsaid, the great object of the present Corn-laws was, that we should not be dependent on foreign countries for corn. He had not the slightest doubt that the great body of the people of this country, if they were asked to sign a petition for cheap bread, would sign it; and so, as the noble Duke near him (the Duke of Cleveland) could inform their Lordships, would they sign a petition for cheap coals. Let it be put to the labourers, "Will you rather have bread at a dear price, and 10s., or 12s., or 14s. a-week wages and constant employment, or cheap bread and no employment?" and the answer would be apparent. A great portion of the people of this country would be turned out of employment, if the agricultural interests were not protected. He would ask their Lordships to look at the returns that had been made from the different savings'-banks in the country, and see whether they were not proofs of the prosperity of the labouring classes. In the year 1838, there were 690,138 depositors, the average of whose deposits was about 7l. a-piece; which showed to what class of society they chiefly belonged. In the year 1839, however, there were 40,000 more depositors up to November than in the preceding year, and the amount of money so invested was 1,200,000l. more. He contended, that wages in this country had increased, and would continue to increase, if the Corn-laws were not agitated; but the farmers would not increase wages now, because they did not know how soon the Corn-laws might be overthrown. In his part of the country the farmers were giving 12s. a-week regular wages, and some of the labourers were making in task-work about 15s. They asked for no unfair advantage over the manufacturing interests; their interests were the same; but they did object to have persons getting 260 up a clamour on the subject. Last year it was said, that it would not hurt the agricultural interest at all. Now, however, it was said that it would.
The Earl of Falmouthsaid, that on the one side there was a great deal of argument and assertion, and on the other simple facts. The Corn-laws had the effect of raising the price of corn when it was too low, and of repressing it when it was too high. Having been concerned all his life in these matters, he must say he thought that the noble Earl was wholly unfounded in his view of the Corn-laws as to their effect on the labourers of this country; and, above all, in supposing that if the farmers were depressed, they could still find them employment, and give them adequate wages.