§ Mr. Broughampresented a petition from the operatives of the Staffordshire potteries, praying for an alteration in the Corn-laws. The learned gentleman described the petitioners as an industrious and suffering part of the population, and observed, that though there were many points in the petition in which he agreed with the petitioners, there were others from which he must withhold his concurrence.
The petition was then read. One of the allegations in it was, that the country was now in the rapacious gripe of the landlords, and ought to be rescued from it; and another that the landlords took sixpence Out of every shilling that they earned.
Mr. Robertsoncomplained of the violent language used by the petitioners, and contended that there could not be a greater grievance inflicted on the country than cheap bread. Who were to purchase potteries, if corn became cheap? It was not cheap corn, but good rents, good profits, and well-paid labour that were required to restore the country to prosperity.
§ Mr. Humedefended the statements of the petitioners. Cheap corn would cause the country to flourish, since every person who imported corn would be compelled to take our manufactures in return for it.
Mr. Calcraftreferred to his uniform support of the lowest import price, when the question of the Corn-laws was before the House. At the same time he thought that those who fostered the prejudices of the people upon this subject, did not take the best mode of advocating their own interests. It was quite impossible to have a low price of corn with a taxation of 60,000,000l. a year. It was unfair to say that the country was in the gripe of rapacious landlords, and that they were the only obstacles to its having cheap bread. Give the landlords of England the same chance as the landlords of other countries, and they would sell their corn at as cheap a rate. He begged gentlemen not to hold up the landlords of the country to unmerited obloquy. They had long been renowned for the generosity of their character, and he knew of nothing 1001 which they had recently done to forfeit that character.
Mr. Bennettsaid, that, on the part of the agricultural labourers, he put in a claim. They must be thrown out of employment, if the price of bread should be reduced too low; and, in legislating on the subject, the House was bound to consider equally all classes of the community.
§ Mr. Philipswas surprised, that the hon. member for Wareham should say, that it would be a serious disadvantage to the country to have cheap corn. In his opinion, nothing was so injurious to commerce as the existing system of Corn-laws; and without commerce the country could not maintain its rank in the scale of nations.
Mr. Calcraftsaid, he did not advocate dear corn, but he had given it as his opinion, that it was impossible to have cheap corn with an annual taxation of 60,000,000l.
Sir T. Lethbridgethought, that every member would agree with him, that cheap and dear were relative terms. Cheap corn, according to the hon. member for Aberdeen, meant corn at four or five shillings a bushel. Now if the sale of corn at that price would enable the grower to pay the taxes, he should rejoice to let the country have corn at that price; but he thought that government would not be able to carry on its operations if corn were reduced to that level. He objected to the position that, supposing we permitted the importation of corn, those who imported it would take from us the Value in manufactures. The position was contradicted by fact; for the corn that had been imported into this country had always been paid for in coin, the produce of the country.
§ Lord Miltonobserved, that the hon. member for Somersetshire had said, that corn imported into England was always paid for in coin, the produce of the country. Until the hon. baronet had given him that information, he did not know that coin was the produce of England. He was aware that there were some small gold mines in Ireland; but he had never heard, that there were any in England. He had always understood, that gold was imported into England, and therefore if the corn imported into this country were paid for in gold, that gold must first have been purchased by the industry and the manufactures of the country. Another hon. member, who had put for- 1002 ward the claims of the agricultural labourers,—and really when the claims of the agricultural labourers were put forward in that House, he suspected that the profits of the landlords were the things really meant—another seemed to have an opinion that the agricultural labourers were interested in the dear price of corn. He was himself a landed gentleman, and he must say that it never could be made plain to him, that any class of the community was benefitted by the high price of corn, except the owners of the land. The farmer was clearly not benefitted by it: he obtained the average rate of profit for his capital, but all the excess of the price of corn in this country over the price of it in other countries, allowing for the difference of taxation, went into the pocket of the landlord. That any body would maintain that the high price of corn was beneficial to any but the landlords, was to him a matter of the greatest surprise.
§ Mr. Goochobserved, that the declaration that the landlord alone was interested in the high price of corn was a declaration which every landlord could positively contradict. He was convinced, that from 50s. to 60s. per quarter was no more than a fair remunerating price; and that any less rate, whatever advantage it might seem to bring along with it, would have the effect of making this country wholly dependent on foreign growers of corn for the support of the people of England. He complained of the gross and violent language in which the petitions were generally couched, and which attributed to the land-owners a desire to keep up the high price of corn, no matter what inconvenience they occasioned to the rest of the country. He denied, on the part of the land-owners generally, any such desire. On the contrary they were convinced that their interests and those of the manufacturers must go hand in hand. He only wished to see the growers of corn encouraged; because he knew if they were not, the consequence would be, that, in the event of a scarcity, 4,000,000l. or 5,000,000l. of gold would, of necessity, go out of the country to purchase corn. Would that, he asked, not do more harm to the manufacturing interests than fixing a fair and reasonable price, at which British corn should always be sold? If this country could be rendered independent of the powers of the continent for bread, he had always thought it would be so much the better; and with that idea he 1003 had supported, and would support, some restrictions in the way of importation, to protect, the British, corn-grower.
§ Ordered to lie on the table.