CORN LAWS. (Hansard, 9 March 1826)

§ Mr. Hume
presented a petition from the working manufacturers of Gorbals and other places, in the neighbourhood of Glasgow, praying for an alteration in the Corn laws. The hon. member observed, that although he considered the high price of corn to be almost as prejudicial to the farmer as to the manufacturer, he was not inclined to throw the ports entirely open at once. Whatever was done must be done gradually; but unless something was done, it would be impossible for the manufacturing labourers of the country to obtain subsistence for their families, at the present low rate of wages.

§ Mr. Curwen
said, that if permission were given to import corn into this country without restriction, the result of it would be visible in a few years, in the production of a famine.

§ Mr. Sumner
complained of the interlocutory mode of discussing so important a subject, which had recently been adopted in both Houses of Parliament. He thought that the petitioners had no right to complain at present of the high price of corn. Their language appeared to him very like the language of rebellion. No other construction could properly be put upon the phrase, that the bonds of society must be broken, if the Corn laws continued much longer in operation.

Mr. Bernal
thought that no such construction could be put upon the petition in common fairness. It might be that the language of the petitioners was strong; but it ought to be recollected, that they were not gifted with that temper, patience, 1211 and nice discrimination, which were the attributes of the hon. member for Surrey. At that moment the price of meat, bread, cheese, and butter, was excessive. Now, the manufacturers were receiving low wages; and, with low wages, it was impassible for them to obtain the articles of food which he had just mentioned. These were plain truths, which sooner or later must force themselves on the attention of parliament.

Mr. Maberly
was surprised that petitions like the present had not been received from every manufacturing district in the country. He was, however, not surprised at the language of the petitioners. All he was astonished at was, pat similar petitions were not poured in from every manufacturing district in the Country.

§ Mr. Benett
condemned severely the tope of the petition, and he could only understand from it, that a threat was intended by the expression of breaking down the bonds of society. The petitioners were much deceived, if they expected that the distresses, under which they were now suffering, would be alleviated by the repeal of the Corn-laws. Whenever those laws were repealed, that repeal would be followed by a great diminution in the demand for their labour.

§ Mr. Hume
protested against the assumption that the petition contained any improper language, still less any thing which Could be construed into a threat. He would be the last person to justify the use of improper language; but he thought that nothing ought to deter members from presenting petitions which contained perhaps a warm, but nevertheless an honest statement of the effect which the grievances they endured bad produced on their, minds. He thought that no time could be called improper for such a purpose.

Mr. Secretary Peel
said, he could not think that any advantage could be gained by discussions like the present, which agitated a subject confessed to be one of the utmost importance, difficulty, and delicacy. He was sure that no person in, that House, wished to repress the voice of the people on any subject. The hon. gentleman thought the petition, which he had presented was a specimen of fine writing; but even he thought that they had painted their being supposed that be wished to prevent any representation of the distresses 1212 of the people, he must be permitted to deprecate a discussion, which could in no way tend to throw a light upon the subject, but which was calculated to produce asperity between classes which it was; most desirable to conciliate. A discussion, if any should take place, ought to be temperate and dispassionate, and, above all, bitterness and asperity of language ought to be avoided,

Mr. Calcraft
said, that however desirable it might be thought by the hon. gentleman to avoid discussions on these subjects, it was obviously impossible to do so; and, indeed, when it was considered that upon these occasions alone the House had an opportunity of hearing the sentiments of gentlemen who did not take any other part in the debates, it might be doubted whether it was advisable to discourage such discussions. At least they gave the country an opportunity of knowing the sentiments of members on this subject, and of ascertaining who did and who did not approve of any alteration in the law as it stood. If any evil consequences had been felt, they must be attributed solely to his majesty's ministers', and to the delay which they had occasioned in the settlement of this important question. He had understood that it was to be brought on in the course of the present session, and that the right hon. the president of the Board of Trade was to have submitted to the House his views on the subject. Ministers might have grounds for the alteration which they contemplated. He believed they were mistaken; but as the question must be decided, he thought the postponement of the discussion was extremely objectionable. At the ensuing general election, gentlemen would be called on, in almost every place, to state their opinions on this subject; and unless they knew what were the intentions of ministers, it would be impossible for them satisfactorily to answer. If the country could but once know what the government proposed to do, there would be an end of all discussion; but while they abstained from stating that, the uncertainty produced the greatest in convenience. It was not, to be sure difficult to guess from their measures what they intended to do. He had no doubt that the right hon. gentleman meant to approximate the laws relating to corn as much as possible to those which he had established en other subjects—that ha would place a protecting duty on corn, 1213 and then leave its importation, subject to that duty, unrestricted. But the question was, what was the amount of that duty to be? Why should this be concealed? There had been too many proofs that the people were to be reasoned out of their erroneous opinions, to doubt, that, upon a fair statement of the advantages to be derived from a change of the system with regard to corn, they would readily concur in it. Why, then, should it be left in mystery? Why should the people be left, in consequence of their ignorance on this subject, to present petitions to the House, drawn up by nobody knew whom, and the statements in which were inflamed by their own fears and the advice of improper persons? If the House would be firm, resolute, and consistent, all the difficulties would vanish. The people might be assured that the rate of their wages had nothing whatever to do with the price of corn. He hoped that corn would be cheaper; and if there were plentiful crops, that would of necessity be the case; but it would be in vain to look to any other cause than the bounty of Providence for producing that effect.

§ Mr. Peel
explained, that he had no wish to repress a discussion on the subject of the Corn-laws, if any argument was to be offered to the House; but when he had heard the petitioners using the terms "relentless obduracy," he had been apprehensive that a debate might arise, the tendency of which would be to produce irritation, without throwing any light on the subject which had occasioned it. With respect to the sentiments of the government on this question, he hoped the hon. gentleman would himself admit, that as a time had been fixed for its discussion, ministers would do better to reserve themselves, than to embrace the opportunity which was now offered, by the figurative petition from Gorbals.

§ Lord John Russell
agreed, that it would be advisable to have the question of the Corn-laws settled as soon as might be practicable; but since a delay had taken place, he hoped ministers would avail themselves of it to consider the nature and extent of the burthens which at present attached to the land. Before any alteration could be effected in the nature of the Corn-laws, those burthens must be alleviated, and the agriculturists brought upon the same footing with respect to the demands as the manufacturing classes.