HC Deb 22 November 1826 vol 16 cc111-5

The Address on the King's Speech was reported to the House. On its being read a second time,

Mr. Western

rose for the purpose of submitting an amendment, by way of addition to the Address. This he felt to be necessary, not that he was hostile to any part of the Address, but that he was desirous to fill up an omission on a question most important to the country. The Address adverted to the distressed situation of the manufacturing districts, but it omitted to state, in any particular manner, the condition of the agriculturists, who, he would say, though not as depressed as the manufacturers, were still labouring under severe pressure, arising from the burthens to which they were subject. It became the more necessary to advert to the situation of the agriculturists, because the omission of that subject from the royal Speech went to confirm an opinion too prevalent in the country, that the agriculturists were in prosperity, and that they were flourishing, at the expense of the manufacturers. This opinion he knew prevailed among the manufacturing classes, and it had even been stated in that House by an hon. alderman. It was necessary that such an opinion should not go forth as sanctioned by that House, and therefore he felt bound, publicly, to deny its justice. The farmers, he could state, were in distress, and their condition generally declining. They were scarcely able to struggle against the burthens by which they were oppressed. They could with difficulty pay the very reduced rents. Capital employed in agriculture was never known to bring so low a return as at present. The situation of the agricultural labourer was also one of great distress. They were never worse paid than at present. Instead of finding full employment at a good price as heretofore, they were obliged to entreat for it at a greatly reduced rate. The numbers, for whom no employment could be found, were daily increasing. The poor rates, as a necessary consequence, were increasing; and he feared that, unless some remedy was devised, they would, in a short time, be in a worse situation than the manufacturing poor. He did not complain that the present price of grain was inadequate; but then the value of that price to the farmer must depend on the burthens to which he was subject. He was prepared to contend that, compared with those burthens, the prices were much lower now than for a period of several years previous to the beginning of the late war. If he compared the present price of corn with that which it bore before 1792, he found that the quarter of wheat was then within 3s. or 4s. of what it sold for at present; and yet there were then only 17,000,000l. of taxes annually taken from the people, while at this moment there were nearly 60,000,000l. Did any doubt that the difference pressed heavily on the agriculturist of this day? He was prepared to contend, that the price of corn was not the cause of the distress suffered by the manufacturers. It arose from other causes to which he would not then particularly advert. He had stated them before, and should have another opportunity of submitting them to the House; but he wished the manufacturers to recollect, that twelve months ago, when they were in a state of admitted prosperity, the price of corn was 10s. a quarter more than it was at present. It was too much, under these circumstances, to endeavour to persuade the country, that the price of corn had any thing to do with the cause of the distress. He felt it his duty, under these circumstances, to submit an amendment to the Address, assuring his Majesty, that while the House regretted the present distressed state of the country, it would take immediate steps to inquire into its cause. This he felt to be the first duty of the new parliament; namely, to trace the extraordinary causes which had contributed to produce such an extraordinary change in the state of society, as they had witnessed within the last ten years. It was well known that, during the war, this country was in a state of commercial, manufacturing, and agricultural, prosperity, which had progressively improved. Was it not the duty of members to inquire what had interrupted this prosperity, and what had brought the country to a state of calamity; greater than any produced by any former war in which we had been engaged? He would not now state what the causes of it were, but would content himself with moving the following amendment, by way of addition to the Address: Your Majesty's faithful Commons feel it their duty to represent to your Majesty, and at the same time to express their deep regret, that the agricultural classes, though not suffering in the degree they did a few years ago, particularly in the year 1822, are yet in a state of severe pressure of distress, from the heavy burthens to which they are exposed. They will endeavour to trace the causes which have led to the dreadful alternations of prosperity and adversity which all the industrious classes have experienced since the termination of the war in the year 1815, and they trust they shall discover the means of restoring the agriculture, commerce, and manufactures, of the country to the same condition of progressive improvement, in which they were steadily advancing antecedent to that period.

Mr. Leycester

seconded the amendment. He could not but regret that the subject of the Corn-laws had not formed a part of the Speech from the Throne; the more particularly on account of the; strange delusion which filled the public mind on that subject. That it was a delusion to suppose that the distress was owing to the Corn-laws would be proved by the fact, that under those laws, and; even at higher prices than the present, the manufacturers, masters and journey-men, had prospered to a degree thereto-fore unexampled. He contended, that the distress arose from the impolitic conduct of government in tampering with the currency, from the great issue of small notes, and from the fact of ministers never allowing the country to enjoy the benefit of a real sinking fund. He maintained that it was another delusion to suppose that the repeal of the Corn-laws would produce cheap corn to the manufacturers; for, as soon as foreign corn had driven some of our lands out of cultivation, the price would be higher than ever. But even supposing the price reduced, it should be considered that wages would be reduced in the same proportion; and he maintained that wages proportioned to a high price of corn would be much more beneficial to the artisan than those proportioned to a low price. Another delusion on the public was the assertion, that 8s. added to the price of corn by non-importation was a clear loss to the public of 15,000,000l. He should be glad to learn, from those who maintained this opinion, where these millions went? Did they go up to the moon, whither so many lost articles were said to ascend; or did they sink into the earth, to be again dug up in congenial silver and gold? These were questions which he should wish to have answered. The hon. member went on to contend, that there was only one way of settling the question, and that was, by a reduction of taxation. If they removed the assessed taxes, which pressed on the farmer; if they removed the leather-tax; if they removed the malt-tax; if they removed the tax on tenants' leases; if they removed these and other burthens which pressed with peculiar severity on agriculturists, then they might hope to conciliate the landed interest, and to have their assent to a repeal of the Corn-laws; but, if ministers talked of the distressed state of the Treasury, he would remind them, that revenue removed was not always revenue lost, and that increase of consumption almost always followed diminution of taxation. If, however, they persisted in adhering to the present exorbitant rate of taxation, and wished for an alteration of the Corn-laws, he begged to inform them, that the landed interest would not be tamely sacrificed (not for the benefit of the manufacturing poor, for to accomplish that they would willingly make every sacrifice); but they would not be sacrificed for the benefit of the fundholder, who was already well off—or for the benefit of the army and navy, who were already very well off—or for the benefit of placemen and pensioners, who were already too well off—or for the advantage of the master-manufacturers, who were endeavouring to become noblemen and gentlemen, by turning the nobility and gentry into beggars; and lastly, not for the benefit of the Germans, who were just now in high spirits at the idea of once more picking the pockets of John Bull.

Sir J. Sebright

opposed the amendment; not because he was indifferent to the interests of the landlords, but because he was convinced that the introduction of the subject at the present moment was extremely ill-timed. He could not agree that it was a fault in the Speech from the throne to have omitted the several topics yesterday alluded to. On the contrary he thought those omissions formed its great merit.

Mr. Western

said, that he would not take the sense of the House on the amendment; but he wished it to be put, as he was anxious to have it placed on record.

The amendment was then put, and negatived; after which, the original address was agreed to.