§ Mr. Huntsaid, he had a Petition to present from Sutton, in Cheshire, for the repeal of the Corn-laws. It contained strong language, but not stronger than the occasion justified, and not at all disrespectful to the House. He should, in future, abstain from reading the petitions he presented; he should leave that task to the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or the hon. member for Oxford; but, he begged to assure 1335 them notwithstanding, that he should exercise his own judgment with regard to such petitions as he thought proper to present.
Sir Robert Inglismust remind the hon. Member, that it was his duty to ascertain that the petitions he presented contained no offensive language. From what had already occurred, he called on the hon. Member to say, whether he thought this petition ought to be received; and, if the hon. Member thought so, he would not object; but he must not act as he had done, in this respect, yesterday. The hon. Member said, he had read the most offensive part of a petition, and afterwards the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had read other parts, so much more offensive, that a full House, with the exception of six Members, had been induced to reject it.
§ Lord Althorpagreed with the hon. member for Oxford, that it was the duty of every Member to ascertain, that the petitions he presented were not disrespectful or offensive to the House. As the hon. Gentleman's taste in this respect appeared to differ from that of other Gentlemen, it would probably be better that the present petition should be read by the Clerk, and, if the House found it objectionable, it might be rejected.
§ Mr. D. W. Harveysaid, that if no petitions were to be presented but such as were agreeable to the canons of the University of Oxford, few would be entered on their Journals. There were only two sorts of petitions which ought to be rejected; these were such as assailed individual character, or were likely to prejudice any inquiry going on in a Court of Justice. The present petition proceeded from a considerable part of the people, and referred to a most important question. He might doubt the propriety of agitating that at the present moment, but probably, had the subject not been brought before them, they would have been told, that as there were no complaints, there was nothing to remedy, and that even the people approved of Corn-laws—which took no less than 20,000,000l. sterling out of their pockets, for the sole purpose of keeping up the rentals of a majority of the House of Commons. Of course that majority would endeavour to prevent any petition, stating these grievances, from being presented, so far as they could. He was most anxious for a calm and deliberate 1336 discussion on this subject, but feared that, at the present time, it could not be had. He, therefore, would recommend the hon. member for Preston to postpone bringing the subject forward until a fitter opportunity.
Sir Charles Burrellcould not sit quiet, after the furious attack made by the hon. member for Colchester upon the landed interest. He was prepared to contend, that the Corn-laws were not the cause of the distress in the country, which was mainly, in his opinion, to be attributed to the Currency Act. At the same time, as that Act had not deteriorated the price of labour in the same proportion as it had affected other articles, the industrious classes had suffered least from the great change brought about by it. The alteration of currency had materially increased the burthen of taxation, and thereby augmented the difficulties which the agricultural classes were previously labouring under. The farmers had not the power to employ so many labourers as heretofore. He regretted, that the hon. Member should have stated, that the object of the Corn-laws was to bolster up the rents of landlords. He was bound, on their behalf, to declare, that, in many poor soils, these had fallen full one half; and, in better lands, one-third. The charge was absurd; the cause of the distress was the alteration in the currency.
Mr. Jameswas of opinion, that the House had done wrong yesterday, in rejecting the petition of which he had seconded the presentation. This would aggravate the hostile feelings of the petitioners against the Corn-laws. In his opinion, the petition, although strongly, was not disrespectfully worded.
§ Mr. Huntthought the hon. member for the University of Oxford had not correctly stated the occurrence of yesterday. That hon. Gentleman had objected to the petition being received before the noble Lord made his remarks. He had objected to that part, which, however, he (Mr. Hunt) again maintained, was true, that the Corn-laws had been passed at the point of the bayonet. The noble Lord afterwards read another portion, which caused it to be rejected. He agreed with the hon. Baronet, that the question of the currency had much to do with the sufferings of the people, and had increased their burthens almost beyond endurance. There were 12,000 carpenters and joiners, in the me- 1337 tropolis alone, out of employment, and subsisting upon charity. The petition he had yesterday presented was from 3,000 of his constituents, many of whom were suffering the extremity of misery; and, because they had tacked a caution to the House, to the declaration of their grievances, their petition was rejected, as many had been rejected before. The passions of the people must be excited by this neglect. The hon. member for Abingdon had asserted, that no other Member could be found to present petitions of the same nature as he had laid before the House. He believed the people entertained the same sentiments, for he received many from persons of whom he knew nothing, which he should present at his own discretion, without regarding the advice of the hon. member for Oxford. One half, and upwards, of the House was composed of landholders, who, in his opinion, took 30,000,000l. annually out of the pockets of the people, for their own emolument; and who, as a matter of course, would not listen to petitions for the repeal of laws from which they received so much advantage. He wished, therefore, for the House to make inquiry into the whole of the subject, which he should take the earliest opportunity to bring before them.
Sir Robert Inglishad certainly objected to the petition which the hon. Member had yesterday presented, on hearing the passage which the hon. Member had read, but he would not have divided the House on the question. When the noble Lord, however, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pointed out the other objectionable passage, it was the opinion of the whole House, with the exception of six Members, that it ought not to be received. He, therefore, again called upon the hon. member for Preston, enlightened as his judgment must be by the proceedings of last night, to say whether this petition ought to be received.
§ The Petition to lie on the Table.
§ Mr. Huntalso presented a Petition from Denton and Haughton, in the neighbourhood of Manchester, for the repeal of the Corn-laws.
§ Mr. John Woodsaid, had he been present yesterday, he should have voted for the printing of the petition which had been rejected, as a matter of expediency. It was better to receive such petitions than, by rejecting them after a debate, cause the violent feelings which were 1338 entertained on this subject to be further inflamed. He had himself such strong feelings on the subject, as to be fearful of expressing them. He remembered having seen soldiers called out to protect the Members on the passing of the Corn-laws, and did not think the language of the petition incorrect. He had refrained from using inflammatory language himself, but he could assure hon. Members, the time was fast coming when the people would no longer submit to these laws. He did not believe the repeal of the Corn-laws would materially affect the price of bread, but it would afford the people of this country a greater opportunity of exchanging their manufactures for that necessary article of life. The leading error of the landed proprietors was, that if foreign corn was allowed to be freely imported, the consumption would not increase. This was a fallacy. The consumption would be more if the price was less; the people would consume all the grain grown in this country, and the surplus they wanted could be procured in exchange for our own manufactures. The people felt so strongly on this subject, that great allowance should be made for strong expressions; and, to reject their petitions on this pretence, would excite much discontent. He was satisfied, that whenever the Reform Bill was disposed of, the Corn-laws would agitate the whole country.
§ Mr. Benettsaid, they had had strong assertions, but they were not supported by arguments. He had no desire to avoid any discussion which hon. Members might provoke on the subject of the Corn-laws, for the sooner the question was settled the better. But he could not sit still and hear it asserted, that the price of corn was raised by the Corn-laws, when the fact was the reverse, as he could prove; and one effect of their repeal would be, that we should have a mighty influx of foreign labour. There were 2,000,000l. sterling paid for foreign corn last year, of which one half, at least, was paid for the price of labour. It must be recollected, that if we imported the same amount of corn annually, we favoured foreign labour to the extent of 1,000,000l. against the labour of our own agricultural classes, which must have the effect of throwing many of them out of employment. The labourer here was distressed, not from an insufficiency of corn, but from want of employment. Would his condition be im- 1339 proved by admitting a greater competition of foreign agricultural labour? He had merely said these few words, to show, that an answer could be given to the statements by which the public mind was attempted to be influenced, for nothing could be more unfounded than that the Corn-laws were carried at the point of the bayonet. There were riots in London at the time certainly, but they had nothing to do with the passing of the Corn-laws. There could be no doubt, that the condition of the agricultural labourers would be much depressed if these laws were repealed.
§ Petition read. On the question, that it be printed,
§ Mr. Huntsaid, that if the hon. member for Wiltshire thought the rejection of his motion for a repeal of the Corn-laws, by a majority of that House, would settle the question, he was much mistaken. If he was defeated, he should bring it in again in some other shape; and, if it was overruled, it would only be by a majority of landholders, who were afraid of their rentals. The hon. Member said, the free importation of corn would only increase the competition of foreign labour; it would certainly increase the consumption of corn, because more British manufactures would be exported. He had always held the same opinions, even when he had been a farmer in Wiltshire, and was then, as now, opposed to the hon. Member.
§ Mr. Courtenaysaid, the petition which the hon. Gentleman did not move to have printed, was the most moderate of the two.
§ The Petition to be printed.