§ Mr. Hunt rose to bring forward the Motion of which he had given notice on the very first day of his entering that House, respecting the Corn-laws. From that moment to the present he had been anxious to bring the subject forward; but in consequence of the Reform Bill intervening, he had, at the request of his Majesty's Ministers, deferred doing so from day to day. He was glad, however, now to have an opportunity of redeeming the pledge which he had voluntarily given to his constituents on the subject. He only regretted that a subject of such deep and vital importance to the community had not fallen into more able hands. But he was in some degree relieved by the consideration that it was a question which would necessarily call forth the opinions of many hon. Members; and he trusted that some means of advantageously settling the question might be suggested. It was the opinion of able men that some alteration in the Corn-laws was necessary, and he hoped that, if his Majesty's Ministers should reject his proposition, as most likely they would, that at least they would introduce some measure upon the subject. Those who were opposed to the measure which he now advocated urged, in defence of their opinions, that if the Corn-laws were repealed, the growers of corn in this country would have to compete with all the heavy load of taxes, tithes, and rent which they now support against the foreign grower, who produced his corn without any such burthens, and who, consequently 68 could undersell the English grower in his own market. Thus say the political economists; and, in addition to this argument, hon. Members would probably urge that the landlords would suffer an enormous loss by a repeal of the Corn-laws. Now he was prepared at once to admit that they would be obliged to sacrifice something, and he was also prepared to admit, that there must be a sacrifice, not only of rent, but also of tithes and taxes; but, this sacrifice would not be an ultimate loss, for the benefit conferred on the poor classes would amply repay it. He knew, however, that they must suffer, that they must lower their rents—they must reduce the payments for tithes—and they must diminish the amount of taxation. All this they must do the moment the Corn-laws were repealed, before they could hope that the farmers of this country would be able to compete with those of the Continent. In the course of the last forty years, tithes had been raised from one to three or four, and rent had been raised in the same proportion. The landlords must prepare to give up at least one-third of this, and it was right they should know it. He had made calculations, which showed that the average price of wheat in the market of Hamburgh, for the last three years, had been 33s. 6d. a quarter, while the average price in Mark-lane was 61s. 2d. If the Corn-laws had not been in operation, the people might, therefore, have paid just two-fifths less for their bread during the whole of that time, for at two-fifths less he was confident foreign grain could be delivered in the ports of this country. Extending his calculation still further, and taking, as he believed there were, 24,000,000 of people in the three kingdoms, he found that each individual, rich and poor, high and low, paid now just 6d. a week during each year more than he should do for the bread he consumed. Now this amounted every year to the sum of 31,200,000l. paid by the people as a tax on the article of bread. It was impossible that the labourers could continue to exist on the sums now paid them by the farmers, or that the farmers, with such rents, could give much more. What had produced the wretchedness and starvation, together with the disaffection, riots, and rick-burning, during the last winter, but the high price of bread and the enormous taxes and tithes. Forty years ago a large estate in Wiltshire that he knew well—the hon. 69 member for that county (Mr. Benett) knew it too—that estate paid a rent of 600l. a-year to the landlord, and the labourers employed on it received 6s. a week. That same estate had been now for many years let at a rent of 1,800l. a-year, and what did the labourers on it receive now? Why 7s. a week! How could a labourer and his family live on such a sum? This simple fact spoke volumes as to the inadequate rate at which labour was paid, and it must ultimately come to this, that the landlord would be called upon to come forward, and make a sacrifice, by which alone the balance would be restored. The people, in many cases, were starving—yes, starving in the streets; and he contended, that the Corn-laws were the great cause of their sufferings. What was said in the Ministerial organ, The Times, on this subject. He repeated, that the paper which was supposed to speak the opinions of the Ministers, however it might garble the accounts of the debates of the House to answer their purpose, knew better than to support them on the question of the Corn-laws. The briefless Barrister who dictated from his closet the course the Government should pursue, did not forget that it was necessary to sell his paper. What did he say on the Corn-laws? On the 27th of August the Editor of that Paper said, "But admitting at once the accelerated growth of population, and the dearth of demand for labour, as affirmed by the note-maker on the tables to which we have been adverting—that is to say, granting that the power of buying food has not kept pace with the want of it—was ever madness so combined with inhumanity, as in the legislation of the British Parliament with reference to the supply of corn? As our people have become more numerous—as mouths have multiplied—while, according to these returns, the produce of the soil of England, for many years past, has been stationary, if not declining, our lawgivers have been straining every effort to make food more inaccessible, instead of more attainable, to the poor. Far from inviting bread to the poor man's door, they have been repelling it—first, by open prohibitions—next, and to this moment, by severe and pinching duties. They have striven to check population by artificial famine. Why, such a system is no better than deliberate rebellion against Providence, and is of itself enough to draw 70 down some signal visitation upon us, if instant means be not taken to retrace a course so indefensible." This was what The Times said; and there was a great deal of truth in it. If the Government could say it was not so, then he would contend, that there never was any language used before, which so well deserved the notice of the Attorney General. They had been told, that the passing of the Reform Bill would produce an immediate repeal of the Corn-laws. If he could bring himself to think that, then he would hail the Bill as a great boon to the country. He knew, however, that it would not be so, and that the Government was determined to oppose the repeal of those laws, although the public organs under their control had held that out, among other things, as an inducement to the people to support the Bill. He should like the House to know what were the hopes and expectations founded on the Bill. The people of Bolton had announced a few of the pledges they would require from the candidate for their suffrages. The first was, a total repeal of the Corn-laws; the next, an equitable adjustment of the Debt; then justice brought to every man's door; the abolition of places and pensions; the abolition of monopolies; the repeal of all taxes oppressing the middle and the lower classes; and the repeal of the Law of Primogeniture. The places and pensions would probably last as long as the present King lived; and as to the repeal of the taxes which pressed on the middle and lower classes, if they were taken away, he should be glad to know how the expenses of the State were to be defrayed; but this was a specimen of the pledges which Bolton and some of the new districts were determined to exact from their Representatives. The Corn-laws were invented to support the tithes and the taxes; and the plain question now was—whether they could go on as they did last winter, with all the miseries, and sufferings, and burnings, which they had witnessed for so many months? He regretted much to see, that the character of the agricultural population was much deteriorated from the miseries they had suffered, and that so far from thinking, as they used to do, that they never could do too much for their masters, they now looked on them as their enemies, and were disposed to thwart and oppose them. Bad as the condition of the 71 agricultural labourers was known to be, the manufacturing were in a state of misery which it was almost impossible to describe. The wages they earned with fourteen hours' labour were scarcely enough to support life. It was said the Reform Bill would relieve them. He denied that; and he therefore now called on the House, unsupported although he might be—he called on them, and on the nobility and landholders of the country, to make a sacrifice at once, and by repealing the Corn-laws, preserve the peace and secure the prosperity of the country. After observing, that the standing Army and the militia were retained, purely for the sake of keeping down those whom the Corn-laws rendered wretched and discontented, he could not but revert again to the present prices of corn in this country, compared with that of the Hamburgh market, where wheat was quoted at 35s. per quarter, whilst in many places in England it was as high as 80s. He knew that such was the price at Devizes, Warminster, and many other places. There was a subject which, he was convinced, was deeply connected with that of the present Motion—namely, the Currency; but he should not at present touch upon it. The country, however, had been forced into a false and artificial position, owing to the mistakes which had been made in this matter, and the artificial prospects caused by it had long been attributed as the cause why so many persons attempted to make an appearance much beyond their legitimate means, and why people of 2,000l. or 3,000l. a-year kept up as great a show as my Lord Stafford and my Lord Grosvenor. The great question for the consideration of the House was, whether the people were to be kept down by force, and the Government was always to remain under the fear of insurrections and disturbances, or whether it was not better, by making some sacrifices, to conciliate their gratitude and promote the interests of the country generally. In his opinion, the only effectual relief that could be afforded the people, would be a total repeal of all the Acts preventing the free importation of corn. He should, therefore, propose, "that this House do resolve itself into a Committee to consider of the said Acts."
Mr. Jamesseconded the Motion. He was aware that those who advocated the total repeal of the Corn-laws plunged themselves into a hornet's nest. At the 72 risk, however, of being stung, he would do his duty. He thought it not probable that such a measure should be carried in this Parliament. In his opinion, therefore, the hon. member for Preston would have done better to have postponed his Motion till the House was reformed—till Schedule A and Schedule B were become the law of the land. The first act of a reformed Parliament would be, he believed, to abolish the Corn-laws. He thought no circumstances could justify impeding the people in obtaining a supply of food, but particularly in a country like ours, in which the climate compelled us to have recourse to importation. He must apologise for his own imperfections in addressing the House on so important a question, but he would not split hairs with those who professed to be political economists. He meant to do his duty to his constituents. He could never believe, that dear was better for the people than cheap bread. All laws prohibiting the importation of corn deprived the industrious classes of a market for the produce of their labour, and so raised the price of food, that labourers could not procure a sufficiency of food without intolerable toil. It also made it the object of foreigners to encourage native manufactures, depriving us of the trade of supplying them, making them our rivals, and injuring the shipping interest. He had heard a gentleman say corn was bought with gold, not manufactures; but, in fact, the gold was bought by our manufactured goods in South America. It was said, that the agriculturists were so heavily taxed, that they would be ruined if foreign corn were imported. Corn-laws were established, therefore, to protect the landed interest, but it was notorious, that these laws had not protected that interest. When it was said, that agriculturists were exposed to heavy taxes, he wished to remind them, that the Property Tax, the Tax on Farm Servants, on Salt, and many other Taxes, had been repealed or abolished. He did not believe, that the repeal could affect the agricultural interest injuriously. It could not ruin the farmers. Our manufactures would then be demanded to a greater extent abroad, and the manufacturers would then be able to buy animal food, and be much better customers than at present to the farmers. They would pay for the cultivating bad lands as pasturage. He might take an erroneous view, but he had no wish to 73 injure the agricultural interests. He spoke from no self-interest. He was in the same boat with the landed-proprietors; for whatever property he had was in land. But he agreed with the hon. member for Preston, that some concession must be made by all classes for the relief of the labouring poor. Those who saw only the metropolis, were not aware of the miserable condition of the labourers. Let the landlords, then, reduce their rents, and those who drove four horses drive only two, and those who drove two drive only one, and those who drove one go on foot. The vain distinctions of the few, sank, in his estimation, in to nothing, in comparison with the comfort of millions. He had visited the dwellings of the poor, and he was of opinion, that no picture of their miseries could be too highly coloured. Those people were without furniture, without clothes, and he had seen children crying for bread, which their parents could not give them. They were worse off than the negro slaves. A negro never died for want of food—a negro never ate sour sorrel or nettles for food like the Irish. Detesting hypocrisy, he utterly repudiated the humanity of those who could only feel for the negroes. The House would readily perceive that he alluded to a class of persons called the "Saints." He hoped that the "Saints," who were so ready to exert themselves in favour of the black slaves of the West Indies, would at least extend some portion of their benevolence to the free people of this country. He was the more anxious for their co-operation in the present instance, seeing that without it he and the other supporters of the Motion could scarcely muster a dozen votes. In the year 1826, shortly before he had ceased to be a Member of this House, he brought forward a motion for the total disfranchisement of all rotten boroughs, and he then found not more than a dozen persons to agree with him. A very great change, however, had since taken place, and he hoped, before the end of six years, to find as large a majority in favour of repealing the Corn-laws, as he now found in favour of a measure for reforming the Parliament.
§ Mr. Benettdid not rise to enter into the discussion of this question, for which the time and occasion were not suited; but having been alluded to personally by the hon. member for Preston, he must say a few words. That hon. Member had 74 stated, in order to show that the high rent of land was kept up by the landowners, that he (Mr. Benett) had racked up the rent of a farm from 600l. a-year, at which it was let forty-five years ago, to 1,800l. a-year, which it produced at present. The hon. Member had made the same charge against him fifteen years ago, and he (Mr. Benett) on that occasion went to no small expense in publishing a refutation of the charge in several papers. The fact was, that he gave 10,000l. for the great tithes of that property, which he added to the estate. He also exchanged an estate of 500l. a-year for the vicarial tithes, which were also added to the estate; so that, taking the whole of what had been thus expended, it did not bring in, in its improved condition, more than about twelve per cent on this large outlay. The hon. Member did not at the time attempt to contradict any of these statements, because he could not, yet he repeated the charge about four years ago, in an address to the Livery of London; though on that occasion, as on the present, he made no mention of the answer which he (Mr. Benett) had given to him years before. On that occasion also he felt it necessary to re-publish his former refutation, to which the hon. Member did not venture a reply. The hon. Member knew the whole particulars, and had never contradicted them. The hon. Member, however, had stated over and over again, that he had racked up his rent from 600l. to 1,800l. and never once stated, though he knew them, any one of the facts on which that rise of rent was justified. He stated the rise of the rent, but nothing of his having purchased the tithes and attached them to the farm. He was surprised that the hon. Member should attempt to delude the House in that manner. He was glad, however, that the hon. Member had brought forward the charge here, for here he could refute him, but he had no opportunity of answering him when he made the same unfounded assertions—assertions which he must have known, after reading his answer, were wholly unfounded-at Spafields, or before the Livery of London. Having stated thus much, he would not enter into the question before the House, not because he could not give a satisfactory answer to the hon. Member's statements, but because he did not think that the present period of the Session, occupied as it was with the more important question of Reform, was 75 the proper time for discussing the question of the Corn-laws. Indeed, he had no doubt that the question was now brought forward for the purpose of diverting public attention from the Reform Bill, or with the still more sinister view of endeavouring to persuade the farmers into the belief, that a Reformed Parliament would repeal the Corn-laws. Attempts of this kind were industriously made in the country, to excite either indifference or opposition to the Reform Bill amongst the farmers; but the attempt would fail, as other insidious attacks upon that measure had failed. The farmers knew very well that a Reformed Parliament would attend to their interests as well as to those of the other classes of the community.
Mr. Humeregretted, that on a question of such importance, the hon. member for Wiltshire should have alluded to any personal matters. He contended, that it was not the landlord who fixed the value of a farm, any more than the farmers fixed the value of their stock. Why should the landowner be different in this respect from the grocer? He did not fix the price of his article. The price of land was fixed by the general demand. It was a gross fallacy to say, that landlords fixed the rent of farms. The hon. Member said the landlords must reduce their rents. [Mr. Hunt said, he had not stated that they must, but that they should reduce the rents.] He might have misunderstood the hon. Member, but he did not know the difference in this point between should and must. The hon. Member might have chosen another time to bring forward such an important Motion, rather than at a time when the House was occupied with a matter of so much more importance. He would put it to the constituents of the hon. Member, and of the hon. member for Carlisle, of whose sincerity he was well assured—he would put it to their constituency, if this were the proper time to interpose with such a question, when the House was engaged in carrying Reform into all the institutions of the State? The House was fatigued with the discussion on a most important subject, and this was not a time to introduce such a matter as the Corn-laws, which demanded the most mature consideration. The House ought not to be captivated by a motion which would effect, he believed, so much ruin as would a total and sudden repeal of the Corn-laws. 76 He was sure that the constituents of the hon. member would agree with him, and that they would like a gradual and proper change, instead of jumping to a total repeal at once. The hon. member for Preston had not brought forward any arguments to justify that change. He had referred merely to the prices of corn in the markets of Hamburgh and London for a few years, which were inaccurate and fallacious, as the only ground for the proposed change. He should take a larger view, and extend his inquiries over longer periods. The hon. Member had overstated the loss too, for if the ports were opened, prices would rise in the markets of the Continent, and there would not be that difference on which the hon. member had calculated the loss to the country. The hon. Member stated, too, that the landlords should be compelled to reduce their rents, but why not leave them to let their lands as they could? The landlords, in fact, had come down one-third with their rents already. If the hon. Member had kept up his rents he must be a fortunate man. Was it fair to attribute to the landlords all the distress of the country? Those who hired land would not hire it unless they made a profit by it. The price of land was regulated by competition, and it was unfair in the hon. Member to attribute the distress to the high rents. Taxes were, undoubtedly, a cause of poverty, but a want of prudence was also a cause, the hon. Member took no notice of there being a surplus of hands in the country. The competition in the market for labour was too great, and it was no longer worth while to bring that commodity to the market. He wished the hon. Member to consider the influence which the increase of population had on the prosperity of the people. He must complain of the hon. Member having introduced several extraneous matters into the discussion, which had no relation to the Motion before the House. He was satisfied that the Corn-laws had injured the agriculturists by throwing the idle on them for support, who would otherwise have found employment in our manufactures. At the same time, he was not prepared to contend for so sudden and material a change as the total abolition of the Corn-laws. He had wished that a tax should be levied on the importation, but that the importation should be left free. That was the extent to which he wished at first to go. Every 77 change in legislation did harm. The greater the change the greater the evils. Though he was a Reformer, he would inflict no unnecessary evil. The present Motion would be productive of great evil. He admitted, that it was the duty of the Legislature to provide food for the people at the lowest possible rate; but he must assert, that this Motion was ill-timed and injudicious. He regretted that the question should have been damaged by such a premature discussion; and he felt himself under the necessity, as he could not negative such a Motion, to move the previous question on it. The hon. Member concluded by moving the previous question, though he wished it to be understood that he was a sincere friend to the gradual abolition of the Corn-laws, if brought forward at a proper time, and on a proper occasion.
§ Lord Althorpregretted that a question of so much importance, and one requiring so much consideration, should have been brought forward at such a period. He did not blame the hon. Member for not having brought it forward earlier; but at no period of the present Session could it have received that attention which its importance demanded. If the hon. Member had brought forward a Motion for a total repeal, he should have met it with a direct negative; but as it was only for a Committee to inquire, he thought his hon. friend the member for Middlesex was right in meeting it with the previous question, for in that way it could be rejected without that discussion which, under other circumstances, it would require. He did hope, that under these circumstances, hon. Members would abstain from entering upon a discussion which could have no practical result. He certainly should not enter into the discussion of the subject, nor follow the arguments of the hon. Member who seconded the Motion. He only rose for the purpose of stating, that he did not think the present a desirable occasion to enter upon the discussion of the question.
§ Colonel Torrenswas of opinion that the present was a most inconvenient period for the discussion of the question, though he was of the same opinion that he had ever entertained of the Corn-laws, and thought, undoubtedly, that they ought to be repealed.
Mr. Goulburnthought that the Motion of the hon. member for Preston, being for 78 the immediate and total repeal of the Corn-laws, ought to have been met by a direct negative.
§ Lord Althorpsaid, that if the Motion of the hon. Member went to the immediate repeal of the Corn-laws, he should certainly have met it by a direct negative. The Motion, however, was to refer the subject to the investigation of a Committee, and that was not a Motion which ought to be met by a direct negative, without having first received that fair consideration, which at the present moment it was impossible to bestow on it. In saying this, he wished not to be understood as holding out any expectation that the question would be brought forward at a future period by the Government.
§ Mr. Huntsaid, that he should push his Motion to a division, in order to let the people see whether their Representatives were faithful to their pledges. He knew that the hon. member for Lancashire had given a pledge to support the repeal of the Corn-laws; and it was in consideration of that pledge that the working classes of that county subscribed 400l. to defray part of his expenses at the late election.
§ Mr. Heywoodadmitted, that he felt strongly with respect to the impropriety of continuing the present restrictions on the import of corn, but he thought that the hon. member for Preston had chosen a most unfortunate period for discussing the question. He felt grateful for the support offered him at his election by the working-classes of Lancashire, but he was happy to say that their pecuniary assistance was not needed, and that all the money which they had subscribed had been returned to them.
§ The House divided—Ayes 6; Noes 194—Majority 188.
| List of the Ayes. | |
| Bulwer, Henry | Noel, Sir G. |
| Calvert, C. | |
| Ellis, Wynn | TELLERS. |
| Hughes, Hughes | Hunt, Henry |
| Langton, Gore | James, William |