CORN-LAWS. (Hansard, 14 February 1839)

§ Lord J. Russell
With regard to the question put to me the other 356 evening by the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) as to the course I mean to take with respect to the motion of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, I have to state, that if the motion which it is intended to submit to the House, be in the words of the notice as they appear on the book, I should have no great difficulty in answering it. But as the words of the notice are—"Motion to receive evidence at the Bar of the House, with a view to a total repeal of the laws restricting the importation of foreign grain"—and, as I understand the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Villiers) does not mean to make the motion in that shape, I think it would be convenient to the House if he would state what it is he does mean to move.

Mr. Villiers
I am extremely sorry that any mistake should have arisen on the subject of my notice; but as there seems to be a variation between the notice and what I intend to move, I shall state what my notice was meant to be:—"That I shall present a petition or petitions to this House on the subject of the Corn-laws, alleging certain things, and that I shall on Tuesday move, that the allegations of the petitions be supported by evidence at the bar of the House.

§ Lord J. Russell
As the hon. Gentleman has now stated what his motion really is, and as it only refers to an inquiry to be made into the operation of certain laws, I don't think it would be fair to the hon. Gentleman, or respectful to the motion which he intends to submit, if I were to make any declaration on the part of the Government before it comes on.

§ Sir E. Knatchbull
The course now adopted by the noble Lord, is one which, as regards the House and the public, and particularly as regards the persons directly interested in this question, is decidedly unfair. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Villiers) gave notice on the first day of the Session, that he would make a specific motion in the House. The notice was printed with the votes of the House for some days, and for aught we knew, the discussion would have come on in that form, if it had not been for the question, which my right hon. Friend (Sir Robert Peel) put to the noble Lord the other evening. I don't think the noble Lord has been treated fairly; but I am also of opinion that the noble Lord has not now treated the House and the country fairly by refusing to declare the course which he 357 means to take. The hon. Gentleman has now stated distinctly, what his motion will be, and the House and the public have a right to know the intention of the Government respecting it. I call, therefore, on the noble Lord to re-consider his opinion, and to state whether it be the intention of the Government to oppose this motion, that we may have an opportunity of knowing whether our opposition is to be directed against the noble Lord, or against the hon. Member for Wolverhampton.

Mr. Villiers
the right hon. Baronet has not correctly represented the course which I have taken. I gave notice, that I should present a petition on one night, and, that I should make a motion subsequently to support it by evidence. I have to regret, that the written notice which I gave to the clerk did not precisely correspond with that form; but I beg to state, that on the second night after the meeting of Parliament I stated the course which I meant to take in so distinct a manner, as entirely to relieve me or the noble Lord from the charge of taking the House by surprise. The question was put to me by the hon. Gentleman near the right hon. Baronet (Mr. Christopher), and I was a little surprised to hear that hon. Gentleman cheer the right hon. Baronet, when I recollected the distinct answer which I gave to him on that occasion; namely, that it was not my intention to raise the general question of the repeal of the Corn-laws on that day when I meant to move, that evidence should be heard in support of the allegations of the petitions which I should present; but, that I should take care to give due notice to the House when I should submit a direct motion on the general subject. I never intimated to the House, and never meant, that it should be implied, that I intended to do more than move, that the statements of certain petitioners should be supported by evidence at the bar of the House.

§ Sir R. Peel
I confess there is no ground of complaint against the hon. Gentleman for having done what was not fair. The hon. Gentleman most certainly gave notice, that he should present certain petitions, and that he should afterwards move to have them supported by evidence. These petitions, it appeared, prayed for a total repeal of the Corn-laws, and the hon. Gentleman proposed on Tuesday to summon evidence to the bar in support of the 358 allegations of the petitioners. No one could be taken by surprise by the course of the hon. Gentleman. When I asked the question which has been referred to, the hon. Gentleman said, he would persevere in his motion, and that motion I understood to be to have evidence at the bar, having a tendency to prove the necessity of a repeal of the Corn-laws. But the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) declared, that it was his intention to oppose that motion. On Tuesday last I asked the noble Lord whether he could state, that he should make any motion as an amendment to that of the hon. Gentleman? The noble Lord made no objection to that question; but gave a distinct assurance, that he would answer it on a future day; and I never was more surprised, I must say, than when I heard the noble Lord state, that he did not think himself called on to announce the course which the Government meant to take until Tuesday, the day on which the motion is to be made.

Mr. Villiers
The petition has not yet been presented; and I feel bound to state that the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) asked me what was its prayer, and I told him, to be heard by evidence at the bar of that House. That the petitioners alleged that they are aggrieved by the Corn-laws, I do not deny; but their prayer is to be allowed to prove their individual grievances at the bar of the House. That is a very different petition from one for a total repeal of the Corn-laws.

§ Lord John Russell
The right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) has no doubt stated correctly, the impression on his mind from the conversation on Tuesday; but a totally different impression was certainly left on my mind. I understood the right hon. Baronet to refer to an answer which I had given to another hon. Gentleman, in which I stated, that there were grounds of precedent and others for opposing a motion, that evidence be received at the bar, but that I would not give any pledge as to the course to be taken in this respect, and then to ask me whether on that day, I was prepared to state the course I meant to pursue with regard to the hon. Gentleman's motion. I replied, that I could not give an answer then, but that I should be prepared to do so to-day. Now if I were about to propose an Amendment, or to take a course different from that of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, otherwise than by giving a simple affirmative or negative to his 359 motion, I think it would not be unfair to ask me what that Amendment was; but on considering the question of the right hon. Baronet, it certainly did forcibly occur to me, that it would not be fair to the hon. Gentleman, when he was about to bring forward a motion, which he might be able to support by sufficient reasons and argument, if I were to declare some days beforehand the positive course which I had determined to pursue with regard to it. The right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Kent seems to think, that a very unfair course; but, Sir, I have yet to hear a correction from you as to that course; and I have yet to learn, that it is my duty several days before a motion is made, to say, that I have fully considered the question, and that no reason and argument which can be urged can induce me to take other than the course which I declare beforehand, and which positively precludes all investigation when the motion is brought forward. I may have made up my own mind with respect to the question; but if I have, I most certainly still think, that the course would not be a fair one to the hon. Gentleman, or to the numerous petitioners who have asked, that evidence should be heard at the bar, if I were now to prejudge the question, and endeavour to induce others to determine beforehand, on not giving their support to this motion. Now, as to any advantage which may be taken of the hon. Gentlemen opposite by this course, if they take their measures exactly as if I were about to give a direct support to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, it is impossible that they can suffer the slightest disadvantage from my motion, whatever it may be.

§ Sir E. Knatchbull
I can't even guess what the noble Lord means to propose. I apprehend, that I must labour under a mistake as to the conversation of Tuesday night; but I understood the noble Lord distinctly to promise, that he would state to-night the course which he meant to take, and I did believe, that on this night he would have redeemed his pledge.