CORN LAWS. (Hansard, 6 June 1814)

§ Earl Stanhope
, some time afterwards, rose for the purpose of presenting a number of petitions against the proposed ateration of the Corn Laws. He presented them with great pleasure to their lordships' consideration, because he was convinced that the intended measure on this subject was absurd—it was far from being well considered—it was unfounded in its principle, and would be injurious in its consequences. It was calculated to raise the price of provisions, and consequently, to increase the price of labour; and then their lordships ought to calculate the injury which such a system would do to the manufacturer of the country, who would thereby be disabled from coming at a moderate rate into the market. Besides, their lordships should reflect, that if our manufactures were enhanced by the high price of provisions and of labour, steam-engines would be set to work in other countries; and even the most able workmen here, who had brought our manufactures to such a prosperous state, would be induced to go abroad, and then our manufactures would no longer come into competition with those of foreign nations. If our manufactures were thus injured, our commerce would be injured also;—and if our commerce were to be injured, we should lose the only foundation upon which rest the strength and glory of our navy. That this would be the effect of the intended system, was obvious; and that the price of labour would be high in proportion to the price of provisions, was incontrovertible.—(Hear, hear! from the earl of Lauderdale.)—Said lord Stanhope, "the noble lord near me may cry Hear, hear! but though I cannot comment upon his speech, because he has not made any, I can comment upon his book, where he has delivered his sentiments." In referring to the arguments of those who recommended this measure of raising the price of bread, one point laid down by them was, that if free importation were permitted, it would discourage the growth of corn in this country; and then if it should happen that, when we had not got a field of corn of our own, foreign countries should take the advantage of our situation, and stop the importation, we should be immediately reduced to a state of famine, and consequently be ruined. It was, however, not his intention to lose sight of certain provisions which would protect 1067 us from such a dreadful situation as to apprehend a famine from our dependence on foreign countries. — But there was a mode which would avoid the evils of both these extremities; for whatever were the taxes to be retained, let those which affect the price of provisions be taken off, and then the farmer would be able to sell his corn in defiance of the importation. He saw the noble earl in the red coat over the way (the earl of Liverpool being dressed in his uniform as lord warden of the Cinque Ports) who was now our commander in chief; and he was sorry to hear that it was his intention, and that of ministers, to continue the property-tax; though, perhaps, not the whole ten per cent. yet a very considerable portion of it. Why they should be induced to do so, he knew not, but understood the noble earl had a great liking for that tax, and could not bear to give it up altogether. At the same time, there were other taxes, such as the assessed taxes on carriages, horses, &c. which were to be taken off. Now these were the very taxes which ought to be continued. — "But, take; away," said earl Stanhope, "the taxes; from the poor; take away the taxes from the price of provisions, the taxes which affect the price of bread and of beer; take away that most odious of taxes, the tax on candles, the tax on soap, the tax on salt, and all those taxes which fall upon the poor and industrious bees of the community." The noble earl, in conclusion, again adverted to the prayer of these Petitions, which only desired that the proposed system might be delayed for the present session of parliament. He accordingly presented several Petitions from different parishes in London and its vicinity, which were ordered to be read.

The Earl of Lauderdale
could not, in justice to the merits of this subject, permit the observations of the noble earl to pass without some remarks, even upon the present occasion. It was not his intention to state his sentiments at length; but he would venture to say, that when the measure to which the noble lord had alluded came under their consideration, he should be able to shew that some of the propositions he laid down this night were, instead of being incontrovertible, completely absurd. The noble earl had, in the outset of his statement, intimated, that the measure was one intended by those who proposed it to raise the price of bread, and to do injury to the poor. He 1068 (lord Lauderdale) would take upon himself to declare, there was not a man in either House of Parliament who had any such intention. The measure was intended to moderate the price, and in its effect he had no hesitation in saying it would lower the price. The noble earl had laid down a proposition which was wholly unfounded in its principle. The price of labour had nothing to do with that of provisions; when provisions had been low, the price of labour had been high. The noble earl (Lauderdale) stated, that the measure now proposed had been justified by experience in former years, and he adverted to the effect which had been derived from two systems of an opposite description; and there a provision, upon the principle of the intended alteration, was attended with a beneficial result.

§ Earl Stanhope
was not inclined to differ with the noble earl who had just sat down, and had stated, that one of the observations he made was an absurd one; for he (earl S.) had never uttered it; but the noble earl (Lauderdale) having no such windmills of his (earl S.), he had created windmills of his own, for the purpose of combating them. He had never changed any set of men with the intention of increasing the price of bread, and injuring the poor; but their measure would have that effect, and they had blundered into it. The noble earl had also contended, that the price of labour had nothing to do with that of provisions. His argument was for an inverse ratio, that the lower the price of provisions the higher would be that of labour. He might go on; but that was inexplicable to his mind. As to the different systems he had alluded to, one of them was tried when there was scarcely any national debt; but that made a wide difference in respect to the present times, when the country was loaded with an enormous debt, and had to support the interest by taxes.