Lords Sitting of 6 June 1815

PETITIONS AGAINST THE CORN BILL.
Earl Stanhopepresented a petition from Stirling, praying a repeal of the Corn Bill. He moved that the petition be read at length, that their lordships might hear the excellent arguments which it contained.
The petition was read accordingly; and after stating some of the common objections to the Bill, it mentioned something respecting mean and selfish artifices having been employed in passing the Bill,—that the object of it was to raise the price of the necessaries of life—that the Bill had been passed with precipitation, so as to render it impossible to present numerous petitions which would otherwise have been presented against it—and the petitioners, while they regretted the tumults that had taken place, lamented the little attention which had been paid to the almost unanimous voice of the people constitutionally expressed.
Lord Redesdaleopposed the receiving of this petition, on the ground that if was not couched in decent and respectful language, and particularly adverted to the words that mean artifices had been used in passing the Bill. This was accusing their lordships of undue and selfish motives; and for this, among other grounds, appearing on the face of the petition, he could not vote for its being received.
Earl Stanhopesaid, that while people were starving, it could not be hoped that they would be very guarded in their language; but there was no intention to insult the House, for the words 'mean artifices' did not allude to any thing done
[618
in parliament, but to the means for getting it passed, used out of the House. As to any other objections, he called upon the noble lord to state any one of them.
Lord Redesdalementioned the words, 'that the object of the Bill was to raise the price of provisions,' which was utterly false and unfounded, as the grounds on which the Bill had been passed were of a totally different description. He also mentioned the passage where the House was accused of having proceeded with undue precipitation, which was a direct charge against the House of having acted from corrupt motives. It was time for their lordships to make a stand against petitions worded in this manner, otherwise they would be perpetually insulted: and as to the people who presented them being poor and starving, the petitions did not by any means appear to be from persons of that description. They were from a manufacture, and worded pretty nearly in the same manner.
Earl Stanhopedid not know what the noble lord meant by their being from a manufacture, for he defied him to point out a single petition before presented which was so worded; and that was a flat contradiction. The petitioners stated that the object of the Bill was to raise the price of the necessaries of life, but they did not say that such was the object of that House; and as to the charge of precipitation, he thought it fair, when coming from those who had been prevented from petitioning against the Bill during its progress, by the haste with which it was carried through.
The House then divided on the question, that the petition be received:—Contents, 5; Proxies, 5–10. Not-contents, 9; Proxies, 11–20. The petition was accordingly rejected.
The Marquis of Douglaspresented a petition also against the Corn Bill from the Corporation of Weavers in Rutherglen, which was received as the petition of the person signing it. The marquis then presented a petition from the Corporation of Tailors of Rutherglen, also against the Corn Bill.
Lord Melvilleopposed it, as containing expressions insulting to the House.
The Marquis of Douglascontended that it was of the greatest importance to throw their doors wide open to petitioners. As to insulting the House, he could not believe that any such thing was intended by the petitioners; but he had done his duty in offering it. Their lordships would dispose of it as they thought fit.
The Marquis of Lansdowneagreeing that the doors ought to be thrown wide open to petitioners, yet thought that there were insulting expressions in this petition, and that it ought not to be received.
The Earl of Lauderdalealso contended, that the language of it was improper, as accusing the House of artifice and corrupt motives. It had been said, that the people were starving: but he would ask whether the price of corn had risen to an unreasonable height, or whether there was any time at which it could with less show of reality be contended that the people were starving? As to the charge of precipitation, the matter had been under consideration for two years in a committee of the other House, and one year in a committee of this House, and every exertion had been used to induce petitioners to come forward, but without effect; so that the object appeared to be to keep them back till the last moment, so as to procure some appearance of a ground of complaint.
Earl Stanhopesaid, he had not stated that the people were starving from the effects of this Bill, bat that the people in the quarter from whence the petitions came were in great distress for want of employment; and being compelled to work for diminished wages, they thought their distress much aggravated by the Act in question.
The Marquis of Douglas, in deference to the sense of the House, agreed to withdraw the petition; but earl Stanhope said, that he would not agree to its being withdrawn—if the House did not like it, they might reject it. The petition was accordingly rejected.
The Marquis of Douglas then presented a petition to the same effect from the parish of Campsie, in Renfrew. The petition adverted to the want of feeling in the Legislature for the interests of the people, and stated something about the Legislature becoming more corrupt than the Executive, and that there was a point beyond which submission ceased to be a virtue.
Lord Redesdaleopposed it. Some of these petitions seemed, he said, to be seditious libels, tending to the disturbance of the peace, by setting the landholders and manufacturers against each other; and the object appeared to be to get them into circulation in this way, when the petitioners could not venture to circulate them in any other way.
The Marquis of Douglashad a more charitable view of the intentions of the
[620
petitioners. The object was not to set the agriculturists and the manufacturers against each other, bat to show that the measure had been carried in opposition to the interests of both by the Government, on account of the supply which it afforded in the way of taxation.
Earl Stanhopesaid, it was not wonderful, considering what the petitioners must have heard about Aylesbury and Helston, and other places, if they thought that representatives were sometimes sent up to parliament in a manner in which they ought not to be sent.
The Earl of Caernarvonsaid, that the petition contained something like a menace, in speaking of a point beyond which submission ceased to be a virtue, and for that and other reasons ought to be rejected.
The petition was accordingly rejected.