Lords Sitting of 20 March 1815

PETITIONS RELATING TO THE CORN LAWS.
The House was occupied for nearly two hours in receiving petitions on the subject of the Corn laws.
Viscount Melvillepresented a petition from the city of Edinburgh in favour of the measure. He then presented petitions from certain of the incorporated trades in Edinburgh, and from several other places in Scotland against the measure. Among these was a petition from the town of Forfar. His lordship stated that the petition was on one skin of parchment, and the names of the petitioners on the other skins.
The Earl of Lauderdalecould not suffer the petition to pass, without stating to their lordships the contents of a letter which he had received, signed with the names of two gentlemen, whom he could take upon, himself to represent as among the most respectable in the county of Forfar, though he would not mention them, lest the circumstance of their writing to him on such an occasion might be attended with disagreeable consequences to them. The letter stated, that the House of Lords ought to be apprised that this petition could hardly be considered as the free and unbiassed opinions of those who signed it; that violence and intimidation had been used by the mob to procure signatures; that persons riding through the town had been compelled to sign it; that the mob had assailed a clergyman residing in the neighbourhood, with abuse and mud, because he refused to sign on compulsion, even though he might be adverse to the Corn Bill; and that though he had sent

257]
for assistance to the magistrates of the town, they had not even sent a town officer to his relief. His lordship said, that he had thought it his duty to lay the contents of the letter before the House, that they might judge what regard was due to such petitions.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that the petition could not in consistency with the rules of the House be received at all, there being no names on the skin which contained the petition, so that of those who signed, not a man perhaps might ever have seen it. He was always inclined to receive every petition as far as the rules of the House permitted; but it was his duty to state, that according to the rule on which they had hitherto acted, the petition could not be received.
Lord Melvilletherefore agreed to withdraw the petition.
The marquis of Buchinghamsaid, that it would have been more creditable to his noble friend's cause, if he had refrained from reading the letter which contained a reflection on the magistrates, unless he had resolved to mention the names of those who had signed the letter.
The Earl of Lauderdaleobserved, that it was important that the House should know the fact, and that the names of the magistrates only occurred incidentally.
Earl Greylamented that such violence should in any case have occurred; but his noble friend was by no means entitled to infer that the signatures of all or any were the consequence of any such violence. These ferments were unfortunately too often the effect of measures to which the mass of the people felt a strong repugnance; but the greatest part of the signatures to the petitions might be, and probably were the result of calm conviction in the petitioners, and ought not to be considered as in any material degree the effect of intimidation. If his noble friend meant to say that the mass of these petitions were signed from any such motive, and that there was really no feeling adverse to the measure existing in the great body of the community, his noble friend was very much mistaken. The noble earl then stated, that he held in his hand a petition which their lordships would be very anxious to receive, if possible. It was from the landholders, manufacturers, and merchants connected with the Staffordshire potteries, against the measure. The petition was on one skin of parchment, and the names on other skins.
The Lord Chancellorsaid that he had always every inclination to receive petitions when properly worded; but it was contrary to the rules of the House to receive this petition, however respectably signed.
Earl Stanhopesaid, the rule had by no means been universally acted upon; for instance, he himself had lately presented a petition which had been received under similar circumstances. This petition, therefore, he thought should be received.
Viscount Mclvillesaid that the Forfar petitioners had been very ill used if this were to be received.
The Earl of Limerickslated that a petition from the county of Roscommon had been refused, on account of a similar objection; and it would be certainly unfair, if another petition were received, to which there existed a similar objection.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that no such petition had, in his experience, been received, where the attention of the House had been called to the circumstance; because, if such were to be the new rule, a petition might be prepared in London, and perhaps 40,000 signatures procured to it in the country by persons who might never have seen the petition. But the House had made this distinction, that where there were a few signatures on the skin containing the petition, it might be received as the petition of those who signed that skin.
Lord Grenvillesaid, that this was a new view of the question, for it now appeared that a petition, though signed by 40,000 persons, would only be received as the petition of the few who signed on the skin containing the petition. This must be the case, it appeared, because 40,000 names could not be crowded on the first skin. This was, in truth, to shut their lordships doors against petitioners. It was quite a monstrous doctrine, and could not be the rule of the House, and if it were, it would not afford the desired security, for if any one thought it worth while to attempt such a deception, he might easily put a few names to the first skin. It was clear the usage had not been uniform, and there was in fact no rule on the subject.
Earl Grey persisted in offering the petition, and the House divided on the question, whether the petition should be received. Contents, 13; Not-Contents, 44; Majority against receiving the petition, 31.
Lord Grenvillepresented a petition against the Bill from Bristol, signed by

259]
42,000 persons; one from Leicester to the same effect, signed by 8,000; one to the same effect, from Northallerton, signed by the whole population of the place; one from Sunderland, and a great number of petitions to the same effect from various parts of Scotland and England. He had besides several which he could not present in consequence of the determination which the House had just come to with respect to petitions.
Earl Stanhopehad a variety of petitions to present against the Bill; the number of signatures to the petitions which he had presented, and was now to present, amounted to about 500,000. There were two from the county of Wilts, both of them together signed by 25,000 persons, and one from Beverley, in Yorkshire. These petitions were powerfully bitter, but such as ought to be received. He had also one from Dalkeith, which would not do, in consequence of their lordships decision; one from Hungerford, which would do; an admirable petition from Stirling, which would do; one from Falkirk, containing excellent arguments, which for the above reason their lordships could not hear, and a great number of others.
All these petitions were laid on the table, with the exception of about ten or twelve, which were not received on account of the objection already stated.
The Marquis of Buckinghamput it to the candour of the noble earl whether he ought to persist in moving the third reading of the Corn Bill till those petitioners whose petitions were refused, on account of the objection taken in point of form, should have an opportunity of coming forward in a more formal manner. It could not be supposed that petitioners could have been accurately acquainted with forms of which their lordships themselves did not seem to have been well aware.
The Earl of Liverpoolsaw no reason for delay. The petition from the Staffordshire potteries had been already published, and the nature and object of the rest must also be very well known.

CORN BILL.
On the order of the day for the third reading of the Corn Bill,
The Marquis of Buckinghamprotested against the Bill, against its principle, the mode of carrying it into practice, and against the precipitation with which it had been hurried through the House in defiance of the petitions of the people.
[260
His lordship characterized the measure as a bribe given to the landed interest to induce them to acquiesce in the maintenance of war establishments in a time of peace; and considered it as most unjust to the other classes of the community, that the landholders should thus have secured to them in a time of peace the high prices which they had obtained during a period of war.
The Earl of Westmorelandsaid, he wished, as Nero did of the Romans, that England had but one head, or that all its heads, and those of London especially, could have been present at the former discussions of the question. They would have found all the argument on one side; for to his mind, nothing in conviction could be more conclusive than the speech of the noble earl (Liverpool) beside him. He disapproved of the language that called Ireland a foreign country, or placed her on the same footing with the Continent as to our protection. The effect of the system of protection was remarkable in that country. Forty years ago, she was unspeakably wretched; corn bounties were introduced, and they made her one great agricultural country. The opinion of noble lords seemed to be, that such a diminution in the price of corn should take place, as would throw about a third part of the land out of cultivation. The produce of that third was about 12 millions of quarters; now where were we to get such a quantity? The value of those 12 millions would be about 50 millions sterling: we had never in the worst of times been forced to buy more than 3 millions' worth in the year. But supposing we could find the corn, how were we to bring it home? We might reckon that 3 quarters occupied a ton of freightage. Here we must use 4 millions of tonnage. Now the greatest quantity of tonnage that had ever entered the British ports in a year was not more than 3 millions and a half.
The Earl of Buckinghamshirealso argued in support of the Bill, contending for its necessity, with a view to the encouragement of agriculture, in order that we might insure a steady supply within ourselves, and animadverted upon the language used by his noble friend (the marquis of Buckingham), which he considered as calculated to misguide the public mind.
The Marquis of Buckingham, in explanation, disclaimed any intention of misguiding the public mind.
The Earl of Buckinghamshiredenied any

261]
intention of throwing blame upon his noble friend's motives.
The Earl of Carlisleobjected to the Bill, as being calculated to excite great discontent, without any advantage being shewn that could be derived from it.
Earl Stanhopesaid, he could not help laughing at the noble Premier's ideas of British superiority as arising from fuel, credit, and machinery. When the workman ran away to foreign countries, he carried off his money; so much for permanent capital: as to fuel, he should tell the noble Premier, that there might be machinery worked without fuel. The noble prime might stare at this; but though he (earl Stanhope) would give way to him where he had his official papers beside him, he would tell that noble prime that as to machinery and such like matters, the noble prime was not fit to tie the latchets of his shoes. Conceiving this Bill to be grossly injurious to the poorer classes, he felt it his duty to move, that it be rejected.
Lord Redesdaledefended the Bill, contending that it was for the advantage of all classes of the community to encourage the growth of corn; taking the import at one-fortieth part of the consumption, thirty-nine parts must be provided for within ourselves. The landholders besides, whose rents instead of increasing had really diminished, though there was a nominal rise, ought to be maintained in their relative scale in society.
Lord Kingconsidered the argument of the noble lord regarding the landholders to be speaking out upon the subject, and shewing the real nature of the Bill. The measure was to operate by a monopoly, and must have the effect of raising the price of wheat.
The Earl of Harrowbycontended, that the Bill would operate to the real ad-advantage of the consumer, including of course the whole of the poorer class; and that even if the effect was to raise the price of grain during the next year, the ultimate result would be to render it cheaper, and produce a full supply at a moderate rate.
The Earl of Darnleywarmly supported the Bill, and contended, that the measure would not be more beneficial to the agriculturist than to the manufacturer. It was not to be wondered at that the table was loaded with petitions from the manufacturers, who were crowded in great towns, while the feeling of six millions of
[262
people in Ireland, and many in this country, employed in agricultural occupations, could not be collected, though decidedly in favour of the Bill. It was of little importance to their lordships, whose rents were in general so moderate, that the fall in the price of corn could not lower them, whether the Bill passed or no; but it was of great importance to the labourer that the price of bread should be steady.
Lord Grenvillethought, the effects of the Bill would be precisely contrary to the predictions of his noble friend (the earl of Harrowby), and he took that last opportunity of opposing it, and of renewing his entreaties to their lordships to pause, to consider, and inquire, before they passed the Bill. The effect was to raise a tax on the community to support the rents and the profits of the farmers. It was thus an act of injustice; and it was an act of impolicy, inasmuch as it caused loss to the country, by diverting capital from its proper channel. Even if he were so sanguine as to the future good effects of the Bill, he did not think that the present was the proper time for trying a perilous experiment, and of submitting to present evil for the sake of future and contingent good.
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid, that the only charge he could bring against himself was, that he had not urged the passing of such a Bill as that before the House in the last session of parliament. Much evil would thus have been avoided. If the Bill produced evil, it might be repealed; but the evils which might be produced by neglecting to pass it would be irreparable. If one quarter of the wheat land of the kingdom was thrown out of cultivation, no foreign supply could possibly make up the deficiency in the quantity of food.
The Earl of Lauderdaledenied, that any precipitation had been shown by the supporters of the Bill. He thought the arguments of the opposes of the Bill went entirely on the unfounded supposition, that the corn trade was a free trade, and that the price of provisions would be raised by the Bill; both of which assumptions he thought entirely false, because, from the excessive taxation of this country, a bounty was at present paid, in effect, to foreign corn-growers.
The House then divided on earl Stanhope's motion, that the Bill be rejected: Contents, 21; Not-contents, 128. The Bill was then read a third time, and passed.

List of the Peers who voted for the Rejection of the Corn Bill.

DUKES.

VISCOUNT.

Sussex

Torrington

Gloucester

BARONS.

Somerset

King

MARQUISSES.

Montfort

Buckingham

Grantley

Douglas

Grenville

EARLS.

Dynevor

Carlisle

Wellesley

Essex

Proxies.

Stanhope

Duke of Devonshire

Warwick

Earl Spencer

Fortescue

Marq. of Blandford

Grey

PROTEST AGAINST THE CORN BILL.
On the third reading of the Bill it was moved, "that this Bill be rejected;" which motion having, on a division, been negatived, the following Protest was entered:
"Dissentient,
"1. Because we are adverse in principle to all new restraints on commerce. We think it certain that public prosperity is best promoted, by leaving uncontrouled the free current of national industry; and we wish rather, by well-considered steps, to bring back our commercial legislation to the straight and simple line of wisdom, than to increase the deviation, by subjecting additional and extensive branches of the public interest to fresh systems of artificial and injurious restriction.
"2. Because we think that the great practical rule, of leaving all commerce unfettered, applies more peculiarly, and on still stronger grounds of justice as well as of policy, to the corn trade than to any other. Irresistible indeed must be that necessity which could, in our judgment, authorize the Legislature to tamper with the sustenance of the people, and to impede the free purchase and sale of that article, on which depends the existence of so large a portion of the community.
"3. Because we think that the expectations of ultimate benefit from this measure are founded on a delusive theory. We cannot persuade ourselves that this law will ever contribute to produce plenty, cheapness, or steadiness of price. So long as it operates at all, its effects must be the opposite of these. Monopoly is the parent of scarcity, of dearness, and of uncertainty. To cut off any of the sources of supply can only tend to lessen its abundance; to close against ourselves the cheapest market for any commodity, must
[264
enhance the price at which we purchase it; and to confine the consumer of corn to the produce of his own country, is to refuse to ourselves the benefit of that provision which Providence itself has made for equalizing to man the variations of season and of climate.
"4. But whatever may be the future consequences of this law, at some distant and uncertain period, we see, with pain, that these hopes must be purchased at the expense of a great and present evil. To compel the consumer to purchase corn dearer at home than it might be imported from abroad, is the immediate practical effect of this law. In this way alone can it operate. Its present protection, its promised extension of agriculture must result (if at all) from the profits which it creates by keeping up the price of corn to an artificial level. These future benefits are the consequences expected, but as we confidently believe erroneously expected, from giving a bounty to the grower of corn, by a tax levied on its consumer.
"5. Because we think that the adoption of any permanent law, for such a purpose, required the fullest and most laborious investigation. Nor would it have been sufficient for our satisfaction could we have been convinced of the general policy of so hazardous an experiment. A still further inquiry would have been necessary to persuade us that the present moment was fit for its adoption. In such an inquiry we must have had the means of satisfying ourselves what its immediate operation will be as connected with the various and pressing circumstances of public difficulty and distress with which the country is now surrounded; with the state of our circulation and currency; of our agriculture and manufactures; of our internal and external commerce; and above all with the condition and reward of the industrious and labouring classes of our community.
"On all these particulars, as they respect this question, we think that Parliament is almost wholly uninformed; on all we see reason for the utmost anxiety and alarm from the operation of this law.
"Lastly, Because if we could approve of the principle and purpose of this law, we think that no sufficient foundation has been laid far its details. The evidence before us, unsatisfactory and imperfect as it is, seems to us rather to disprove than to support the propriety of the high price adopted as the standard of importation.

265]
and the fallacious mode by which that price is to be ascertained.
"And on all these grounds we are anxious to record our dissent from a measure so precipitate in its course, and, as we fear, so injurious in its consequences.

AUGUSTUS FREDERICK (d. of Sussex),

WILLIAM FREDERICK (d. of Gloucester),

GRENVILLE,

WELLESLEY,

ESSEX,

TORRINGTON,

DUTTON (marquis of Douglas),

CHANDOS BUCKINGHAM,

MONTFORT,

KING,

CARLISLE.