Lord Suffieldrose to present a petition from the owners and occupiers of land in the county of Norfolk. The petition complained of Agricultural distress, stated taxation to be the principal cause, and prayed for retrenchment of the expendi- 450 ture, reduction of the public burthens, and for parliamentary reform. He congratulated himself; that on the day of his taking his seat among their lordships, he should have to stand before them as the representative of the important county of Norfolk—a county lately so distinguished for agricultural opulence, but now, unfortunately, reduced to a state of the greatest distress. Many causes had been assigned by different persons; but it would be sufficient for him to notice what the petitioners supposed to be the principal causes, and the remedies they proposed to apply. The principal cause was, the oppressive burthen of taxation, occasioned by the wasteful expenditure of the government. This had spread that distress through the country which was every where felt. But more particularly in the county of Norfolk. There might be persons not affected by it, but it must be those who received salaries, emoluments and pensions from the public. Never was there a more respectable meeting assembled in the county of Norfolk. The persons who composed it had a just right and tide to represent the sentiments of the county, if the ownership and occupation of the principal number of acres it contains might give that right. But, unfortunately, their acres had followed the fate of the Bank paper, which was good as long as it passed current. The acres of Norfolk now produced nothing to their owners, and were like discredited paper of no value. This meeting consisted of persons of all parties, and many who were of no party whatever; and yet, in a meeting thus constituted, the call for retrenchment and reduction of taxation was unanimous. Both the members for the county were present, and one of them, a gentleman who had always supported the present administration (Mr. Wodehouse), concurred in opinion with the meeting, that reduction of taxation was the only remedy for the existing distress. The opinion of the meeting was, that the duties on malt, candles, soap, &c., ought to be in the first instance reduced. The petition, besides praying for reduction of taxation, also prayed for parliamentary reform. Before he noticed that subject more particularly, he must observe, that many persons believed it to be impossible for parliament to give relief by retrenchment; for such relief, they supposed, could not be obtained without a sweeping system of reduction, which they were persuaded no 451 ministers could support and retain their places. Hence followed the opinion that a reform of parliament was the only means of obtaining a reduction of taxation. The meeting was unanimous as to taxation being the cause of the distress; and, on the subject of reform, the dissenters did not exceed five in the hundred. He had not been, in the first instance, anxious about the question of reform at the meeting. He thought it, however, of importance to obtain from persons of weight in the county, a declaration that taxation was the cause of the existing distress, especially when it came from those who had never missed any opportunity of increasing that expenditure which formed an excuse for the taxation. How taxation was -to be effectually reduced without parliamentary reform, it was for such persons, to explain. With respect to parliamentary reform, it was often objected to it, that those who supported it differed in opinion. This might be said with equal truth of many other questions; but though the friends of reform might differ as to the extent to which it ought to be carried, there certainly was no difference among them as to the necessity of commencing the work. He was not one of those who advocated a sweeping reform; but he was convinced of the necessity of rendering the House of Commons more fully and fairly the representatives of the people. He was sanguine enough to believe that the word "reform" would soon be in the mouth of every independent individual in the country. He approved of the question being brought forward and publicly discussed, but was always against its being agitated in a violent manner, because such agitation afforded, pretexts for curtailing the rights and, liberties of the people. There was nothing therefore he more condemned than tumultuous assemblies. What had convinced him of the necessity of parliamentary reform, was, the neglect of par, to inquire into grievances. One or two remarkable instances of that neglect, which had recently occurred, he would mention. The first to which he would allude was, the Manchester outrage. The refusal to inquire into that atrocious transaction would be sufficient to induce him to advocate parliamentary reform, even if no other reason for it existed. He would support any administration that made a beginning in the work of reform; but would give his voice to none 452 that refused to make a commencement. He had visited the district where that outage was committed—he had made inquiry respecting it, and he was convinced hat the people met with no view to mischief. The best proof of this was their conduct in assembling, and the manner in which they acted when attacked by a military force. The next occurrence which impressed him with the necessity of parliamentary reform was, the proceedings against the Queen. One other circumstance he should mention which arose out of the last—he meant the dismissal of sir Robert Wilson from his majesty's service. In recommending those measures, he did not doubt that ministers had acted with integrity. He sincerely believed that the advice they had given, whether with regard to the thanks to the Manchester magistrates, to the proceedings against the illustrious personage he had mentioned, or to the dismissal of the gallant general, had been conscientiously given on their view of the different cases at the time. What he complained of was, that they had acted with great and breathless rashness. He firmly believed that they would now gladly recall those acts if they could.
Lord Calthorpeconcurred in all the allegations of the petitioners as to the extent of agricultural distress. He was induced to offer a few observations on the subject, because he was compelled to acknowledge, from the state of public feeling, which he had witnessed at the county of Suffolk meeting, that that feeling was decidedly in favour of retrenchment, and of some degree of parliamentary reform. At the meeting to which he alluded, and which was attended by persons of property and independence in the county, a most unanimous vote was given.for retrenchment. The unanimity of the meeting was in some measure interrupted, by what appeared to him an unseasonable resolution in favour of reform. This resolution was carried by a great majority; but, whether it met with the concurrence of the principal land-owners who were present, he could not ascertain, because it was agreed to with acclamation by the majority. The manner in which the resolution was voted, left no doubt of the general concurrence of the great body of the people in the opinion that parliamentary reform was necessary. But he was convinced that the opinion was growing in other classes, and that it had spread itself through the well-educated and well-informed part of 453 the community. In that most important class of society, a disposition in favour of parliamentary reform, manifestly prevailed. This opinion had most decidedly shown itself within the last six years. To what its growth was owing, he did not pretend to say; but of its existence there could he no doubt. At the Suffolk meeting the vote for retrenchment was unanimous: and after the pledge for reductions which had been given at the close of the last session, this resolution, had there even been no vote in favour of reform, would have been sufficient to show that there was not such a confidence in the intentions of parliament as their lordships must wish to see prevail. This want of confidence, he believed, arose from a belief of excessive influence being employed by government to carry certain measures. The necessity of working by influence produced inconsistency in the measures of government; and it was not surprising that what the well-informed called inconsistency should by the more ignorant be denounced as corruption. The want of confidence which now sot generally prevailed did not arise from any doubt of the probity of the noble earl at the head of his majesty's government; but the more men of information and respectability believed ministers to be sincere, the mote were they obliged to look around them for the causes which prevented retrenchment, and the adoption of an effectual system of economy. The obstacles appeared to resolve themselves into a system of influence, which had for many years been resorted to as a means of carrying on the business of the state. He did not mean to say that some influence was not necessary; but he was convinced that only the influence which fairly belonged to official situations was required in this country. He was convinced that, with the principles and feelings which prevailed among the great mass of the well-informed people of this country, there would be no danger of an administration being overthrown by the abandonment of parliamentary influence. By relinquishing that influence, ministers would remove from their measures the character of inconsistency. Were it not for influence, they might be expected to act in unison with public opinion, without being forced to yield to it apparently against their own judgment; as they did last session, when a declaration in favour of retrenchment was wrung from them. By keeping public opinion in view, they would be better able 454 to carry on the business of government, than by the inconsistency which the fluctuations and contradictions of parliamentary influence produced. What greater proofs of inconsistency could be wanted than the changeable measures which had been adopted or proposed with respect to agriculture? What confidence could the petitioners have in the intentions of government, when they found that the chief minister of the Crown in another place had proposed to introduce those modifications of the corn-bill which were rejected last session? The slight degree in which public opinion operated on parliament was evident from what had passed last session; for the recommendation of retrenchment, which then came from a committee of the other House, would certainly have been made at least one year sooner, had public opinion been attended to. The noble lord then adverted to the state of the law respecting the importation of foreign corn, which he strongly condemned, and observed, that he should rejoice in any alteration of the corn-laws which would remove the glaring inconsistencies which prevailed on the subject of importation.
§ Ordered to lie on the table.