§ Lord King said, he held in his hand a petition signed by several thousands of the population of Preston and its neighbourhood. It came from a district which was populous, but grievously oppressed by the Corn-laws—that great dead weight which bore down all classes, one excepted. The petition was therefore against pauperism and famine; against the pauperism price of corn, which was 60s. the quarter; and against the famine price, which it reached when it got to 70s. and upwards; and this famine price he fully expected corn would this year reach. This question, fairly stated, lay between the interests of the landlords on one side, and the prosperity of the country on the other. On the one side was power; on the other reason and justice; but the latter he was sure would triumph, if the good intentions of the noble lord on the other side were not 208 fatally counteracted when he came to take up this question seriously, as it was hoped he soon would do. When the price of corn and labour in France and Germany was less than one-half of the price in this country, it was impossible to prevent our manufacturers from removing to those countries. By what magic could our manufactures be prevented from being transferred to places where there was security for property, and where the profits of industry would be great in proportion as wages were lower? What right had the members of the legislature to persist in maintaining a system of laws, which must condemn this country to all the miseries inseparable from a declining state of society?
The Marquis of Salisburywas surprised that the noble lord, holding the opinions he did, had suffered the session to pass away without bringing forward any motion for the discussion of the general question. This would be a fairer course of proceeding than attempting day by day to stir up and irritate the feelings of the manufacturing population. If the noble lord brought the question fairly forward, it would soon be proved that the welfare of the manufacturing classes depended upon the prosperity of the landed interest; but the noble lord chose rather to let the session elapse, than to bring the question to a direct issue.
Lord Kingsaid, he was quite willing to bring the whole question forward, if any effect could be produced by so doing. It was generally understood that the only alteration of the corn-laws that could be carried was a protecting duty. Now, a bill for imposing a duty of any kind could not originate with their lordships. If the forms of the House permitted it, he would bring in a bill to-morrow.
The Earl of Lauderdaleobserved, that it had already been often pointed out to the noble lord, that a more manly course for him to follow would be, to bring the question of the corn-laws regularly before the House; but, instead of doing so, he preferred letting off every now and then a few little squibs. If the noble lord knew any thing of the history of the corn-laws, he could not stand up in that House and assert, that the object of those who wished to maintain those laws was to give dear bread to the poor. In the reign of Charles 2nd the protection against foreign corn amounted to 8l. the quarter, and from the years 1760 to 1775, when not a par- 209 ticle was imported, but when 600 quarters were exported, the price of grain did not exceed 33s. the quarter. Upon a fair examination, the noble lord would find, that the maintenance of what he called the dead weight was the way to get cheap bread to the country. Under that system, bread would always be afforded cheaper than under any other. In another point of view in which the noble lord had looked at this question, he was equally wrong. He thought that there was danger of the manufacturers of the continent underselling those of this country. Now, did he mean to say that the low price of labour had any thing to do with the low price of grain? He knew there were persons who maintained that principle, and also that the price was affected by the currency. He would, however, contend, that the price of labour, like the price of every thing else, depended upon the supply and demand in the market. If the noble lord referred to documents which were before the House, he would learn that in those years when grain was dear, labour was generally cheapest; and that like all commodities, its price was regulated by the supply and demand. On a former occasion, to illustrate this principle, he had sent to Glasgow, and got the price of weaving a certain article for thirty years, and compared it with the price of wheat. The result was, that precisely as corn rose, the price of labour fell. This was not the case with manufacturing labour alone; the principle applied equally to agricultural. A Mr. Mills, who had been examined before a committee of the House, had stated, that in enclosing a farm, the portion of work which, in a cheap year, cost five shillings, he got done in a dear year for half-a-crown. He had thrown out these facts to correct the noble lord's erroneous views on this subject, but he could assure the noble lord, that nothing which he might say should provoke him to reply to the calumnious aspersions he had thrown out on the landed interest—a body composed of persons who paid more attention to the welfare of the poor than could be paid by any other class in the country.
Lord Kingwas not surprised that the noble earl should object to the course he pursued. The noble earl blamed him for using squibs, and asked why he did not bring the question regularly forward. Now, this was easily accounted for. Every one had his own particular mode 210 of warfare. His weapons were those little squibs, of which the noble lord complained so much. The noble earl had also his particular mode of warfare: he dealt in paradoxes or crotchets. One of these was, that a protecting duty of 8l. the quarter, made corn cheap in the days of Charles 2nd. But the noble earl should have recollected, that then plenty of good land lay uncultivated, and that there was not one quarter of the present population. At such a time the protecting duty would make good land be cultivated, and as cultivation was extended, the corn produced in this country would become cheap. Now, on the contrary, all good land in every part of the country had long been in cultivation, and the evil of the corn-laws was, that bad land was resorted to for raising corn, and labour uselessly thrown away on its cultivation. Another crotchet of the noble earl was, that dear corn made labour cheap. The price of labour might not correspond with the price of grain in a particular period, but it always did accommodate itself to it in a series of years. If it did not, if there was not this relation between food and labour, then those who made corn dear, knowing that labour was at the same time to be cheap, were guilty of tenfold more injustice and cruelty to the poor, than he had ever ventured to impute to them.
The Earl of Malmesburywas not much disposed to the present sort of warfare, but could not help congratulating the House on the explanation which had just been obtained from the noble lord. It now appeared that the noble lord did not look forward to a free trade in corn, but that he was for a protecting duty. That was the reason he had assigned for not bringing the subject regularly forward. He always thought that the noble lord's doctrine was, that the poor man should have cheap corn, come from where it might —from Germany or Japan. He could not before understand why the noble lord came forward with speeches every day, but now the matter was clearly explained.