Lords Sitting of 23 February 1826

CORN LAWS.
Lord Suffieldpresented a petition from Ashton-under-Lyne, praying for the repeal or amendment of the Corn-Laws. He said, he could not lay the petition on the table, without expressing his regret, that the difficulties of this measure had not been grappled with during the present session. He agreed with the noble earl, not then in his place, that the discussion of this question was likely to be gone into with a considerable degree of passion. He was as likely as any one of their lordships to lose, in proportion to his wealth, by a fall in the price of corn, for he derived the greater part of his revenue from land; but he was prepared to make any sacrifice that might be for the good of the nation at large. Whatever measure the ministers might bring forward, which were for the public good, he would not oppose them. Perhaps he was wrong in saying a "sacrifice," for he laid claim to no peculiar patriotism; but he was convinced, that no class of society could profit, for any length of time, by any measure which was an injury to the other classes. He thought it was a mistake to suppose that the repeal of the Corn-laws would injure the land-owners. Of one thing he was sure, that the repeal of those laws would prevent fluctuations in price; which was a serious injury to the landed interest as as well as to the other interests of the society.
The Earl of Lauderdaleexpressed his regret, that noble lords, when it was understood that this question was not to

695
come on this session, should take an opportunity, oil presenting petitions, to make their little harangues, which, in the present state of the country, might harass the public mind. It pleased the noble lord to assume, that the Corn-laws caused fluctuations in prices, and were kept up for the benefit of the landed interest only; but, if that noble lord would examine the state of prices previous to passing the present law, he would find that there were more extraordinary fluctuations before than since the passing of it. He was sure, whatever might be the effects of that law, that no man in that House would argue for it out of any other motives than a regard to the public welfare.