CORN LAWS. (Hansard, 9 March 1826)

Lord King
said, he had another petition to present against the job of jobs. It came from the carpenters and joiners of London, and was signed by 1,400 persons, who stated, that the law which excluded foreign corn greatly injured them, by the manner in which it affected the remuneration of their labour, and he agreed with them la the opinion. Some people were very fond of high prices, high rents, and high wages. By high prices they alleged that every thing was equalized; but in his opinion this sort of equalization did not produce any thing like equity or justice between parties. The great desideratum with the supporters of the Corn laws, wag certainly at all times high rents. But how were high rents to be obtained without high prices? The real object, then, was high prices; and high prices were not to be had without the exclusion of foreign corn. But, if you exclude foreign corn, you exclude food. Some people, however, said, that this exclusion of foreign corn created more English food. But it could do so in no other way than by forcing bad land; and if bad land was forced to produce food, it must be at the expense of so much additional labour—of labour far more than equivalent to the value of the food produced. Still, however, some persons said, "If you alter the Corn laws you will do no good, because to lower the price of corn will only be to lower the price of labour with it." But this was a very erroneous opinion; as the present state of things, compared with that when corn was cheap, would show. The price of labour now afforded the labourer only a bare existence, whereas heretofore he got enough, not only for his subsistence, but for comforts. It was certainly true that if corn were cheap, the money price 1203 of labour would fall; but the real remuneration of labour would increase. He should think that abundance and cheapness of food would be regarded as a great blessing to any country, and one which a wise and benevolent legislature would be desirous to confer. This he should expect now; whatever might have been done hi those dark times of legislation, when parliament thought fit to declare that paper and gold were of equal value.

The Earl of Carnarvon
said, he was for la free trade in corn as well as in everything else, but did not think that the question was one which should be discussed in the present state of the country. The noble lord went into arguments which others were not prepared to answer, and which, if they were, ought not to be discussed at that time. He could not acquiesce in the term "job" given to an act of parliament, which had not been adopted untilafter the most serious consideration. The measure was introduced in one session, and was not adopted until the next. Parliament might have erred, but if there was error, it was not intentional. If, upon due consideration, it should be found that the Corn laws were not consistent with the general interest, parliament would doubtless alter them. His wish was, that the agriculturist and the manufacturer should be placed on an equal footing, and that the Corn laws should form no impediment m the way of free trade. But his noble friend should consider what had been the effect produced by the Bank Restriction Set, the operation of which had lasted for twenty-five years. After the operation of that act had brought into cultivation land which Was never before cultivated, and had also brought into existence an immense agricultural population, which would be thrown out of employ by the discontinuance of that cultivation, he did not think that their lordships could suddenly rid themselves of all the consequences of that measure, without producing in every part of the country, greater distress than could be experienced by the journeymen carpenters of London; who he believed were as well off as most workmen. He made these observations, to show that it was not the landlords who were altogether to blame with respect to the Corn laws. The present was a period of commercial distress; but it should be recollected, that there had also been a time of agricultural distress. But at that time did not persons in trade also suffer? Did they not complain that the 1204 home market failed them? This snowed how closely the interests of all parties were bound up together, and that the present question was one of difficult solution. It was understood, however, that, if hot in this, their lordships would in the next session be called upon for a decision. There, was therefore no reason for anticipating the discussion. Instead of using the word "job," he should wish his noble friend to avoid all harsh language on the subject, and allow it to be calmly considered. The course his noble friend pursued could only tend to produce angry feelings.

The Earl of Darnley
said, he did not rise in the expectation of correcting the vicious propensity of his noble friend who presented the petition, the only effect of whose language, in returning again and again to the same subject, must be to create discontent; which he knew could not be the intention of his noble friend. With regard to his own opinion on the Corn laws, it was a mistaketo suppose that he had decided against any alteration. If, however, parliament should withdraw all protection from agriculture, he did not think that such an alteration would be advantageous to the labourer; for if bread became cheap, labour would be cheap also. The question, in fact, was not one of high rents, but whether this country, involved in great domestic and financial difficulties, could compete on the same terms with countries experiencing no such embarrassments. He had thought it necessary to say this much, but hoped he should not be again provoked to notice the subject, until it came regularly under the consideration of the House.

Lord King
did not doubt but he should have occasion to provoke his noble friend again and again on this subject, if he was determined to be provoked every time a petition was presented. It was singular enough, however, that his two noble friends took such different views of his conduct. The one thought that he took the House by surprise with his arguments, the other that he used the same arguments too often. Nevertheless they both agreed in wishing him to discontinue his practice of addressing the House. It was certainly kind of his two noble friends to favour him with so much of their advice. He had indeed, got a great deal of advice of late; but he could not help thinking that there was occasionally something in the nature of it, that rendered it rather suspicion. He had been entreated, both in prose and 1205 verse, to cease his exertions. The two noble friends were not only prodigal of their advice to him, but equally ready to give it to the labourers. The effect of their advice was—"Do not trust to those who wish to make com plenty and cheap, but to us who will make it dear and give you little of it."