§ Earl Fitzwilliampresented a Petition from Perth, praying for the Repeal of the Corn-laws. In the justice and propriety of the prayer of the petition he entirely concurred.
The Earl of Malmesburysaid, that from the language used in this and similar petitions, one would be led to think, that no restriction was placed on the importation of anything except corn; than which it was impossible to conceive a more absurd notion. This he could prove in five words. What, he would ask, were the duties on foreign shoes, on foreign clothes, on foreign hats, and on many other articles, which were quite as much necessaries of life as articles of food. If those who opposed the Corn-laws would go to the full length of their arguments, and call for a Repeal of Duty on every article that might be deemed a necessary of life, then he, for one, would say, that there was some appearance of reason in their de- 406 mand; but that he knew, and so did they, to be perfectly impracticable.
§ Earl Fitzwilliamsaid, his noble friend had observed, that the petitioners had no right to complain. ["No, no!" from the Earl of Malmesbury.] Well, that was the inference to be drawn from his noble friend's speech, His noble friend said, that there would be some reason for complaint on the part of the petitioners, if other articles were not taxed on importation as well as corn; that it was erroneous to assert, that corn was the only article taxed, when a duty was imposed on shoes, hats, and other articles, when imported into this country. Such certainly was the fact. But to what extent were those articles taxed? They paid a duty of about thirty per cent. And what was the amount of the tax on corn? It was full 100 per cent. Let his noble friend go to Dantzic, and ascertain the price of corn there—let him then return to London, and inquire of the Board of Trade, what the duty payable on the importation of corn amounts to, and he would find that, at the present moment, the duty was greater here than the price of corn on the continent; and whatever might be said to the contrary, corn was emphatically the prime necessary of life, and should, on that account, sooner than any other article, be freed from restrictions on importation. The existing laws did nothing for the farmer, when, through the bounty of Providence, corn was cheap; but when a scarcity existed, they operated to aggravate an evil which it was the duty of every wise Legislature to alleviate by every means in their power. He admitted, that the alteration made in the Corn-laws was, to a certain extent, beneficial, because it tended to bring prices to a lower and more certain level; but when the landlords declared, that the effects of the altered law would be to keep corn at 64s. the quarter, they had deluded their tenants. That was the real cause, and the true history of the pressure under which the agricultural interest now laboured. The farmer had been induced to offer higher rents than he was afterwards able to realise. The Corn-laws were, in fact, as mischievous to the farmer as to any other class of people. He had, however, such confidence in the force of truth, when pressed on even the most unwilling auditors, that he was convinced, though they might not in the present Session, repeal those laws, yet that they 407 would be ultimately repealed. He did not believe, that any man in his senses could suppose, that the present system would, ten years hence, continue to form part of the law of England. Truth might be opposed for a time; but, in the end, he was perfectly satisfied, that it would prevail; and if there were anything that he looked forward to more than another, in the confident expectation of its speedy occurrence, it was this—that they would have, in the course of a very few years, a free trade in corn. He did not mean a free trade without any duty whatever, because he conceived that corn, like any other commodity, was a fair object of revenue. But he was quite sure, that the duty would be levied, not as now, for the purpose of what was called protection, but merely as a matter of revenue.
The Earl of Malmesburycontended, that the articles which he had mentioned were as much necessaries of life as corn. He was not in the habit of laying wagers; but to show that they were essential necessaries of life to which he had alluded, he would place his noble friend in Palace-yard in puris naturalibus, letting him have as much food as he pleased, while he, without refreshment, but well clothed, would sit down beside him, and he fancied, that he would be able to endure the inclemency of the weather longer than his noble friend.
§ The Duke of Wellingtonhad not intended to have said a word on this occasion, for he conceived, that it was very inconvenient to introduce a discussion of this kind without notice, if it had not been for certain expressions which had fallen from the noble Earl. One of these was, that the landlords had deluded their tenants when the last alteration of the Corn-laws was effected, by informing them, that the Bill then introduced was framed so as to keep corn at a certain high price. Such a declaration was never made by any person during the consideration of that subject. The landlords could not, therefore, have deluded their tenants, either on that or on the former occasion, since no one had affected to say, that the consequence of the measures introduced would be to keep up the price of corn. The noble Lord said, that corn was taxed 100 per cent, and that if they went to Dantzic, they would find, that the duty here was greater than the price of corn there. If that were so, how, he would ask, could the farmer main- 408 tain anything like competition, if the duty were only twenty-five per cent?
§ Earl Fitzwilliamagreed with the noble Duke, that it was inconvenient to discuss a subject of this nature without notice; but he certainly would, at a future day, of which due notice should be given, bring the question under their Lordships' consideration. He intended to have presented the petition intrusted to his care sub silentio, if the noble Earl opposite had not made some observations on the subject; but when one noble Lord stood up and made a long speech, it was not surprising that another noble Lord should make an equally long one in reply.
§ The Petition laid on the Table.
§ Earl Fitzwilliam, in presenting a petition from Greenock against all duties on corn, took occasion to refer to the Corn-bill of 1815, which, he said, had been represented to the farmers as calculated to keep up the price of wheat at 80s.—a fact which he supposed his noble friend, the keeper of the Privy Seal must recollect, while the Bill of 1821 and 1822 would, it was supposed, sustain the price of wheat at 64s. In neither instance had this expectation been realized, although it had tended to raise rents very much. It was thus that the tenants were deluded, and to this the agricultural distress complained of was to be attributed.
§ The Earl of Riponcertainly had a recollection of the Bill of 1815, but that recollection was entirely at variance with the recollection of his noble friend. He had always acted in a manner directly contrary to that which his noble friend had ascribed to him. He at the time stated distinctly the grounds on which Ministers deemed it advisable to submit the Corn-bill to Parliament. So far from declaring, that the effect of the Bill would be to fix the price of corn permanently at 80s., it was stated, that 60s. would be the maximum not the minimum price. That was the fact; and, therefore, it could not be said, that Parliament had deluded the farmer, by telling him, that the Bill would keep up corn at 80s. His noble friend had referred to the supposed interest which the landlord had with respect to the Corn-laws, in a manner which he must always regret, because he thought that his noble friend's assertion was not correct. His noble friend said, that truth must prevail, and that, ten years hence, those laws would not be in existence. Now, he 409 wished truth to prevail as much as his noble friend did; and if the Corn-laws produced all the mischiefs which his noble friend attributed to them, he would readily consent to their being altered. But he could not consent to alter those laws on such grounds as the noble Lord had stated. He could not look upon this as a Landlords' Bill, imposed by them on the community at large, for the purpose of serving themselves. That, he contended, was a delusion. If such a sentiment were applied to legislation in general, it would render all laws so unpopular, that they would not be obeyed by the community.
§ Earl Fitzwilliamsaid, he did think, notwithstanding what had been stated, that the landlord was the only person who had an interest in this law, and that was, in fact, small in comparison with the value which he placed on it. The tenant, he maintained, had no interest whatever in it.
§ Petition laid on the Table.