HL Deb 19 February 1839 vol 45 cc585-7
Viscount Melbourne

would take that opportunity of saying, that their Lordships seemed to be under some little misapprehension as to the state of the Corn-law question under Lord Grey's Government. It was not a matter of any great importance, nor had it any bearing on the state of the question at present, but it might be as well that he should inform their Lordships what the state of the matter really was. It appeared, that in the course of a debate in the House of Commons in 1834, Mr. Poulett Thomson, who at that time held the office of Vice-president of the Board of Trade, expressly said in reference to the Corn-laws, and in answer to the Earl of Darlington who expressed his surprise at Mr. Poulett Thomson's conduct on that question, that "this is an open question in the Government, for the truth of which I appeal to my noble Friend sitting near me (Lord Althorp), and it is on this ground, that I am here as a member of his Majesty's Government, though not in the Cabinet, advocating the opinion, and voting for the motion of the Member for Middlesex."* This statement of Mr. P. Thomson, the Vice-president of the Board of Trade, * Hansard, vol. xxi., Third Series p. 1277. he considered as proof as to the state of the question under Lord Grey's Government.

The Earl of Ripon

said, with respect to the Cabinet he must assert, that he had no recollection of anything that had passed, which could induce him to suppose that Lord Grey's Cabinet had ever considered the Corn-law as an open question. The Vice-president of the Board of Trade could not be considered as speaking the sentiments of the Cabinet in 1834, and the Cabinet could not be bound by his opinion. He referred to facts, which if they could be gainsayed were capable of proof. With respect to this opinion of the Vice-president of the Board of Trade, he (Lord Ripon) had never heard of it until after it was given.

Lord Brougham

The noble Earl says, that he never heard of this opinion of the Vice-president of the Board of Trade until after it had been given. I never heard of it until this hour. The individual who had given this opinion was not a Cabinet Minister; he was not a Member of the Government in the same sense as a Secretary of State, or a First Lord of the Treasury. He was no more a Member of the Government than under Secretary of State, or a Secretary to any individual Minister. Why last Session a Lord of the Treasury voted in favour of the Ballot, and yet the Members of the Government did not split on the question of the ballot. I still maintain, that this was not an open question. In 1829 I addressed the House and stated, that the landed interest had no right to any protection beyond the cost of the importation. I entirely agree with my noble Friend, that this question was not an open question, and that the statements and votes of those who were so low in office as to be excluded from the Cabinet cannot be considered as proving otherwise.

The Duke of Richmond

entirely agreed with the noble Earl, and with his noble and learned Friend who had just sat down, that the question of the Corn-Laws had never been considered as an open question by Lord Grey's Government; if it had been an open question he should have immediately ceased to be a Member of that Government. He deprecated opening the doors of the Cabinet in this manner so long after they had closed.

Viscount Melbourne

said, it was not the case of one, but of ten, Mr. P. Thomson, Lord Dungannon, Mr. Labouchere, Sir Henry Parnell, the hon. A. Murray, Mr. Vernon Smith, and Sir G. Grey, all high in office, under the Government of Lord Grey, although certainly not Members of the Cabinet, voted in favour of a modification of the Corn-Laws.

The Duke of Richmond

What the noble Lord says only proves now that the underlings of Lord Grey's Government were in a very badly disciplined state.

Subject dropped.