Earl of Fitzwilliampresented three petitions from Edinburgh, praying for a repeal of the Corn-laws.
§ The Duke of Richmondwould take that opportunity of asking his noble Friend what the terms of the motion were which he intended to propose. It, in his opinion, would be convenient if their lordships were put in possession of the proposition which they were to be called upon to negative.
§ Earl Fitzwilliamsaid, as his noble Friend had made a speech, it would not be out of order in him to do so also. His noble Friend wanted to know the terms of 915 the proposition which their Lordships were to be called upon to negative. Now his noble Friend presumed, he thought, a little too much upon his knowledge of what their Lordships' intention might be. Their Lordships would have an opportunity of considering the matter, and there was no occasion for them to hasten immediately to negative the proposition. He hoped that their Lordships would consider the question with all the deliberation due to one which regulated, not only the importation of corn, but also the exportation of the produce of this country, and thereby affected the happiness and welfare of the great mass of the people. Their Lordships must be aware that it was perfectly impossible for this country to export the produce of its industry unless at the same time it imported the produce of the industry of other countries. Having so far answered his noble Friend, he had to state to their Lordships, that the motion he should submit to them, for their due and deliberate consideration, would be, "that it is expedient to re consider the laws which regulate the importation of foreign corn."
§ The Duke of Richmondcould assure his noble Friend that the more deliberation the Corn-laws received in that House, the more he should be satisfied, for he only wanted that the public should know the real truth of the case. Their Lordships were aware that persons were sent about the country to tell those things which were not true, and were trying to raise an ill feeling between the labourers, their employers, and landlords. Of course he did not mean to accuse his noble Friend of being a party to the sending abroad of those emissaries. He had merely thought it necessary to know the terms of the motion to be proposed by his noble Friend; and hecon idered it would be negatived as a matter of course, because he knew his noble Friend would bring forward no motion inconsistent with the many pamphlets he had published on the subject. He hoped that his noble Friend would not only bring forward his motion, but would give the House by a vote an opportunity of seeing how many of their Lordships were hostile, as he called it, to the interests of the country.
The Earl of Falmouthwas anxious that the discussion of the subject should take place, because the truth would then be brought to light.
§ Earl Fitzwilliamquite agreed with the noble Earl, that the more the subject was discussed and considered the better, and, therefore, he did not think that the noble Duke (Richmond) had any right to find fault with those persons who were going about the country. He thought that both lecturers and anti-lecturers were useful in order that the thinking part of the population might be brought to consider the subject. He believed it was one which a great number of persons had very little studied, and he was bound to express his belief that even amongst the highest ranks, not even excepting Members of their Lordships' House, the subject had been very little considered. These were the grounds which induced him to bring forward certain points connected with the subject incidentally.
The Marquess of Salisburydid not think it very desirable that the question should be discussed on the presentation of petitions, and without due notice.
§ The Duke of Richmondhad never objected to lecturers going about the country, but what he objected to was their stating what was perfectly untrue, in order to excite the labourers against their employers. He did not think it came very well from the manufacturers, who themselves employed large bodies of artisans and workmen, to be inflaming the feelings and passions of the working classes against their masters.
The Earl of Falmouthwould remind the noble Earl that the organ of the Anti-corn-law party, a very mischievous publication, called the Anti-corn-law Circular, had termed the landlords blood-suckers, robbers of the poor, and enemies of the poor.
§ Earl Fitzwilliamhad seen the paper in question, but any body who took in a newspaper was not to be held responsible for its language; indeed there was hardly any newspaper that did not contain something reprehensible. He thought it was a very indecent mode of describing a most respectable class, who were certainly equally respectable with the fund-owners, the mill-owners, or any other owners.
The Earl of Falmouthsaid, that the noble Earl would find that these words had been made use of in the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, and he was rather surprised to find so respectable a body of merchants sanctioning the use of such terms.
§ The Earl of Warwicksaid, that if the noble Lord looked at the Anti-Corn-law Circular, he would find that he was recognised as their leader in the House of Lords, and that all the petitions were recommended to be sent to him for presentation.
§ Earl Fitzwilliamsaid, he did not think the Chamber of Commerce was responsible for the opinions of every individual of the body.—Petitions laid on the table.