Lords Sitting of 1 May 1840

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Lord Seaton's Annuity; Law of Evidence (Scotland).
Petitions presented. By the Marquess of Lothian, Earl Beauchamp, and the Earl of Mountcashel, from a very great number of places, against, and by Earl Fitzwilliam, from Liverpool, for, the Repeal of the Corn-laws.—By the Bishop of Durham, from Durham, for Church Extension.—By the Duke of Buccleugh, and the Earl of Aberdeen, from places in Scotland, against the General Assembly, and in favour of Non-Intrusion.

DISPUTE WITH NAPLES.
Lord Lyndhurstwould take that opportunity of asking the noble Viscount (Viscount Melbourne), whether he would object to lay on the table the treaty signed by Mr. M'Gregor and the Neapolitan minister at the close of last year, and which was to have come into operation on the first of January this year? The provisions of that treaty were well known to all parties connected with the commerce of Sicily and Naples, and they were most desirous that it should be ratified, as they were fully contented with its provisions. As connected with this subject, he wished to correct a misunderstanding as to what had taken place, and what fell from him in March last upon this subject. The facts which he then stated were admitted by the noble Viscount to be correctly staled. The noble Viscount agreed with him that there had been an infraction of the commercial treaty that existed between the Government of this country and that of Naples. The noble Viscount had stated that complaints had been made to the Neapolitan government. An attempt had been made to obtain redress, but nothing had been done in the way of concession. The noble Viscount also threw out that the Neapolitan government was desirous only that the monopoly should last for six months. He at that time complained of the delay that had taken place, and he stated, that if ships of war were sent out, the matter would soon be brought to a successful issue. In stating this, however, he never intended to sanction such proceedings as had since taken place on the part of her Majesty's Government, and upon which proceedings he would now give no opinion.
Viscount Melbournesaid, it was the intention of the Government to lay on the table of both Houses of Parliament all the documents with respect to the subject.
1144
The noble Lord had certainly stated with great correctness what had fallen from him on a former occasion, but whether the inference he had drawn from it was quite so correct, he would not say.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (IRELAND).
The Marquess of Lansdownehad several petitions to present with regard to the Irish Municipal Bill, and as these petitions were of an extremely important nature, it would be necessary for him shortly to explain them, which he thought he could better do that evening than if he delayed it till Monday. The petitions were from proprietors in Ireland, residing in liberties and counties of cities. He believed the opinion entertained by all those proprietors in common was, that it was desirable to join those liberties with the cities. Provisions to that effect had been introduced into the bill of last year, and had met with the concurrence of both Houses of Parliament; but that bill having been thrown out, the measure, of course, fell to the ground. The bill introduced into the other House would have the effect of removing the objections to the present measure. In the discussions which took place on the bill, it was admitted to be a great hardship that the proprietors of land in agricultural districts should be subject to the imposition of rates about to be established by the bill; and it was thought fit last year to connect with the Municipal Bill a provision for separating these districts, and annexing them to the municipal towns, which met with the approbation of the House. Although these petitioners had naturally taken some alarm at the omission of these clauses, they would see that they were subsequently introduced into a bill then before the other House. But these considerations arose out of the details of the measure, though he had felt it his duty to the petitioners to state to the House their views on the subject.
The Earl of Clarethought the safest course would be to restore to the present bill the clauses of the omission of which the petitioners complained.
Lord Redesdalesupported the prayer of the petitions, and concurred in the opinion of the noble Earl. It was somewhat singular that the bill now before the House of Commons had not been introduced until the matter had been stirred up by these petitioners, and that that bill should con-

1145
tain clauses similar to those which had been thrown out by the House of Commons, because they had been introduced in the House of Lords. The petitioners had a right to complain of the manner in which the bill was framed in every respect. Every point that had been mutually agreed upon in a measure should be inserted; but in the present bill no one knew what had been assented to, and what had not.
The Marquess of Lansdownesaid, the the noble Baron (Lord Redesdale) was mistaken if he thought that Ministers intended to abandon the principle of the Municipal Reform Bill. If he consulted the ordinary channels of information he would find, that when the noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland, introduced into the House of Commons this Session the bill now on the table of the House, the bill introduced last year was opened, and his (Lord Lansdowne's) noble Friend stated, that it was his intention that the one should follow the other. The separation of the agricultural districts from the town portions of the boroughs, in respect to taxation, was in accordance with the enactments of the English Municipal Reform Bill.
Lord Redesdalecomplained that the Municipal Bill had been brought up to their Lordships on the 10th of March, and that the other bill had not been introduced in the other House until the 11th of April; whereas the two bills were (he was told) to be treated as a joint measure. Their Lordships might have gone into committee upon the Municipal Bill, and even passed it, before they could have any knowledge of the other.
Petitions laid on the table.

CORN-LAWS.—THE AVERAGES.
Earl Fitzwilliam, in making the motion of which he had given notice, as to fiar prices in Scotland, observed that the present high price on the import of foreign com arose from the comparatively low average price of corn, as compared with the price of that which alone was fit for human sustenance. It was clear that it did not arise from plenty; it arose from another source. He was about to move for papers which would illustrate the singular coincidence which he had stated. The fact was that we had a low average price and a high import duty, not because corn was plentiful, but because it was bad. And now, let their Lordships observe the work-
1146
ing of the Act of Parliament. At the very moment that it was most desirable that an ample supply of the best corn that could be had, whether British or foreign, should be brought into our markets, the average being brought down by the unpropitious circumstances of the last harvest, the import duty was raised, and, when we wanted foreign corn, there was an obstacle to its introduction. He knew not whether a more powerful illustration of the fact he was now stating—namely, that loreign corn was excluded because our own was bad—could be given, than the results which must be elicited from the papers for which he was about to move. In one county in Scotland he understood the fiar price of corn was 56 s. a quarter; but if he was not mistaken there were other counties in which it was much lower. And not only in Scotland, but in the north of England, the price was exceedingly low, as compared with the price of bread corn. In one county where corn was 57 s. a quarter, the quartern loaf was 9½d. These were a few of the circumstances which he ventured to say must—he hoped he need not add unwillingly—force this question on their Lordships' attention. It was impossible but that the Legislature of this country should consider the question of the Corn-laws when bread was sold at a price which far exceeded that which would enable the people, at their present wages, to purchase a sufficient quantity of food. He should conclude by moving for returns showing the fiar prices of wheat in the several counties in Scotland during the years 1838 and 1839.
The Marquess of Salisburywished to know what proof the noble Earl was prepared to give of the assertion that the price of bread corn was dear, while the average price of wheat was low?
Earl Fitzwilliam, in answer to the question of the noble Marquess, said, the last crop, particularly in Scotland, was very bad, and consequently brought a low price in the market. In the county of Stirling the fiar price was 38 s. a quarter. If the noble Marquess knew anything of the trade of a miller, which he hoped he did, because it was the duty of every man who acted as a legislator to be well acquainted with a great number of details which were very unaristocratic, but without being acquainted with which he, nevertheless, could not legislate wisely—he must be aware that the corn which the miller

1147
bought at Stirling at the price of 38 s., and in Westmoreland at 57 s., was not fit to enter into the composition of bread for human subsistence. It must be kept a long time, and must (unless the miller meant to make his own bread) be put through extensive processes, and require a large outlay of capital, for which he must be remunerated by the higher price at which he sold. These were the grounds on which he ventured to say the price of bread corn was not fairly stated by the averages as exhibited in the Gazette. He was wrong in saying that the quartern loaf was 9½ d., for the quartern loaf no longer existed; but the 4lb. loaf was selling at Peterborough for 9½ d. He would state another circumstance. Four years ago the Poor-law Amendment Bill came into operation. Four years ago the contract for supplying the poor of the Peterborough Union was 4d. for the 4lb. loaf, and now it was 7d. or 7¾ d., making a difference of 70 or 80 per cent, in that period.
The Marquess of Salisburysaid, the reason the corn was carried wet to market by the farmers was, because the noble Earl, and others like him, kept up agitation on the subject. With respect to the contract for the Peterborough Union, the poor of that union, he presumed, were fed upon thirds, and any contractor would furnish bread of that quality at 4d. the 4lb. loaf. He could not see what change the noble Earl wished to have accomplished in this respect, unless he meant to bring the poor to live upon oaten bread, as suggested by the noble Earl (Radnor) near him.
Earl Radnor: I beg leave positively to deny that. I contradicted it at the time, and I beg to contradict it now. I never said any thing of the kind.
The Marquess of Salisburysaid, that the noble Earl had said so, as far as he understood him. The noble Earl certainly said he did not see why the people should not live on oaten bread. At all events, the noble Earl need not have said that he (the Marquess of Salisbury) did not hear him.
The Earl of Radnor: The noble Marquess could not hear what I never said. I never said anything about wholesomeness of oaten bread, or anything of the sort; what I said was, that it would not be a bad thing for the people of England to fall back upon roast beef and plum-
1148
pudding with barley bread. He had laid the stress on the roast beef.

CORN-LAWS—LIVERPOOL PETITION.
Earl Fitzwilliam, in presenting a petition from Liverpool against the Corn-laws, said, that the mercantile community formed a body not unworthy of their Lordships' attention. Their dealings and opinions entitle them to it. It was to them the country owed its power and pre-eminence in Europe: to them, let him say their Lordships owed their own wealth and station in society. This petition proceeded from a meeting convened by the Mayor of Liverpool, and was signed by him on behalf of the merchants, bankers, and other inhabitants who attended it. It prayed that the hardships which the people so long suffered from a partial and exclusive system might be removed. The second petition proceeded from a meeting similarly convened, and second only in commercial importance to that of Liverpool. It was from the mayor, aldermen, and burgesses of Kingston-upon-Hull. The next was from the mayor, aldermen, and councillors of the borough of Derby; and the next from the mayor, aldermen, and councillors of the borough of Wigan. He had, besides, eighty-one petitions, signed by 36,000 persons, to the same effect, knowing there was one from Boston, than which there was no town more dependent on agriculture for support.
Lord Wynfordwished to know whether these petitioners were willing to forego the advantage they derived from the protection afforded to their manufactures?
Earl Fitzwilliam: Yes. And all the petitions from the great manufacturing towns this year stated the wish of the inhabitants to be, that they should receive no greater protection than other classes. But even if they were not willing to give up the protecting duties, that furnished no argument in support of the Corn-laws; for the protection to agriculture far exceeded thirty per cent., the degree guaranteed to our manufactures when our commercial system underwent a revision some years back. Foreign corn could not be imported until the price reached at least 65 s., and thus the agriculturist enjoyed not merely the benefit of the duty on foreign corn when the price was high, but of a practical prohibition up to that period.
The Marquess of Salisburysaid, he saw

1149
by the petition from Liverpool, that it did not proceed from the corporation.
Earl Fitzwilliam: The noble Marquess had taken an exception to this petition which was unworthy of his station or character. He had never said the petition proceeded from the corporation. It was of more value than if it had, for it was not confined to the corporation, but emanated from the whole body of the inhabitants. It could not well be distinguished by a more authoritative character. The noble Marquess would not, surely, say that the wealth and intelligence of the town were confined to the members of the corporation. The noble Marquess was too well acquainted with Liverpool to make such an assertion. [The Marquess of Salisbury: "Hear, hear."] Oh! he saw the noble Marquess chuckled over the inference, that because he stated that there were persons of wealth and intelligence extrinsic to the corporation, men of the same characteristics were not to be found within. His words, however, bore no such construction.
The Marquess of Salisburyexplained, and said, that all he meant to convey was, that it did not appear who were the persons attending this meeting, and he should be now entitled to move its rejection, as it purported to be from the mayor, bankers, &c, of Liverpool, whereas it was signed only by the mayor. He wished to know from the clerk how he had entered it?
The Clerk: In the name of the person signing it.
Petitions laid on the table.