Lords Sitting of 4 June 1841

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Assessed Taxes Composition.—Read a second time:—Stamp Duties; Law Proceedings,—Read a third time;—Victoria Park.
Petitions presented. By the Earl of Aberdeen, the Marquess of Bute, the Duke of Buecleugh, and the Earl of Powis, from Aberdeen, Oxfordshire, Melrose, Huntingdon, and other places, against Alteration in the Corn-laws.—By the Marquess of Anglesea, the Marquess of Normanby, the Earl of Radnor, Viscount Melbourne, Earl Fitzwilliam, Earl Stanhope, and other noble Lords, from Burton-upon-Trent, Kingston-upon-Hull, Uxbridge, Dunstable, Derby, and a great many other places, for a Repeal of the Corn-laws.

CORN-LAWS — WAGES — PETITIONS.
Lord Braybrookepresented thirty-seven petitions from places in Essex and Berkshire, against any alteration in the Corn-laws. The noble Lord observed, that in some of the petitions it was stated, and he believed the statement to be correct, that the agricultural labourers would rather have dear bread, and fair wages to pay for it, than cheap bread, with deteriorated and inferior wages.
The Earl of Radnorwished to know from his noble Friend what amount of wages the labourers who expressed this opinion were now receiving.
Lord Braybrookesaid, he was not prepared to answer the question at that moment; but if his noble Friend wished for statistical information, he would be most happy to furnish it on a future occasion.
The Earl of Radnorsaid, as his noble Friend had stated, that in one of the petitions a certain opinion was set forth, he ought to have possessed himself of information as to the situation of those who had signed it. When such statements were made, he always wished the chapter and verse to be pointed out, whereby they could be verified. Those parties, it appeared, expressed an opinion that high wages always accompanied dear bread, and that low wages, on the contrary, were always the result of cheap bread. Now, he should like to know when that state of things had occurred?
Earl Stanhopesaid, he could inform the noble Earl. If the noble Earl would turn to the King's Speech in 1825, he would find it there stated, that the country was in a situation of ample prosperity. Wheat was then 75 s. the quarter. In 1835–36, wheat was at 36 s. the quarter, but in the Speech from the Throne, nothing was said about the prosperity of the country. On the contrary, the agricultural labourers were in a state of extreme want. He spoke of the labourers, because he wished to treat this as a labourer's, and not as a landlord's, question. At the time to which he last referred, 1835–36, the labouring classes suffered severely, though corn was

1113
cheap, from want of employment. Much distress now prevailed in the country, and the measure which Ministers proposed could not, by possibility, confer any benefit on the nation. The only way in which it could benefit the manufacturer, for whose special service it was intended, would be by enabling him to lower the rate of wages. He thanked the noble Earl opposite (Radnor) and his noble Friend, (Earl Fitzwilliam), who sat below the noble Earl, for giving their Lordships an opportunity for incidentally discussing this question. He wished their opinions to be recorded daily, for the purpose of refuting the sophistries which were employed by those who called for the repeal of the Corn-laws, and of repelling the calumnies that were directed against those by whom they were supported. He was anxious that the country should be enlightened as to the real merits of the question; believing that with respect to it, as with respect to every other question, truth was great, and would finally prevail.
The Earl of Radnorsaid, he also liked discussion, and he hoped that the noble Earl would bring this question forward. He differed from the noble Earl as to his statement of the prosperity of 1825, when corn was dear, and the distress of 1835–36, when corn was cheap. Whether there was such prosperity or not in 1825 he could not say, and he wished to learn from the noble Earl where he arrived at the knowledge of its existence? [Earl Stanhope: In the King's Speech.] Well, where was the proof of the great distress of the labourer in 1836? The landowners and farmers at that time certainly cried out, and Parliamentary Committees were appointed to investigate the subject. Landowners were examined before those committees, but not one single labourer. In 1835, the Poor-law Amendment Bill was passed, (that bill which the noble Earl always described as having ruined the labouring classes), but it had not come into operation; so that the noble Earl could not attribute to that source the distress of which he had spoken. The only inference he could draw from what the noble Earl had stated was this, that the consumers of corn suffered by having corn cheap; a doctrine to which, he believed the consumers would not give their assent.
Earl Fitzwilliam: The noble Lord opposite had said, that the only way in which an alteration of the Corn-laws would benefit
1114
the manufacturers was, by enabling them to lower the rate of wages. Now, he would take leave to differ on that point from the noble Earl. The objection which he felt to the Corn-laws, in a commercial point of view, was, because they had a tendency to interrupt the intercourse between this and other countries, and thus to prevent the extensive dissemination of our manufactures, on which the constant and profitable employment of the workmen, in a great measure, depended. Saying to other nations, "We won't take your corn," was precisely the same thing as saying, "We won't let you have our manufactures;" since, by a return in corn alone could payment be made. It was in this manner that the Corn-laws operated prejudicially in a commercial point of view, and their removal would benefit the manufacturer, by extending the market for his industry.
Earl Stanhopesaid, the observation which he had made was put forward by those who were most clamorous for the repeal of the Corn-laws. The doctrine was avowed by one of them at a public meeting. That individual openly said, "Without a repeal of the Corn-laws we shall never be able to beat down the wages of the workman." With respect to what the noble Earl had said, relative to the Committee of 1826, he was aware that the fact was as the noble Earl had stated. But that did not affect his argument; because he was convinced that no instance could be pointed out in which, while the landlord suffered, the labourer did not suffer in the same degree; and he maintained that a low price of corn was always accompanied by a low rate of wages. With respect to this question, the present Government evinced the greatest vacillation and inconsistency. Though not a Chartist, he would rather be ruled by the Chartists than by such a Government; for the Chartists were, at all events, consistent. Were Ministers prepared to state, as they ought to be, the price at which foreign corn could be imported into this country? Could they answer too—not from the representations of idle theorists, or vain speculators, or persons calling themselves political economists—but from information afforded by men conversant with business, trade and manufactures— what would be the effect of a considerable reduction in the price of corn? He could inform the Government, that in the year

1115
1836, Mr. Saunders stated, that wheat could be imported from Hamburgh at an expense of 3s. or 4s. per quarter. If this were the fact, what would become of the wheat of Ireland? He admitted that the repeal of the Corn-laws would not throw land out of cultivation, but rent must be paid in produce. A state of barter would necessarily follow, and this would be attended not only with inconvenience to the landed proprietors, but with ruin to the monied classes. He should like to see the noble Lord (Viscount Melbourne) attempt to collect the revenue in kind. Would the noble Viscount pay the public creditor in kind? The effect of the alteration would be to introduce bankruptcy amongst all classes of the community. The people were at that moment suffering severely. Redress must be granted, and soon, or it would be extorted by force. And did Ministers suppose that they were throwing oil on the troubled waves of popular discontent, when they were, in fact, taking measures that would increase the evil in a ten-fold degree? Was it at such a time as this, that the labourers, who would unquestionably be further impoverished by the measure proposed by the Government, were to be insultingly told, that they must rely on their own resources, or be left to the tender mercies of the execrable New Poor-law.
Earl Duciedid not agree with the noble Earl in the opinion, that a low price of corn necessarily produced a fell in Wages. He maintained, that in the year 1835, when corn was low, the farmers had made more than in the three subsequent years high prices
Earl Fitzwilliamsaid, he thought the noble Earl Opposite was very much mistaken when he stated the cost at which corn might be imported into this country. From the best information, he had been able to obtain on the subject, he believed, that, generally speaking, the cost of freight and charges of corn from the ports of the north of Europe, could not be estimated at less than 9s. or 10 s. a quarter. There was one point in the noble Earl's speech, which he considered of the greatest possible importance The noble Earl said, that ha did not consider that an importation of cheap corn would throw the lands of this country out of cultivation This admission must afford a very great consolation to those of their Lordships who were disposed to object to the
1116
proposal for altering the Corn-laws, under the apprehension, that it would throw the land and the cultivators of the land out of employ.
Earl Stanhopesaid, that he had said that land would not be cultivated for rent.
Earl Fitzwilliamsaid, still this gratifying fact was admitted, that land would continue to be cultivated; and the produce would, in all probability, be as abundant as ever, notwithstanding the proposed alteration, the only difference being that it would not be cultivated for rent. But he thought, that the noble Earl was mistaken even upon this point, and that land would be cultivated for rent, though perhaps in some cases rents would have to suffer a reduction.
Earl Stanhopesaid, he believed the result would be to prevent any rent being paid, except in kind.
Earl Fitzwilliamsaid, the noble Earl had made a most extraordinary discovery, but not a more extraordinary one than this, which had been so often announced, that if we got corn from foreign countries, we must pay for it in gold. He would allow, that when we were not in the habit of obtaining corn from foreign countries and had only recourse to them for an occasional supply, we might have to pay in gold for it; but the-case would be very different when we were in the habit of taking a supply Of corn from foreign states. This regular importation of foreign corn would lead to an habitual commercial intercourse, which must result in our sending out manufactures, or bills, in exchange for the corn so imported.
Lord Beaumontsaid, that as a very recent Member of their Lordships' House, he felt, that it savoured somewhat of presumption in him to offer any observations to their Lordships on this important subject but he felt, that he should not be doing justice to himself or the public if he abstained from expressing his sentiments in regard to it. It appeared to him, that this must be admitted to be a fact, that for every quarter of corn imported from Dantzic or any other foreign port, a quarter of homegrown corn must be displaced from the market; and when it came to a question of preferring One market to another, he would ask would it not be more advantageous to the country to pay for that quantity of corn in any of the corn-mar-

1117
kets of England, than in one of the markets abroad, if only for this reason, that the money would then be on the spot to be exchanged for other commodities? whereas the interchange which would go on, between this and a foreign country, would be much more remote and uncertain. But, he would ask, what proof there was that foreign countries, supposing we went to their markets for corn, would take our manufactures in return? And, even if they did so, would it not be in the shape of yarn and twist, and not in our articles of finished manufacture? It stood to reason, that foreign countries, which had the same interest in maintaining their local manufactures, as we had in ours, would never consent to throw out of employ the hands and the capital engaged in manufactures amongst them, and allow us to displace themselves in their own markets in articles of finished manufacture. There was another point, also, which struck him on this subject. Supposing, that foreign corn was at an average of 40 s. a-quarter, and British grown corn at 60 s. a-quarter, would it not follow, that for every quarter of corn exchanged for our manufactures, the manufacturer would only have disposed of 40 s. worth of his goods, instead of 60 s. worth, being a clear loss of one-third in his market? He regretted the attempts which had been made by those who advocated an alteration of the Corn-laws, to array the manufacturers against the agriculturists, as if their interests were distinct. This was not the course pursued by the supporters of the Corn-laws, who wished to protect the manufacturing as well as the agricultural interests, being well assured, that the one could not prosper if the other languished, and that the one could not be injured without the other. Upon these grounds it was, that he felt it his duty to support the present Corn-laws, and to resist the attempts projected by her Majesty's Government for their alteration. It was with much regret, that he, having for so short a time enjoyed the honour of a seat in their Lordships' House felt himself compelled to oppose, upon this subject, a Government in whose general policy he concurred. But he opposed this proposal to reduce the duty upon corn, because he knew, that it would afterwards only be considered the first step to a total repeal of it—a measure which, in his opinion, must be most de-
1118
structive to all the best interests of the country.
Petitions laid on the Table.
The Earl of Hardwickepresented upwards of eighty petitions from places in Cambridgeshire against any alteration in the Corn-laws, one, he was instructed to state, was signed by labourers.
Lord Godolphin, having looked at the signatures of one of these petitions, said, that it appeared to be signed by persons belonging to his immediate neighbourhood, and of whom he could say, that they were generally so ill-informed, and so ignorant of the subject, that they would say black was white, if called upon to do so.
The Earl of Hardwickesaid, he was astonished to hear a noble Lord rise up in this House, and declare of any men, his Lordship's immediate neighbours, that they were men of such a character, that they would declare black to be white, whenever it might suit the occasion.
Lord Godolphinsaid, he certainly did not think the parties who had signed this petition, were capable of understanding anything about the subject.
The Earl of Hardwickesaid, that it was all matter of assumption for the noble Lord to say, that he believed these persons would vote any way, upon any given subject, to which they were invited even by the noble Lord himself, for it came to that also. But, he believed, the noble Lord had underrated the intellectual qualifications of these persons. He believed, that the people of the county of Cambridge were keenly alive to all that concerned their interests. Certainly no county in England was more distinguished for its skill and improvements in agriculture. They had laid out all their capital, and bestowed all their labour in this laudable enterprise; and he would challenge the noble Lord to point out any agricultural county in England, where more intelligence, industry, and zeal, had been displayed.
Earl Stanhopesaid, that he was grieved to hear the statement of the noble Lord opposite, and he believed it to be an unfounded calumny against the labouring population. He wished to ask the noble Earl (Earl Fitzwilliam) a question. He saw, that an itinerant Corn-law agitator, who bore what was once the clarum et venerabile nomen of Sidney Smith, had said, that the effect of a repeal of the

1119
Corn-laws would be to lower the price of corn to 20 s. a quarter. Now, he wished to ask the noble Earl whether he admitted that to be the fact?
Lord Godolphinsaid, that before his noble Friend answered the noble Earl's question, he must beg to state, that he never meddled with the political views of the labourers; but if he had taken the trouble which had been taken by other parties, he had no doubt he could have got as many petitions the other way as those which the noble Earl had presented.
Earl Fitzwilliamsaid, that he had nothing to do with Corn-law lecturers. It was enough for him to be responsible for his own opinions. The gentleman to whom the noble Lord referred, must be entirely mistaken, when he said, that corn could be introduced at 20 s. a quarter. He would recommend the noble Earl (the Earl of Hardwicke) to call a county meeting, and then it would be seen what the opinions of the people were. Fie would like to ask the noble Earl, what kind of argument was addressed to these labourers to induce them to sign these petitions?
The Earl of Hardwickesaid, he did not know, but he knew, that the opinion of the labourers was this, that they suffered during low prices, and that they stated, they were now very comfortable. That was about as much as they could be expected to know on this important question. These petitions were handed to him, as being worthy of the attention of the House, and with that knowledge he presented them. With respect to the suggestion of the noble Earl relative to calling a county meeting, he should imagine, that the great meeting last year sufficiently indicated the feeling of the country on the subject.
The Earl of Mountcashelsaid, he did now see what reason the noble Lords opposite had to quarrel with the petitions presented by the noble Earl (the Earl of Hardwicke). It must be in the recollection of the House, that a few nights ago, the noble Earl (Earl Fitzwilliam) presented a petition from a parcel of women, all of whom, with the exception of five, put marks in the place of signatures.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that he rose to order. It was contrary to the Standing Orders of the House, that a noble Lord should refer to what had taken place in a former debate on the subject.
1120
He, therefore, thought, that the noble Earl might as well wait until the general subject was brought under discussion.
The Earl of Mountcashelsaid, that he stood corrected, but if the two noble Earls opposite (the Earls of Radnor and Fitzwilliam) persisted in discussing the question every night, he thought he had a right to make some few observations in reply to them.
Petitions laid on the Table.
Adjourned.