THE CORN-LAWS. (Hansard, 3 May 1841)

The Duke of Buckingham
presented petitions, in all 120, from Newport Pagnell, Ditchley, Great Marlow, Great and Little Hillingdon, and a large number of other places in the counties of Buckingham, Oxford, Suffolk, Northampton, Derby, Southampton, and Sussex, against any alteration of the Corn-laws. He thought it right to state, that those petitions were signed by farmers, tradesmen, clergymen, and labourers. They were sighed previously to the announcement relative to the Cornlaws that had been recently made in another place; but that announcement had induced the petitioners immediately to communicate with him, and request him to call their Lordships' attention to their feelings on this subject. They expressed their astonishment at the announcement to which he had alluded; and the deep regret which they experienced in finding that the noble Viscount opposite had united with his colleagues in taking a course, by attempting to alter the Corn-laws, that would hazard and endanger everything that was dear and valuable to this country. The petitioners expressed their anxious desire to come before their Lordships, not asking for a monopoly under any circumstances, but simply praying that they might not be deprived of that protection which all classes of her Majesty's subjects had a right to enjoy; and they declared their determination to resist, by every means in their power, the withdrawal of that protection, which they now possessed in common with other classes of the community. So far as he was concerned, he had heard with regret and astonishment what had occurred in another place; but he hoped, that that declaration would be met by the 1373 Commons of England, and by their Lord ships in such a way as would at once dispel the fears of the agricultural interest, and would enable them to pass the rest of their lives in the peaceful enjoyment of their own property, and to give employment to the labouring classes, who, if those laws were repealed, would be deprived of the means of subsistence. Had the noble Viscount reflected on, and considered well, what would, and what must be, the result of such a measure as that which it was the intention of his noble colleagues to bring forward? When he heard the noble Viscount last year ex press his opinion so strongly on this question, he certainly was not prepared to find the noble Viscount ready to support such a course as Government was now about to adopt. When he adverted to what the noble Viscount had stated on that occasion, he must say, that after the avowal of such sentiments, he did not expect that the noble Viscount would give his support to such a measure as was now contemplated; he did not think that the Government of this day would be ready and prepared to come forward with a proposition for the repeal of the Corn-laws. In referring to the opinion of the noble Viscount, he would not trust to his own memory, but would quote from a report of his speech, which he believed to be perfectly correct. On the occasion to which be alluded, the noble Viscount had expressed himself in these terms:— His noble Friend had carefully abstained from stating what it was that he meant to do; whether his object was to have a fixed duty, or a diminution of the present ascending and descending scale; but whichever of these alternatives was his noble Friend's plan, as he saw clearly and distinctly, that that object would not be carried without a most violent struggle; without causing touch ill-blood, and a deep sense of grievance; without stirring society to its foundations; and leaving behind every sort of bitterness and animosity; he did net think that the advantages to be gained by the change were worth the evils of the struggle, by which their Lordships might depend on it the change could alone be effected. They had seen great changes at no distant period—changes which had stirred society from the bottom, which had excited man against man—divided the whole country into parties and left behind the deepest feelings of discord and enmity. He, for one, was not for adding to those feelings, by rashly adventuring to stir and agitate them; and upon those general grounds he felt himself justified 1374 in saying 'No' to the motion to the noble Earl."^* It was to prevent that struggle in the country, to which the noble Viscount had adverted so feelingly, that he (the Duke of Buckingham) now called upon their Lordships to support the existing laws. He hoped that they would never see that struggle; but so surely as the noble Viscount and his colleagues should take the step that had been mentioned, no surely would this country he plunged into a state of irremediable confusion; and the consequence, however unfortunate, must rest on the noble Viscount and his colleagues.

§ Viscount Melbourne
said, as the noble Duke, in presenting petitions relative to the Corn-laws, had so pointedly alluded to the part which he had taken when that subject was discussed on a former occasion, he thought that it was necessary for him to say a few words in reply. Unquestionably, he had expressed strong opinions and sentiments on this subject at different times, because he felt and knew that there were many reasons and grounds which rendered any agitation of the question of the Corn-laws liable to very great objection. But, at the same time, it must be recollected by the House, that upon every occasion on which he had addressed their Lordships on this subject, he had always said, that his opposition to the re. consideration of the Corn-laws, with a view to their alteration, wag based upon particular and temporary grounds; and, with repeat to the measure itself, he had carefully reserved his opinion. Upon no occasion had he ever pledged himself to support the law as it at present stood, because he saw that the time must come, when it would be necessary for their Lordships to take this question into their serious consideration, for the purpose of placing the law on another basis. The noble Duke had quoted some expressions used by him, with reference to this subject, on a former occasion. No doubt many similar expressions might be found in addresses which it had been his duty to make to their Lordships; and to the arguments which he had on those occasions introduced, he did not, at the present moment, deny a great portion of force and strength. But, when he delivered his sentiments to that House, on the question ^* Hansard, vol. liv. p. 1042. 1375 which was then before it, and to which the noble Duke had referred, he had expressly said, My noble Friend has put his motion in such a way, as to present very little difficulty to me—namely, that it is expedient to reconsider the laws relating to the importation of foreign corn.' Now, I am distinctly of opinion that it is inexpedient. At the same time I do not mean to pledge myself to the continuance of the existing laws, or in any respect bind myself to the maintenance of the present amount of duties. This is a question of circumstance; because circumstances connected with the state of the country, considerations of various kinds, of economy or of policy, may arise, which would not only justify, but would render it necessary to pursue, a different course. But, under the present circumstances I do not think that it would be wise or prudent for Parliament to enter upon the reconsideration of these laws. Now, he conceived that it was impossible for him to have used any words that could have more clearly or distinctly shown that in his opinion a time might come, and circumstances might arise, when this question, with all its difficulties, inconveniences, and disadvantages, must be taken into consideration. Those circumstances had arisen, that time, in his opinion, had now come, when it was found necessary, in order to meet the exigencies of the country, to adopt wide and extensive financial measures—measures which affected every other interest in the country—when, he owned, it appeared impossible to him to leave that, the master grievance (so the noble Viscount was understood to say), untouched. Under such circumstances—under such necessities, and in such a crisis, he had agreed to take that course which the noble Duke complained of, still holding the opinion which he formerly held, which was grounded on temporary circumstances, as to the time when it might be proper to bring forward this question. That opinion was entirely based and grounded on particular and temporary circumstances, and not on the real meaning and bearing of the measure itself.

§ The Earl of Ripon
said, he had heard, with very great surprise, and with very deep regret, the speech of his noble Friend, not only on account of the great interests concerned, but on account of the character of his noble Friend himself; because if he could not produce, when their Lordships came to discuss this ques- 1376 tion, more plain, more intelligible, more satisfactory grounds, for the change of opinion which he had avowed, he knew not what the country might think of his noble Friend, but this he knew, that his noble Friend would not be able to carry on the government of the country. He was anxious to ask a question of his noble Friend. In his opinion their Lordships had a right to know on what principle the Government meant to act? Was the proposed alteration to be founded on the principle of protection—or was it to be a measure of taxation? If it were to be a measure founded on the principle of protection, then vanished into air all the arguments used by the Anti-corn law league—then vanished the grounds on which the passions of the multitude had been appealed to. Then would Government establish, by their own act, that very principle of protection, which those who supported the Anti-corn league objected to. The Corn-law was a measure of protection; and those who supported it did so on the grounds of humanity, and of consideration for the wants and comforts of the poor; and if Government abandoned that high and generous principle,—if, instead of it, they adopted the principle of taxing corn for the production of revenue, they would do that of which, he believed, no country in the world had ever before afforded an example. Such a proceeding would be the most unpopular, the most cruel, and the most unjustifiable, that was ever forced upon a reluctant legislature.

§ Viscount Melbourne
Most unquestionably the measure will proceed on the principle of protection.

The Earl of Winchilsea
said, that from what he had heard, he was convinced that the measure contemplated would not be one of protection, but would be framed to increase the revenues of the country. He considered it to be a measure of taxation, and he for one, as belonging to the landed interest, would give it every opposition in his power. For his own part, he would agree to any tax rather than to a tax on the most essential article for food of the working classes. He would lose no opportunity of stating his opinion on the subject, and he hoped that the whole country would rise as one man against such a tax, against a tax on bread. Why should he attempt to do away with a system which was intended as far as possible 1377 to render this country independent of other states for its supply of corn, and which at the same time enabled them to supply the labouring classes with bread as cheap as it could be grown? It was a principle established in all ages, and would be held as a correct one so long as the world existed, that no country could be independent that was unable to supply itself with bread. On that ground he had supported the Corn-laws, and if they attempted to abandon those laws now, for the purpose of inflicting a heavy tax on the labouring classes, let them, he would say, in God's name resist the attempt as one man, and resist it to the uttermost. Let them rise in that House and do their duty to the labouring classes; let them tax the higher orders, if it must be so; but in God's name let them forbear from placing a tax upon bread, which formed the chief subsistence of the poorer classes. A popular cry of cheap bread had been raised throughout the country. Ministers, knowing that their foreign, domestic, commercial and financial policy were generally condemned, were now endeavouring to bolster up their popularity by this plan, the most wicked that ever the Government of a great country ever proposed. They hoped by taking this course that the "cheap bread" cry would be of use to them in case of a dissolution of Parliament, but the people had too much sense to be deluded by that cry; for they know that cheap bread was synonymous with low wages. When the loaf was at 4d., and meat 1½d. and 3d. per pound, what did the people say? They said, "What is this cheap bread to us when our wages are so wretchedly low that we have no money to purchase if?" By this attempt, by taking away the protection from the produce of the newly emancipated West-Indian Colonies, and giving encouragement to foreign sugar, Ministers had rendered themselves more odious than ever, and had hurried on their own downfall.