CORN LAWS. (Hansard, 6 May 1841)

§ Earl Fitzwilliam
gave notice that he would, to-morrow, present a petition from Leeds, in favour of the repeal of the Corn Laws.

§ Lord Ashburton
was desirous of knowing whether the noble Earl intended to go into the question generally on the presentation of the petition of which he had given notice. If he did so intend he ought to state the circumstance to their Lordships. Nothing was more inconvenient than that a question of such deep importance, and in which such vital interests were concerned, should he brought forward on the occasional presentation of petitions. But if the noble Earl was desirous of having the question fully and fairly entered into—let notice be given of it, and they would discuss the question on its general principles. If it were the intention of the noble Earl to do so to-morrow he should be most happy to take that opportunity of explaining what were his views on the subject.

§ Earl Fitzwilliam
said, that according to the state in which the matter at present stood, the proper course would be, to wait till the proceedings relating to this subject in the other House of Parliament (which was the proper quarter whence any proposition with reference to it should emanate) were regularly brought under their Lordships' view. When the question was thus introduced, he should be prepared to discuss it fully. If he should present the petition from Leeds to-morrow, he certainly should do so without any intention of entering into a long discussion on the corn-laws; but when the proper time arrived he should state what his intentions were, in order to 1475 attain that great object, which he, in common with Her Majesty's Government, had in view. But, with reference to the great town of Leeds (about the fifth manufacturing town in the kingdom), it was just that he should state, that the most wealthy and influential persons there, had thought it advisable, in the most decisive and authoritative manner they could think of, to come to certain resolutions with respect to this question, in order that their Lordships might be fully acquainted with their sentiments. That was the reason why he had not acted, with reference to this petition, in the ordinary manner, by merely laying it on the table; and he did not think he acted improperly in thus making known to their Lordships what were the opinions of great masses of people in relation to this question, many of them being men well and extensively informed on the subject.

§ Lord Ashburton
thought, that if they were to wait until the bill founded upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer's new project for obtaining money without taxes came before their Lordships, they would never be called upon to discuss this question at all. He did not here allude to the Corn Laws alone. He referred to the whole scheme for new modelling, as it was called, our financial system, to the grand project by which they were to raise revenue without taxation. He did not understand the hocus pocus by which this was to be accomplished—and the people who approved so highly of it never thought it necessary to look into the machinery and see how it was to be effected. Seriously, he was bound to say, that this was the most entire delusion and the most absurd bubble that was ever brought to the notice of an intelligent community.

§ Earl Fitzwilliam
The noble Lord had said, that this was an attempt to remodel the entire condition of the law. But, let it never be forgotten that these were new laws, which he (Earl Fitzwilliam) was ashamed to say, he, as a very young man, had supported. He could not, like the noble Lord, look back with the glorious satisfaction of thinking on the firm, wise, and powerful opposition which he gave to those laws, night after night, when the noble Lord stood alone against 500 united Members of the House of Commons. The noble Lord at that time declared those laws to be inconsistent with true commercial wisdom. He well recollected the noble Lord, in a very small minority, coming down to the House of Commons and de- 1476 nouncing the corn law measures on which they were then engaged as erroneous and uncommercial—He recollected the noble Lord—he was then a very young man—backed by the merchants, bankers, and traders of the city of London, raising his voice against what he very properly called a monstrous proposition, for monstrous it was, and monstrous it would still be called by every man who had a particle of commercial blood in his veins. But he was afraid that every drop of commercial blood had oozed from the noble Lord, since he had changed his character from that of a merchant and a liberal politician to that of a great landowner and an aristocrat. Notwithstanding the majorities which had voted against a revision and relaxation of the corn laws in that House, on the motions he had submitted on former occasions, he did not despair of such a measure being finally successful. Those majorities were gradually diminishing. When he first brought the question forward, knowing that the minority would be extremely small, he did not divide the House. The following year twenty-four noble Lords voted with him; and last year he had the satisfaction to receive the support of forty-two of their Lordships; and he believed that at the present moment there were between fifty and sixty noble Lords ready to record, by their votes, their disapprobation of this system. The noble Lord asked, why he had given notice of his intention to present a petition from the great town of Leeds, and had further inquired whether there were not other parties to be heard? That question was not quite so consistent with the historical memory of the noble Lord as they had a right to expect. Did he not recollect the petitions presented by the noble Duke (Buckingham) on a former day, from other parties, on this question, and did he not remember the speeches that were then made by noble Lords opposite? He was sorry that this discussion had been so inconveniently introduced, but it had not been introduced by him.

§ Lord Ashburton
would say a few words in reply to the remarks which had been made relating personally to himself. It had been said, that his opinions were different now from what they had been twenty five years ago. Now, to a certain extent, he admitted this; but if it were entirely so, he thought that it was not a charge of a very serious nature. But the question on which his opinion had been formerly expressed was a very different one from that which at 1477 present engaged the public mind—and in reality he had not materially changed his views on the general subject. The question in which he had taken an active part. was in 1815, when a proposal was made, at the end of a long and expensive war, was to increase the protection from 65s. or 66s. up to 80s. Now this was a very different matter. No person could then any, after the long war in which we had been engaged, how the interests of the country would settle down—in what position and in what relative footing commerce and agriculture would stand—and so, under such circumstances, he had thought it imprudent to do that for which the noble Earl now reproached himself with having done, namely, to increase, without duly considering and watching the condition in which the country would be placed after a few years of peace, the extent of protection. In 1828, the sole question was as to the amount of protection, and he certainly did not at that time approve of the sweeping measure proposed. He thought that the protection then asked for was excessive, and granting to the cultivators of the land more than that fair protection to which their position entitled them, and which their wants demanded. He did not then, nor could he now, approve of excessive protection. He did not then approve of a sweeping measure in their favour—he did not now approve of a more sweeping measure against them. His opinions—by the increased information and experience of twenty-five years—might have slightly varied—and whose had not? But in most respects and on general principles, they were materially the same.