Lords Sitting of 7 May 1841

MINUTES.
Bill. Read a second time:—School Sites.
Petitions presented. By Earl Delaware, from Milford, Milton, Southampton, and other places, against the Cornlaws—By Lords Lyndhurst, and Ellenborough, from St. Vincent, and Tortola, against any Alteration in the Sugar Duties By the Duke of Argyle, and the Marquess of Downshire, from Belfast, Down, and several other places, against Lay Patronage.—By Lord Portman, from the Guardians of the Wellington Union, for an Alteration in the Poor-law.

SUGAR DUTIES.
The Earl of Harewoodpresented several petitions from the parishes of Port Royal, St. Mary, St. George, St. James, and St. Thomas, in Jamaica, against any alteration of the sugar duties. He also begged to present a petition from a large body of West-India proprietors, and others, connected with that colony, agreed to at a public meeting, held in the metropolis, making a similar prayer. The petitioners stated, that if slave-grown sugar were admitted into England, the proprietors of the island of Jamaica would be unable to carry on those measures of
2
improvement which they had lately begun. They also felt, that the contemplated alteration would be an encouragement to the slave-trade, which this country had made such great sacrifices to suppress. He did not wish to say anything disagreeable to any party, but he thought it most extraordinary, that such a measure should be proposed, when it was known, that our colonies were about recovering from the state of embarrassment and adversity which the great change of the emancipation of the slaves had necessarily and naturally produced. He thought, that that proposal, if carried into effect, would be most injurious to moral and religious improvement throughout the world, and almost fatal to the population of the West Indies. For his own part, putting these considerations out of the question, he much doubted whether the contemplated change would produce the effect which had been anticipated. He had not much faith in the new theories now so much in fashion, and of late we had had so many of these experiments, and in no case did they succeed. There

3
had been the new scheme of Post-office regulation, and there had been other notable schemes for improving our condition, but, despite of them all, it was still found, that our expenditure far exceeded our revenue. He was not, therefore, very sanguine, judging from the experience of the past, of the success of the present measure, merely on financial and fiscal considerations. He could not agree to it, because he had no confidence in such theories. It had been said, that revenue could be obtained without taxation. He did not know by what machinery it was done—by what means so glorious a consummation was to be accomplished. This country had, during the course of the last year, been engaged in two wars, and these wars, it was to be supposed, had been commenced, and had been carried on for national purposes—for the benefit of the nation at large—and, if this were the case, surely the people of the country who had been thus benefited, could not reasonably refuse, nor, indeed, would be unwilling, to meet the expense in another generous and straightforward manner, by the usual method of taxation. By this scheme, they ran the risk of ruining utterly and completely the colonists of the empire. But, supposing, that the effect of the plan would be such as was anticipated, and that it would produce a vast revenue, in addition to that which already flowed into the coffers of the nation, still he would object to it on other and higher grounds. He would object on one great and important principle. He objected lo it, because it must necessarily increase the slave-trade. And for this one simple reason—if their Lordships were sure, that by this new scheme, they would materially raise the revenue, they ought not to adopt it. How could they say—and this they had said— to any other country, "You must not carry on your trade in slaves—you must cease to encourage, or even tolerate, a traffic so abominable?" How could they say this to any foreign country, when they were themselves, by their own general plan of policy, doing that which above all things would increase and extend the trafficking in slaves? Their own acts would belie their words. They had already spent twenty millions at one time, and twenty millions more at other times, and in ways less direct, to suppress this trade in our own colonies, and now, such was their consistency, they were proposing a scheme to raise and extend slavery in other quarters
4
of the globe. The trade of the country was not conducted on sound and honest principles. New schemes were afloat—speculations on foreign credit were carried on to a large extent—the bill system, with all its evil and nefarious consequences, was in vogue, and men of straw existed to an amount that was to be deplored; and, in his opinion, it would be better that our trade should be diminished, than that it should be increased on such a basis. If we imported Brazilian sugar, the money given for it must necessarily go to purchase slaves. He had taken the present opportunity of thus expressing his sentiments on a question of such vital interest; but he would now trespass on their Lordships' attention no further than to present the petition to which he had alluded. He also begged to present a petition from the Colonial Society, which concluded with a similar prayer to that which he had already read.
The Earl of Mountcashelsaid, the petion just presented from the Colonial Society had been agreed to at a meeting where he presided, and as he now rose for the purpose of presenting another petition, he should take the opportunity of saying a few words upon the subject of the petition just presented by the noble Earl near him. The Colonial Society was composed of more than 1,000 members— men of all shades of political opinions and principles, Whig, Tory, and Radical—but when they met to discuss the grievance of which the petition complained, they forgot all political distinctions, and united as one man in their resistance lo changes in the existing law.
Earl Fitzwilliamthought it was not usual for a noble Lord to rise to address the House on one petition, and then to present another. The noble Earl had said, that the Colonial Society was composed of men of all political principles. Now, he understood the profession of political principles to be equivalent to the expression of a determination to pursue and promote the public interest according to certain specified modes of action. Here then, was a set of men professing to be Whigs, Tories, and Radicals, who forgot heir public principles the moment their own private interests were in any danger.
The Earl of Mountcashelcontended, that the course he had pursued was in perfect accordance with the practice of their Lordships' House. The noble Earl

5
concluded by presenting a petition from the inhabitants of Antigua, against any alteration in the sugar duties. The petition was signed by every class amongst the inhabitants of that colony, including many free coloured labourers.
The Earl of Radnorsaid, there was no reason why the people of this country should not enjoy refined sugar at 3½d. per pound, instead of paying 7d. for coarse sugar. From the most recent and correct intelligence on the condition of Antigua, he was enabled to say, that the produce of sugar there had more than doubled since the introduction of free labour, and that the value of land had increased more than four or five-fold. He had been reading that morning Gurney's Tour through the West Indies, in which it was stated, that ever since slavery had been abolished, sugar had increased in price, and could be produced at less cost, which fact clearly established, that free-grown sugar could compete with sugar, the produce of slave colonies.
The Earl of Mountcashelsaid, that Brazilian sugar, after having been sent to England and refined, and then sent out to the West Indies, could be sold at a lower rate than that which was produced I in our own colonies. He thought that fact proved that free could not compete with slave-made sugar.
The Earl of Harewoodthought, that if the statement of Mr. Gurney were a true one, that the improved method of production rendered the price of West-India sugar much cheaper than it had formerly been, surely there was less necessity for the introduction of foreign sugar from countries where slavery was practised.
Lord Ashburtonwas desirous of explaining the fact as to the consumption of slave-grown sugar in the West Indies. The sugar which was refined in bond was sent there, and no duty was paid upon it, and so the population of the West Indies consumed the sugar without duty, instead of the people of this country consuming with the duty. If its amount were considerable, perhaps it might be made a fair subject of revenue; but this was not the case. As to the statement that sugar from our colonies was no dearer than slave-grown sugar, he must state his belief that the Gentleman who had expressed that opinion, influenced, as no doubt he was, by the best feelings of humanity, had been led away by such feelings, and his judg-
6
ment had been somewhat biassed. The strongest proof of the contrary was afforded by the fact, that the change made in our colonies by the abolition of slavery had been followed by the greatly increased price of sugar; and, as the cause of that increase, the reduced quantity of its supply. Whatever might be the cause of Antigua, or of any particular locality, where separate and individual and distinct causes operated, this unquestionably was the fact throughout the greater number of the West-India Islands. It was certain, as far as our experience had yet gone, that the establishment of freedom had greatly reduced the supply of sugar. It had been stated by the noble Earl (Fitzwilliam) that the petitioners whose claims had been laid before their Lordships were interested parties, and, consequently, that, little weight was due to their opinions. But, in his view of the matter, if ever petitioners were entitled to be listened to with the deepest attention and the most careful consideration, these petitioners who now came before them, whose prospects, whose fortunes, and whose condition, were at stake, were especially so; and as for their opinions, he, for one, would certainly attach more value to the judgments and. conclusions of men practically acquainted with the subject on which they spoke than to those metaphysical Gentlemen who dealt in such wild and extravagant fancies, rather—much rather—than to the very wise and profound Members of such bodies as the Anti-Corn-Law League. He would repeat, that of all the petitions that came before the House, those were most entitled to respect which proceeded from practical men.

CHINA.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, that he had presented a petition the other evening from the merchants of Bombay, on the subject of our relations with China. He understood that it had been intimated in another place that her Majesty's Ministers had come to the determination not to ratify any treaty with the Emperor of China based on the preliminary articles agreed to by Captain Elliot. He wished to know of her Majesty's Government, whether that were the decision of the Governor-general of India, or the Government at home? He wished to know, whether it was the noble Viscount's intention to recommend her Majesty not to ratify that treaty?
Viscount Melbournesaid, that it was certainly true, that it was impossible for the Government to know what might have been the ultimate and definitive treaty based on the preliminary articles to which the noble Earl had alluded; but unquestionably there had been sent out instructions to the effect, that if a definitive treaty had been concluded, grounded on these preliminary articles, it would not be satisfactory to the Government, and that it was not his intention to advise her Majesty to ratify it. The decision was come to by the Government at home, and not by the Governor-general of India.
The Duke of Wellingtonwished to know, whether the island of Hong Kong had been taken possession of under the treaty?
Viscount Melbournebelieved it had.
Lord Ellenboroughwished to know, whether the island of Chusan had been evacuated?
Viscount Melbourne: He did not know.
Subject at an end.

THE CORN-LAWS.
Earl Fitzwilliampresented petitions from Kendal and Halifax, praying for a repeal of the Corn-laws. The noble Earl also presented a petition on the same subject, of which he had given notice yesterday, from the town of Leeds; and considering the great importance, and the station of that town, he hoped their Lordships would allow him to read the petition. The noble Earl read the petition, the substance of which was, that the present Corn-laws were based in the opinion of the petitioners on the baneful principle of benefitting a particular class at the expense of the community—that the most severe and extensive distress had resulted from those laws during the last three years—that they had led to an immense destruction of manufacturing capital—to severe privations on the part of the labouring classes, and to a derangement of the currency, which had injuriously effected both public and private credit. The petitioners also stated, that the laws tended to encourage rival manufacturers in other countries; and they concluded by praying for a repeal of so injurious a system of monopoly. The petition was signed by 25,000 persons, which was, in fact, the entire adult male population of Leeds.
Lord Ashburtonexpressed his regret that the Ministry had, by the announce-
8
ment they had made on the subject of the Corn-laws, stirred up so much ill blood and bad feeling in the country as would be sure to result from the agitation of the question, particularly at the present period, when the country was already distracted by divisions on church-rates and poor-laws. He should observe, that the agriculturists of this country had not at any time for centuries been left without some protective laws. At so remote a period as the year 1463, the importation of foreign corn was prohibited, when the price was under 15 s. 10¾d. —a sufficiently high sum fur that time; but in the year 1670, importation was prohibited until the price reached 53 s. 4d. There was a further increase in the protective duty in the reign of King William, and subsequently at various periods laws had been passed of a similar tendency. The fact was, that it was not protection that was novelty; the novelty would be in withdrawing protection. It should be remembered, too, that there was no country in Europe in which there were not some provisions made for the protection of native agriculture. If it were said, that other countries would be ready to open their ports for our manufactures, in case we admitted their corn, he thought that the supposition was a most erroneous one. He would be ready to put the whole question on that issue; and if he could be assured that Prussia or France, or any other country on the Continent, would make to us the slightest concessions in return for a repeal of our Corn-laws, he would not press his opinions on the subject. He was convinced they would make no concessions; and it would be idle to entertain any hope of that nature. If the Corn-laws were repealed, a small country like England could not still hope to manufacture for the rest of the world. Other nations should have their share of trade; and the most dependent of people would be those who looked to others for their supply of food. That would be the most miserable of situations.
The Earl of Wicklowwas surprised at the tone assumed by the noble Earl (Fitzwilliam) on presenting this petition, inasmuch as last night the noble Earl said his opinion corresponded with those of her Majesty's Ministers. Now, her Majesty's Ministers were opposed to that which these petitioners prayed for, viz., a total abolition of protection, for they said a protecting duty of 8s. was necessary, and

9
when these petitioners found that in time of scarcity this new plan would fix a duty of 8s. per quarter, whereas, under the present system, the duty would be only 1s., they would, if they were at all consistent, petition against the ministerial plan.
The Earl of Falmouthdid not think these petitions from Leeds would oppose the Ministerial scheme, as they would look upon it only as a step towards total abolition.
Earl Fitzwilliamdeprecated such a discussion on the presentation of a petition. Agreeably to the rule of the House he had avoided entering at any length into the question, but had merely read the petition. Though he thought that the landed interest were large debtors to the community, yet he doubted very much whether they would suffer any thing from the repeal of the corn-laws. He did not believe that moderate rents would be much affected by the proposal of Ministers. It was his belief that if any rent now existing was lair and moderate, in comparison with the averages which have prevailed for any long period of years (ten, fifteen, or twenty years)— that, looking forward to any equal period commencing now—wheat being importable at a fixed duty of 8s. per quarter—the same, or very nearly the same, rent would be maintained. He founded this opinion, in great measure, upon the improvements which have been made of late years, both in the science and practice of agriculture, and upon his expectation that those improvements would he progressive. But, with respect to rents which have been recently fixed, in consequence of advantage being taken of the high prices that have prevailed during the last few years, he believed that such rents must give way. He thought that the landed interests totally misunderstood what were their real interests.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that notwithstanding the observation of the noble Earl, that it was too bad to defend these laws, he (the Duke of Wellington) should persist in defending them as long as he should have an opportunity of addressing their Lordships on the subject. He thought it was too bad that this species of vituperation which had been pronounced that evening should be indulged in against the landed interest, night after night, whenever the noble Lord presented a petition. If the noble Lord thought that there was no apprehension of failing rents, the noble Lord might at least suppose that the minds
10
of others might have been enlightened on that subject as well as his own; and he (the Duke of Wellington) thought that the noble Lord might attribute to others some different motives from those which he imputed to their Lordships on other occasions —other motives besides the desire of maintaining those advantages which they were thought to derive from these laws. But if the noble Lord thought that the landed interest were debtors to the rest of the community, perhaps he (the Duke of Wellington) might venture to compliment the noble Earl by saying that he was a debtor to as large an amount to the rest of the public as those noble Lords on the Opposition side of the House to whom the noble Earl addressed himself. But, whether their Lordships were debtors or not, he (the Duke of Wellington) perfectly agreed with his noble Friend behind him (Lord Ashburton), that these laws were not invented, nor had they been maintained, for the purpose of keeping high rents in the pockets of noble Lords, but that they were invented and had been supported for the purpose of maintaining and supporting agriculture, and of maintaining this country independent of all other countries and parts of the world; and it was also perfectly true, as stated by his noble Friend behind him, that such had been the policy of England for centuries, sometimes by one mode, and sometimes by another, sometimes by imposing protective duties when corn rose above certain prices, and sometimes by giving bounties, and occasionally very large bounties, on the exportation of corn. But whatever had been the means, the object had always been to support the agriculture of the country, in order to render this country, in respect of its subsistence, independent of other nations. This was the object of the improved system introduced in the year 1828; this was the object of those principles which had been maintained ever since; at least it was the principle on which he had given those laws his support, and on which he had more than once asked their Lordships to render this country dependent only on itself for subsistence. This, he said, was the object of the corn laws, and not that dirty object which had been imputed to their Lordships, and which, he must say, it was too bad to impute to their Lordships—of obtaining large rents from their land. It was also perfectly true, as had been stated by his noble Friend behind him, that there was not a country of Europe in which corn laws did not at that

11
moment exist; but, nevertheless, he supposed that if it were proposed to repeal these laws and adopt the measures recommended by the petitioners, their Lordships would be told of the quantities of corn that might be had from Russia and from Prussia, and other parts of the world. But were there no corn laws in those countries? Had the noble Earl heard of no laws prohibiting all exportation of corn to other countries? That fact altered the whole state of the question of corn laws in this country. The effect of such a state of things would be most serious if there came a bad season here and there too. Then, again, had the noble Lord not heard of the high duties imposed on the exportation of corn from those countries during the late wars? Had not their Lordships got evidence before some of the committees—had they not got letters from some merchants at Dantzic to one of those governments on the subject of the prices of corn in England, and on the rate of duties imposed at that port? and was it not stated that the increased price obtained from England might be expected to enable those merchants to pay the duties imposed by their government on exportation? Let it be observed, that he did not blame the sovereign to whom he alluded for imposing those duties—he should not have blamed him if it had been an act of war, whereas it was a mere measure of finance. He did not say that he (the Duke of Wellington) agreed with him in his notions of protection; but he said that when he considered it a question of protection, that sovereign was not to be blamed, and that his object was like that of their Lordships, to secure the subsistence of his subjects, and not to cause a rise of rents. Before he sat down he would just observe, that he should not have spoken on this subject but for the turn which the debate had taken, but he thought it would have been but fair in the noble Earl to wait till the question had come fairly before the House, especially as the noble Earl had declared that, in case of the change he anticipated, it would not have a material effect upon rents, and that their Lordships ought not to be attacked in this way night after night without the subject being regularly before them.
The Earl of Radnorsaid, his noble Friend had not provoked the discussion to-night. The existing Corn-laws had not achieved their professed object, steadiness of prices. Agreeing as he did with the views of the petitioners, he should still prefer a fixed duty to a sliding scale; and
12
as to what the noble Duke had said, respecting the duties that ought to be imposed by foreign countries on the exportation of their corn, those duties, it must be remembered, were paid by the foreign merchant.
The Earl of Gallowaywished to ask, if the present Corn-law had not led to an adequate supply, how it was that the noble Earl opposite, could prove that the improved cultivation had effected such results that no reduction of rent would be apprehended for at least fifteen years.
The Earl of Warwicksaid, that in his opinion, the Corn-law agitation was only a prelude to an attack on the currency. He believed, that to be the object of the petitioners of Leeds, and also of the manufacturers of Birmingham.
The Earl of Haddingtonbegged to remind the House of the deep interest Ireland had in the maintenance of the Corn-laws. Ireland was peculiarly an agricultural country, and quite capable of becoming a vast granary to this country; but if the present protection was removed, a complete check would be given to all her present cultivation.
The Marquess of Lansdownedid not rise to enter into the discussion that had been partially commenced that evening, because he was perfectly aware that, although such discussions would take place, they were generally attended by the effect of causing assumptions to be made by noble Lords of some points without any opportunity being afforded to prove or disprove those assumptions; but he could not allow this conversation to conclude without stating that, whether his noble Friend opposite (Lord Ashburton) did or did not come down prepared with certain statements and his documents, there was one statement made by him, which, whether he came down prepared to make or not, and which whether he thought it consistent or not with that calmness that he had declared the other night ought to govern those discussions, ought to be noticed—he meant the statement which the noble Lord had made, whether advisedly and considerately or not he would not determine—that the proposal of her Majesty's Government had been brought forward for the purpose of agitating the country; he could not allow the discussion to close without saying, that there never was an affirmation more unfounded in fact. The Government might be correct or not in their view of this question, they might or might not be wrong in

13
the policy of adopting the views which appeared so dangerous to his noble Friend opposite, but he said distinctly, that there never had been a proposal brought forward that had been more deliberately considered and entertained on its own merits, that had been less hastily determined on, or that had been more adopted from a consideration of the circumstances and the feelings of the country. When his noble Friend assumed that such a proposal could only be made for the purpose of creating sudden dissension and to encourage the ebullition of passions, his noble Friend gave in the course of his own statement a contradiction to the assumption, because his noble Friend proceeded to rehearse scheme after scheme, and plan after plan, proposed by different Ministers, who, having the same object in view, the protection of the trade and of the agriculture of this country, had found it necessary, with their eyes as wide open as those of the noble Lord opposite, and as those of his noble Friend at the head of the Government, had made proposals, and, notwithstanding the anger and warmth of feeling attending these discussions, had, nevertheless, proceeded from time to time to consider the protection to be given to agriculture as it might be suitable to the circumstances of the moment; abandoning the protection given at one period, and granting it at another, at the risk of giving rise to those discussions, which no one more than he, hoped and wished should be conducted with the absence of passion. He, however, had never heard it imputed to Lord Liverpool, when he changed the system which had existed for many years before— attended though that proposal was with the ebullition of passion that raged through the country—no one had imputed to Lord Liverpool any other motive than an intention to introduce a system better suited to the circumstances of the country. Many years had not elapsed before another Minister (Mr. Canning) saw the necessity of introducing another alteration; no one had imputed any improper motive to him, although his proposal was attended with the same effect of rousing the passions of the multitude. Again, no one had accused the noble Duke opposite of any thing wrong in introducing a third modification of the system. All those eminent persons who had moved these alterations had overlooked the inconvenience of the warmth to which the discussions might awaken. And were the present Ministers to have imputations
14
cast upon them because they considered the same question when circumstances did arise which presented a combination of consequences not only with respect to the state of the corn but of other duties, and more especially to the protection of agriculture itself; and it had been a peculiar characteristic of that protection that it had frequently overshot its mark, and induced the very authors of the systems to turn round, and endeavour to substitute something that would more certainly conduce to the interests as well of agriculture as of commerce. He was the last person, who would say that the duty of altering the laws ought to be lightly undertaken, but at the present time circumstances had arisen in the commercial world, which rendered it necessary to reconsider this protection; for if it were given for the purpose of making a wealthy country at all times the provider of produce for its own population, it would wholly ruin the proprietors of that country it was in-tended to benefit, because no protection could be more injurious to a country than that which should induce it to produce at all times the largest possible quantity, since such a production must in times of plenty give rise, to such an extreme production as, not being able to be exported must ruin the producers. He would always, therefore, protest against the doctrine, that they ought to make any country wholly independent of other countries. Undoubtedly, this protection was a question of degree, that question might be argued on its own merits; and it must be argued with reference to the details of other duties, for he held that it was a sound rule to apply equal protection to all articles, and it would be unfair to give protection to one application of capital, and to prevent its extension to all others. To the discussion of that question they must come by the occurrence of a painful necessity, and he hoped that noble Lords would not seek to embarrass it by the display of that warmth which the importance of the subject was calculated to produce.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, that the noble Marquess had been anxious to exculpate the Government from the accusation that they had brought this subject forward from improper motives, by stating the consideration and the deliberation which her Majesty's Government had given to it. There could be no doubt upon that point after the statement of the noble Marquess, but it was a matter of more than mere curiosity to know

15
at what period those deliberations had taken place, and it would be conducive to the establishment of the correctness of history if the noble Marquess would enrich it by stating upon what day her Majesty's Government had concluded upon bringing the matter forward.
The Marquess of Lansdownereplied, that it was not necessary to communicate the particular time of the adoption of this proposal by her Majesty's Ministers; but the subject had been repeatedly under their consideration, and that it was not adopted till recently after careful investigation.
Lord Ashburtondeclared, that he had no intention of imputing motives to her Majesty's Government. And as for any future discussion, there was no chance of the matter coming before their Lordships, for there was no property in commerce or in agriculture that would not be put in jeopardy by this sudden change, and it would never be adopted elsewhere.
A Noble Lordasked at what period of the present Session any notice was given in either House of Parliament that could have led to the belief that it was intended to bring this matter forward?
The Marquess of Lansdownereplied, that notice was given before the Easter holidays, not specially referring to the Corn-laws, but generally that the whole subject of the trade of this country would be brought under consideration.
The Noble Lordwas understood to say, that from this vague notice, no Member dreamt that the Corn-laws were to be altered.
Petition laid on the Table.
Adjourned.