THE CORN-LAWS.

HL Deb 07 May 1841 vol 58 cc7-15

Earl Fitzwilliam

presented 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 Ashburton

expressed his regret that the Ministry had, by the announce- 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 15s. 10¾d. —a sufficiently high sum fur that time; but in the year 1670, importation was prohibited until the price reached 53s. 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 Wicklow

was 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 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 Falmouth

did 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 Fitzwilliam

deprecated 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 Wellington

said, 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 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 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 Radnor

said, 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 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 Galloway

wished 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 Warwick

said, 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 Haddington

begged 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 Lansdowne

did 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 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 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 Ellenborough

said, 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 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 Lansdowne

replied, 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 Ashburton

declared, 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 Lord

asked 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 Lansdowne

replied, 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 Lord

was 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.