Lords Sitting of 24 May 1841

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By the Duke of Wellington, Lord Willoughby D'Eresby, Lord Yarmouth, Lord Roden, and other noble Lords, from Bridgewater, Lothian, Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire, Huntingdonshire, Kent, Wigan, Hereford, Essex, and other places, against Alteration of the Corn-laws.—By Lord Melbourne, and the Marquess of Westminster, from Dundee, Paisley, and other places, for Free Trade.—By Earl Fitzwilliam, from Bridgewater, Lothian, Farringdon Ward, and a great many other places, for the Repeal of the Corn-laws.

CORN-LAW PETITIONS — LINCOLNSHIRE MEETING.
Lord Willoughby D'Eresbypresented many petitions from places in Lincolnshire against any alteration of the Corn-laws. The noble Lord made a few observations the purport of which was understood to be to deprecate discussions on presenting petitions, and to express a hope that his noble Friend (Earl Fitzwilliam) would keep his word, and not detain their Lordships by remarks on the present occasion.
Earl Fitzwilliamsaid, he had undoubtedly told his noble Friend, that he should not raise any discussion on this subject on the presentation of petitions; but as his noble Friend had presented a great number of petitions, from parts of the country with which both the noble Lord and himself were much connected, he knew not of any more favourable or convenient opportunity for directing attention to one or two points of recent occurrence, touching upon this important question. Fie knew how very offensive he made himself to their Lordships by such discourses, but he felt obliged to trespass upon their attention at the present moment, in consequence of a letter which had appeared in a newspaper published in the county with which he was connected. He alluded to the letter addressed to the chairman of a meeting recently held in that county by a noble Lord who now sat on the cross-benches (Lord Willoughby D'Eresby). With respect to this letter he must say, that if the apprehensions expressed by the noble Lord in his letter be true, undoubtedly the measure proposed by her Majesty's Government on the subject of the Corn-laws would inflict great evils upon the country. But he would beg of their Lordships to consider whether there were any the slightest grounds for such apprehensions. So far from believing that there were, he (Earl Fitzwilliam) thought that to entertain

685
such apprehensions evidenced such a prostration of understanding as he had never before witnessed. The noble Lord in the letter to which he alluded, stated, that the introduction of foreign corn at a fixed duty of 8s. per quarter would have the effect of sweeping away one-third of the rentals of the country. He (Earl Fitzwilliam) believed that it would have no such effect; but if any of their Lordships thought it would have such effect, he thought that that circumstance would disentitle him to the reproof which he received the other evening for having accused some parts of the Legislature of acting from interested motives on this question; for undoubtedly if this apprehension were correct, that the proposed measure would sweep away one-third of the rentals of the country, it would follow that the reason of many of the opponents of that measure was to keep up their own rentals. Then what other ground could they have to support these laws? [The Earl of Winchilsea: The employment of the labourers.] The employment of the labourers! Why, now, did the noble Earl really believe that the effect of this measure would be to throw out of cultivation one-third of the land of this country? If so the noble Earl could really have no knowledge either of agriculture or commerce? In what part of the country was this to happen? [The Earl of Winchilsea: In the county of Lincolnshire itself to a great extent.] The noble Earl certainly knew more of the county of Lincoln than he did himself; but, at the same time, he had been a good deal in that part of the country, and he defied any one to point out a thousand acres in that county which would be thrown out of cultivation by this measure. Would it be in the fens, or the rich lands of the north, or on Lincoln Heath? He happened to be the owner and cultivator of some lands of the very description which were upon Lincoln Heath, and he was bound to say, that upon these lands this measure would not have the effect predicted. It might lead to a trifling reduction of rents there, but it was altogether monstrous and extravagant to say, that it would throw those lands out of cultivation. But here again he would refer to the noble Lord's letter; the noble Lord said, that the deficiency of the tenant would be made up by a reduction of rent on the part of the landlord.
686
This made out what he had always maintained, that this was a landlord's question and not a tenant's. But the noble Lord went on to say, that one-third of the agricultural capital would be lost. Why, what did the noble Lord mean by this? Did he mean that the farmers would lose every third waggon, or every third plough, or every third pair of harrows. No; he could not mean that. Did he mean, then, that the farmers stock would be of less value? If so, the only result would be, that men of less capital would be able to cultivate land than at present; and that, he thought would be no evil to the people of England, but rather the reverse. He did not, however, admit the accuracy of the noble Lord's statement; but, even admitting it to be true, still its tendency would be as he had said. With respect to wages also, it was equally extravagant to suppose that one-third of the wages would be lost to the labourer. The average price of wheat for the years 1839 and 1840 was about 70 s. per quarter. The average price of the eighteen preceding years—namely, from 1821 to 1838, was 56 s. 8d. Now, ho did not think that any one in the possession of reason would pretend to say, that a reduction of the average price of com from 70 s. to 56 s. 8d. would lead to a reduction of one-third in wages or anything like it. The fact was, that wages did not vary with the prices of provisions. It was quite a mistake to suppose they did. Mr. Burke did not fail into this mistake, but on the contrary, on one occasion remarked, that the Norfolk squires, who had stated, that wages varied with the prices of provisions, "must have dined when they said so." For his part, he believed the fact to be rather the other way; and that a temporary rise in the prices of provisions, by causing an increased pressure and urgency to seek employment amongst the working classes, must lead to a depreciation of wages. He knew that the temporary distress of labourers in times of urgency was often met and provided for by the kindness and consideration of individuals; but this was not a sufficient means to counteract the effect of a bad state of the law. He would beg to read to their Lordships some statements bearing upon this point, made by an assistant Poor-law commissioner acting in the counties of Oxford, Berkshire, and part of Buckinghamshire, This gentleman stated

687
that, during the late high prices in 1839 and 1840, wages, in some places, rose from 8s. to 10 s. a week; in others, they increased Is. a week; but that no increase took place in the district bordering on Buckinghamshire. So much with respect to agricultural districts. In the manufacturing districts the fact was too well ascertained, that a rise in the price of provisions produced a fall rather than an increase in wages. He must now beg to refer to a speech which was made at the meeting which he had already mentioned, by a Gentleman who was once a most respectable Member of the other House of Parliament. This gentleman said—
" What could the farmer hope to do against foreign competition, when he learned that foreign corn was now arriving here at 26 s. a quarter, and that it was proposed to introduce it at a duty of 8s. per quarter, making a total of 34 s. per quarter in the English market?"
Such were the delusions which men in high stations sometimes sought to practise upon their dependents. The same gentleman in the speech he was quoting then went on to say what was very true, that the average price of corn at Hamburg was 36 s. 6d. a quarter, and that the prices at Dantzic were from 35 s. 9d. to 41 s., and yet in the face of these statements, the same gentleman made the extraordinary assertion that corn could be introduced at 34 s. per quarter, after paying a duty of 8s. Why, there never was a more monstrous proposition propounded before an assembled multitude. With respect to what would be the effect of the Ministerial proposition, he certainly hoped it would lead to a reduction in the average of prices to something like what it was in the eighteen years preceding the late high prices; but that it would bring prices lower than that, was a proposition which he was confident no man would be able to make out. He thought it his duty to make these observations when he saw statements going abroad so calculated, in his opinion, to deceive, though doubtless unintentionally so, the labouring classes of this country.
Lord Willoughby D'Eresbythought that the noble Earl might have spared his remarks until the presentation of the petition agreed to at the meeting to which he had so pointedly alluded. It was not his intention at that moment, to enter into the question of the Corn-laws. He might, however, state, as wages had been alluded
688
to, that the rise had been more general than the noble Earl seemed to suppose. He must moreover remark, that the labourers themselves in his neighbourhood were consulted as to the scale of remuneration that would satisfy them. Fie employed 180 agricultural labourers himself, and he must therefore, know their habits and feelings. It had been said, that what he had brought forward did not bear on the question; but what he had brought forward he could substantiate. The letter which he had written was sent as an apology for his non-attendance at the meeting, and he had never for a moment thought that it would be brought before the attention of their Lordships; but every position laid down in that letter he was prepared to defend at the proper time.
Earl Fitzwilliamsaid, that what he had always said was that he believed the consideration of the farmers and the good nature of individuals had met the necessities of the case; but the fact was, that the good nature of individuals was not the rule which governed the rate of wages.
Lord Willoughby D'Eresbysaid, that the rate of wages which he gave was the rate of wages of the whole county of Lincoln, and not merely of his neighbourhood.
The Earl of Winchilseasaid, that though he agreed in the opinion which he believed was entertained by a majority of their Lordships, that it was exceedingly inconvenient to bring under discussion this most important question—not only as affecting the agricultural interests of this country, but every other interest—on a mere petition, yet he could not on the present occasion, refrain from offering a few observations to the attention of their Lordships, though he had not hitherto done so on presenting the numerous petitions which he had had the honour of laying on their Lordships' Table. In the first place, he did think that the noble Earl, acquainted, as he must have been, with the character of the respected country gentleman to whom he had alluded, and who once had the honour of representing the county of Lincoln, might have treated him with more courtesy. He had stood by his side at a meeting on Friday last, in another part of the country, and he must say, that of all the public meetings he (the Earl of Winchilsea) had ever attended, he had never seen such a devoted feeling of attachment towards any

689
man as was shown towards that gentleman; and when the noble Earl came forward and accused that gentleman of false statements to his peasantry, he, as a neighbour of that gentleman, rejected the charge with indignation. [Earl Fitzwilliam.—I never made it.] The charge is false; he never did any such thing. He would go with him to this extent in opinion, that if foreign corn could be bonded at 26 s. a quarter, it would come out, at a fixed duty of 8s., at 34 s. a quarter, which was a price against which no English farmer could compete. He held the opinion, that the present system of Corn-laws was the best that ever was proposed, and, that on an average of years it had worked well. The labouring population with the present Corn-law had had their corn at a fair price; but with a fixed duty it would be double the price in a few years. If they depended on foreign supply, English capital would go to aid it; for English capital would always flow where there was the greatest remuneration; and if this free trade in corn were opened, thousands of acres would be immediately brought into cultivation, and the produce of those countries whence corn was supplied would be a thousand times more than it at present was, which must tend still further to reduce the price at which foreign corn could be introduced. The noble Earl had stated, that the price of wages did not depend on the price of corn. He himself was a practical agriculturist. He was not possessed of the princely fortune of the noble Earl, but he had sufficient estates to enable him to form a practical opinion on the matter. He was his own steward on his property. He had no intermediate man between him and his tenants. He let his own land and made his own agreements, and he was, practically, as well acquainted with all the bearings of the agricultural interest as any landholder in that House. He had estates in Kent, in Sussex, in Lincolnshire, and in Hampshire, and in all those counties he found the rate of wages invariably affected by the price of corn. The rate of wages during the winter months in each of those districts had been from 13 s. 6d. to 15 s. a week. When corn was low, the present corn-law was no protection at all to the agricultural interests of this country; and when it was high from scarcity, the landed interest ought to be protected and have a fair remuneration. In the manufacturing district, wages were not affected in an
690
equal degree by prices; but he would say this, that they (the agricultural landowners) had a fair share of the burdens of the country to bear with the labourers, and they made those advances which prices would afford to the labourers to enable them to live as well as themselves. If the manufacturers would do the same, he firmly believed, that there would not be that distress amongst the manufacturing population which at present existed, and the factory system would not cause so much evil as it did. But now, when manufacturing labourers got to the age of thirty or forty, they were thrown out of employment, in order that women and children might be employed at lower rates of wages; and, debilitated, crippled, and demoralized, they were unfit to fall back on any agricultural employment, and were driven to live on the miserable pittance they could earn by the hand-looms, from which they could not derive more than from 4s. to 6s., and at the very most, 6s. 8d. per week. He hoped, that some mode would be devised to prevent this growing and increasing evil. The noble Earl had said, that no lands would go out of cultivation in Lincolnshire. Now, there were tracts of land in Lincolnshire not worth more than 2s. 6d. an acre, which were kept in cultivation by artificial means, by laying on quantities of bone-dust and oil-cake, and if corn came down to the price at which foreign corn might be admitted with the proposed fixed duty, these tracts must immediately be thrown out of cultivation. There were similar tracts of land in Norfolk and other places; and in Kent, he knew land where the landlords offered it free of rent if the tenants would keep it in cultivation, and it depended much on a good seed time whether that land would pay or not. The great national burdens were thrown on the land, and why should there be this outcry against the landed interest? They would not allow cheap shoes or cheap hats, or cheap silks to come into the market, and he thought, that the landed interest ought at least to be protected. This proposed fixed duty was a mere delusion. This country, as far as possible, should be independent of a foreign supply of corn. If ever the day came when England was dependent on a foreign supply, and corn was made an article of revenue, did they not think, that other countries would follow our example, and say, "If you take 8s. a quarter on

691
our corn for revenue, we will take 20 s.?" They would then have thousands of acres thrown out of cultivation, and, with a starving population, have the corn they must, at whatever price. They might depend upon it, that the manufacturing population would be as deeply affected by the change as the agricultural, for in 1832, when corn was low, they were starving, and praying for higher wages.
Earl Fitzwilliamsaid the noble Earl had said, that he had made a false charge, which was rather a serious statement to make. He had not made a false charge. He had as great a respect for Mr. Chaplin as the noble Earl himself: but he believed Mr. Chaplin misunderstood this subject. He had never used any other term, and the noble Earl opposite was under as great a misapprehension.
Lord Redesdalesaid, what the noble Earl had said was—he quoted his words —" This is the manner in which Gentlemen in high station seek to practise delusions on the people on this subject." This he (Lord Redesdale) did consider to be a charge against Mr. Chaplin, and, like much of the rest of the noble Earl's speech, he could not admire either the argument or the taste of it. The noble Earl did not treat this subject as affecting a great interest, and the agricultural interest was the greatest in England. He did not conceive that the proposed measure would do much hurt, because a farmer might stock his farm for one-third less money than he now could in consequence. The noble Earl did not think there would be such a reduction, but he saw no great harm if there was. According to the same mode of argument the noble Earl did not see any great harm if any great manufacturer could come into the market and buy for 100,000 l. an estate which was worth 150,000 l. He believed, that the manufacturers would be glad to do it. Their object was, where they had mortgages on estates, to get them into their possession at less than their value. If the noble Earl argued the question on these grounds be would find, that the agricultural interests were all identified, and that the landowner, the farmer, and the labourer, would, all alike, feel the reduction.
Earl Fitzwilliamunderstood the noble Baron to say that "the object of the wealthy manufacturers in calling for the repeal of the Corn-laws was, that they might obtain landed estates on which they
692
might have mortgages." The noble Baron had made some observations on the "taste" of his speech; he should be very sorry to make the same observation on the noble Lord's speech which the noble Lord had made on his.
The Earl of Hardwickedid not concur in what had been said about the manufacturer. But from what did such an observation arise? From the noble Earl's persevering in arraying the manufacturer against the agriculturist. He raised men's feelings and passions on a subject of vital interest, and then he was astonished that they could in any degree seem to be violent in expression. Nobody could deplore it more than he did. Did the noble Lord do nothing of the sort? Did he not come into that House and tell them that rents were too high 1 Did he forget, that that House was the smallest portion of the agricultural interest, and that, although in ancient times the land had generally been held by Peers, the Commons of England, the poor and small freeholder now held the greatest portion of it? And him they were called on now to protect. But the noble Lord talked of their rents, as if they were the only persons that held lands. They did not think more of their rents, than they thought of the rents of other smaller landholders. The noble Lord talked to them as if they wished to pander to the appetites and pleasures of the landowners. But was not the agricultural interest the staple of the nation? If they were in distress, whom were they to tax? If they were invaded, whom were they to look to, to fight the battle of the country, but to the landed interest? It had always borne the brunt, and it was ready to do it again. Let them tax them, but not destroy them, They were ready to be taxed, if necessary, and to bear large burdens for the support of the country at large; but let them not destroy that interest which was to bear them. The noble Lord was always talking to the people outside. Why did he not give them notice of a day for a general debate? He had given them a notice the other day, but he had flinched from it; he had been choked off; he had been slopped. Now, he came forward with incidental statements, on which he was prepared before he came to that House, and which statements were made merely for the reporters of the newspapers, and did not tend in any manner to illustrate

693
the subject as a matter of serious and important debate. He was quite sure, that it was impossible for their Lordships to look at the state of this country as it now was in its peaceful and flourishing condition, without being satisfied, that the laws of this country must not only be wise in themselves, but ably executed; but there was not any law equal to that which regulated the mode in which food was supplied. Neighbouring nations were astonished, that the civil magistrate and the constable with nothing but his staff, could keep this great country in order without having to resort to the military force. We knew nothing of a standing army in this country. We were not obliged to call out 50,000 soldiers because a public meeting was got up in this city. But that might be seen in other countries, where freedom of trade was much talked of. They were not, therefore, to be frightened out of their senses by statements, and clap-trap statements, too, made for the purpose of exciting the poor—, but he would not use the term; he had almost given utterance to a word which, in the excitement of debate, might be, perhaps, used again. But the effect of these statements was to excite, out of doors, violent and passionate feelings amongst a class of people who were not deeply informed on these subjects.
The Earl of Radnordenied, that he and his Friends had caused any excitement on the subject. The noble Lords opposite complained of introducing the question of the Corn-laws this year in incidental discussions; but last year, when it came on in a regular debate, they grew tired, and began to cry out, "question." He, however, thought, that the discussion of this question, even incidentally, would be of great service, for it must repeatedly attract the attention of persons in, and of the people out of the House to the subject. When the noble Earl opposite, spoke of this as not being exclusively regarded by them as a question of rent, he (the Earl of Radnor) asked, were not all the arguments they had heard, brought forward in support of rent, and nothing else? Why that very evening, the noble Earl who spoke last, interrupted his (Earl Radnor's) noble Friend, and said, that the object of the landed proprietors in supporting the Corn-laws, was to prevent lands from being thrown out of cultivation—that meant, poor lands being thrown
694
out of cultivation, and what was that but an argument to keep up rents. [Laughter.] Noble Lords might laugh, but if they would reflect upon this subject, they would find that the amount of rent for each description of land was determined by the expense of cultivating the poorest soil—therefore the main desire of some of the noble Lords who were so anxious in support of the corn-laws, was not to keep poor lands in cultivation, but to keep up a higher standard of rent for every other kind. But they supported this object, not by arguments alone—they had brought in the statute-book to maintain their rents, as would be found on reference to the bounty they gave on grass lands, in addition to the protection to cultivated lands. Why, was there not a duty on the importation of horses? and was there not a duty on the importation of asses into this country. The acts of Parliament prohibited the importation of bulls, cows, horses, sheep, and swine; and what was that for if not for the encouragement of grass lands? They had a prohibition also on dead meat as well as live flesh, all for the encouragement of grass lands. What else was it for then? He next found the act of Parliament extending its prohibitions to turkeys, fowls, ducks, geese, and chickens. Now, what were all those taxes for, but to make grass, as well as arable lands, put money into the pockets of the landlords? Surely it was not, so far as grass lands were concerned, to keep up the amount of the wages of the labourer. Why no kind of food could be imported duty free. He would go farther, and say, that not only the produce of the land, but even the produce of the sea, was taxed for the landlords. There was not a kind of foreign fish that was not prohibited. He might be told, that the object of the duties on fish was, to protect our fishermen, and secure good seamen for the country. This was the origin of those duties no doubt; but why did we tax foreign salmon? This was a fish, at least, that did not require hardy and adventurous fishermen to catch it. The fact was, the salmon was taxed for the sole purpose of putting money into the pockets of the landlords— one of whom he knew to be realising an income of 4,000 l. or 5,000 l. a year by his monopoly as a salmon proprietor. Every kind of fish was taxed except one. Now you would suppose that this one was excepted for the sake of the poor man,

695
Not at all. This was a fish that had never been seen on a poor man's table since the world began, but which, however, was often seen on their Lordships' table—it was a turbot. He must indeed admit that there was one more fish which was also exempted—that was the lobster, for the sake of lobster sauce for the turbot. This was most true; and he thought it was also most discreditable to their Lordships, that thousands and tens of thousands of our fellow-countrymen were at this moment starving, principally through being compelled to submit to taxation, to raise the rent of noble Lords. He did not wish to address himself to the people out of doors, but he wished to address himself to the noble Earl who had just sat down, and to remind him and the whole of their Lordships, that while these duties were levied upon the necessaries of life, as they came into this country, thousands upon thousands of industrious persons were at this moment in the utmost distress from the want of food, so that the pawnbrokers of Manchester and Birmingham were not able to comply with the demands for loans that were made upon them, by persons pressing for farther advances upon deposits. While this was the condition of so many thousands of our countrymen, was it not dreadful that every animal that walked the earth—nay, even that every fish that swam, and every bird that was fit for food, must be taxed, lest it should come in cheap for our starving population? This was most discreditable to their Lordships, he repeated, whether as legislators or as landlords. He believed that but very few of their Lordships had gone into the details he now brought before them —but having now heard them, they ought not to receive them with laughter and contempt. But these facts would be made known to the people of this country, who would regard them as quite the reverse of subjects of joke and laughter. We now heard again the old story put forward, that wages depended on the prices of food. Almost every word spoken by the noble Lord on the cross bench (Winchilsea) was in support of this doctrine; yet his observations would go to prove that this was not the case. For the noble Lord said he was the chairman of a board of guardians, and that when a pauper came before them for relief, they first asked him whether he had been in receipt of full wages. Now, if the wages were depending on the price
696
of corn, was it not evident that this question need not be asked? In fact, while the price of corn and bread was almost uniform throughout the country, the amount of wages differed very much—in Lincolnshire, it was 10 s. a week; in Kent, it was 12 s.; in the south of England, the wages averaged 9s.; in Dorsetshire, it was 7s.; in Devonshire, 6s.; in Somersetshire, 7s. These facts proved that the prices of labour did not depend on the price of bread or corn. In fact, labour, like everything else, was paid according to the proportion the supply bore to the demand; and wages were no more influenced by the price of corn than was the coat on the noble Earl's back. High prices for corn did not certainly produce high prices for labour. The fact was the other way, for as his noble Friend had stated, when corn was cheap, labour rose in consequence of the ease of the people. But he (Earl Radnor) would refer to an authority on this head, which their Lordships must respect as well as he did—the authority of the late Lord Mansfield. In the year 1814, the year before the present Corn Law Act passed, there was a committee of their Lordships' House, which minutely inquired into the relation between wages and prices of corn. Lord Mansfield, a member of the committee, who was connected with Scotland, sent dowu to that country for some evidence which was of great importance, because Scotland was not under the influence of the Poor-laws. Lord Mansfield sent down to his factor, a man in whom every confidence might be placed, for a return of the times when the wages of manufacturing labour were highest and lowest, and the times also when the prices of wheat were highest and lowest. The factor sent up a return, of which the following was an abstract:—*
In 1805, the price of weaving a piece of calico was 9s.; in 1811, it was 3s.— Fiar's prices. This evidence, from Scot land, a country not influenced by the Poor-laws, be it remembered, proved that the prices of food did not regulate the wages of manufacturing labour, nor those of the agricultural labourer. The fact was, the wages were often highest when the prices of food were lowest, and lowest when the former were highest. He was not sure whether these were the prices of quarters or of bolls of corn, but they
* See Table next page.

697
would show equally well the relation between the prices of food and of labour. He hoped this table would induce noble Lords to examine the details of this most important question a little more carefully in future. He would now come to the repetition of the old story of making this country independent of foreign countries as regarded supplies of corn. Now if that was the object of the present act, was it not proved that that measure had entirely failed? Let us look at the returns of the last few years:—In 1838, 1839, and 1840, there were imported of foreign corn, for home consumption, no less than 6,235,000 quarters of wheat, which was equal to 1–6th of our whole consumption for that period. He trusted he had now shown their Lordships that this measure had been as fallacious in making us independent of foreign countries for supplies of corn, as it had been deceptive in every other point of view.
Lord Ashburtonstrongly condemned the time that had been chosen by the Government, supported by the noble Lords opposite, for stirring up the different classes of society in this country to regard each other as enemies, in consequence of the existence of the present corn and other protective laws. Whatever noble Lords opposite might think of such a state of things, he could assure them that it was a most dangerous one for the welfare of this country, considering what feelings had been excited in the West-India interests, the East-India interests, the shipping interests, and every other class of the community, by the measures her Majesty's Ministers had of late propounded. Nothing but the most urgent necessity could justify any Government for exciting the masses in such a perilous degree. The axiom of a great Whig Minister of the old time— probably the first

YEAR.

WHEAT.

OATS.

OATMEAL.

MANUFACTURING LABOUR.

s.

d.

s.

d.

s.

d.

1805

29

10

17

6

19

10

Highest.

1811

41

3

21

3

24

3

Lowest.

1814*

34

5

20

0

21

0

Medium.

1800

57

3

35

6

43

10

Wages of ploughman, 12 l. to 13 l.; of labourer, 1s. 6d. a day in summer; 1s. in winter.

1802

23

6

13

9

16

1

Wages of ploughman, 16 l.; of labourer, 2s. in summer; 1s. 6d. in winter.

* Fiar's prices.

of his country and period for wisdom, and to whom history had done but tardy justice—Sir Robert Walpole—the axiom of that great statesman was ne quieta movere —but the reverse of this safe principle would seem to be acted upon by the noble Viscount at the head of the Government of the present day. The noble Viscount's object was to excite the greatest possible flame in the country. He (Lord Ashburton) would not impute the organisation of this perilous commotion that now raged in the public mind, to a desire on the part of her Majesty's Ministers to recover their lost position in both Houses of Parliament—that would not be fair in debate—but he would say, that a more mischievous course than the present had not been pursued by any former Government. He would now successively call the attention of the House to the points that had been dwelt upon by the noble Earl opposite. In the first place, the noble Earl mooted one of the most disputed points that had engaged the attention of political economists—that was, whether the prices of food did or did not act on the wages of labour, and if so, to what extent? He contended, that this was exactly one of those questions upon which the greatest anxiety now prevailed; and it was one which was made the subject of lectures and after-dinner discussions. But those persons who advocated the principle contended for by the noble Earls opposite, maintained that the price of food had no effect whatever on the prices of labour, or on the prices of manufactures; but the fact was quite the contrary. In what manner did the manufacturers of this country express themselves? They said, "we cannot compete, we cannot work in competition with foreign manufacturers, because they can work so cheap." But if the noble Earl was right, the ma-

699
nufacturer in this country ought not to be affected by these changes. But he would ask, when was it—when was the period at which the prices of food had nothing to do with the price of labour? It would be a waste of their Lordships' time to argue this part of the case. Every person knew, who lived in the country, that the price of food had to do with the price of labour; and in truth that was the real theory to proceed upon. At the same time he did not deny that the price of labour was, as stated by the noble Earl, influenced by the demand and supply. They now saw this state of things produced in the West-India colonies, where the free labourer, for the pay he obtained for one day's work, was enabled to maintain himself for the remaining six days of the week. Such was the case, too, in the United States of America, and in Australia. But when a country became thickly populated, whether in agricultural or manufacturing districts, then the price of labour came down to that rate at which the poor labourer can be fed; the feeding of such poor labourers being determined by the proceedings of those who were entrusted with the management of union poor houses, and by the dietary system therein pursued. And let it be recollected that the manufacturers were running down the rate of wages as low as they could; they were advertising for people in all parts of the country, and the manufacturers could immediately bring in a mass of paupers for the purpose of working at the rate of wages prescribed. This was done every day ruthlessly, and without the slightest feeling for the condition of the poor and labouring classes. But the farmers, on the contrary, looked greatly to the good of the labourers, to the comfort of their own dwellings; and moreover they lived amongst the labouring people, for whom they entertained a regard and affection, without running down the scale of wages. He recollected that Mr. Huskisson had shown them cases of manufacturers advertising for workmen, and what was the consequence? Why, the moment the demand for the particular branch of manufacture ceased, or fell of, these same persons were thrown upon the agriculturists, and a large mass of Irish children were thrown upon the county, and subsequently thrown back on the shores of Ireland. He was far from wishing to impute any culpable intentions to noble Lords in
700
that House with respect to the arguments they held, but he must say, that most undoubtedly the language which had been held in reference to this subject was of a most inflammatory character. The most inflammatory language had been used abroad by those who universally took a one-sided view, in one way or other; they spoke always as they felt towards the manufacturers or the agriculturists. Now what was really the way to do good to the poor man? Why it was to foster and encourage all branches of industry; and the most desirable thing for the country was, to have all those branches in reasonable proportion the one to the other. Of this he was sure, that if those persons could obtain their object, who thought that good would result by throwing out of cultivation a large portion of lands, and throwing out of employment the cultivators of the soil, and thus raising a large mass of manufacturing population, this country would then be plunged into such an abyss of distress as no Government could comprehend, or effectually allay. But while on this subject, he would beg to quote from a work, written in the form of an essay, by Lord John Russell. He could assure their Lordships that it was a work which did the greatest credit to the understanding and character of that noble Lord. The publication contained sketches of life and character, and an essay on political economy (notwithstanding this subject had been so often and so well discussed), and the noble Lord came to this point, that the greatest distrust must be entertained of the champions of political economy from the fact that no man agreed on this most important subject, especially as to whether the price of food did not affect the price of labour. The noble Lord in this essay went on to say,—
" But the frequent occurrence of war, the complication of political interests, the existence of ancient treaties, and, above all, the establishments of capital and of people which have taken place on the faith of the continuance of old arrangements, often render a question of political economy much more difficult to solve than almost any problem in the range of mathematics. For instance, it is very easy to say that the trade in corn ought to be free, like any other trade, and that if your farmers cannot grow corn so cheap as the foreign farmers, they ought to let it alone. But when you are requested to consider that every other trade is restricted by duties, amounting in some cases to a prohibition—when you are told that millions of capital have been laid out

701
and many hundred thousands of people bred up and employed, on the presumption that the growth of corn would continue to be protected by law—when it is stated to you that the taxes are so heavy in this country and so light in other countries, that the effect of a free importation of corn would be the ruin of all the farmers, the conversion of the people entirely into manufacturers, and the consequent dependence of the whole nation on the commercial laws and even the caprices of foreign nations, you must own you have a knotty question to decide; and, besides all this, the question may be of such urgency, that I have seen several thousands of farmers utterly ruined, the manufacturers suffering for want of the internal trade, 200 banks broken, and money change its value, solely because a year was given to consider of the arguments of the political economists."
The noble Lord also said,
" It is very true that England would sell more cotton, if her manufacturers got cheap corn from Poland. But a Statesman is bound to think whether it would be better to have a million more people in the manufacturing towns, at the certainty of losing half a million of farmers and labourers; and he must place before his eyes the picture of that half-million starved out of existence, dragging along with them, for a time, the people employed in every branch of industry which depends upon their demand, clamourous for a pittance, which the inflexible spirit of science denies; shaking, perhaps, the pillars of the state, and menacing the whole order of society, before they suffer themselves to be extirpated by famine."
It was impossible for him (Lord Ashburton) to state more clearly and strongly the opinion he entertained of the consequences of great changes, than in the terms used by the noble Lord in his valuable essay. But another question which had been started by the noble Earl opposite was, whether any effect would be produced in respect to lands going out of cultivation; and the noble Earl denied, that any would be likely to go out of cultivation. Now, he had always understood the whole argument rested upon the unproductiveness of the soil of this country, by reason of the ungratefulness or uncongeniality of the soil for the culture of corn. There was a speculation that the land abroad was better worth cultivation, and, that under such a system, we should have the command of the foreign markets for our manufacturing produce. In the first place, it would be found, that parties abroad would not take our manufacturing produce. But we, in this case, put ourselves in this predicament, of putting out of cultivation all the
702
inferior soils, and of very largely decreasing the high state of culture of the remainder of the land. The landed proprietors must give up the expense of draining extensively, a system which had been going on for a long period; because it was quite clear, that the amount of expense could not keep pace with, or possibly stand in competition with the cheaper articles imported from countries abroad. Let them inquire into the state of those countries where the price of labour was half what it was here. If the prices of labour were not affected by the prices of food—if whether 8s., or 10 s., or 12 s. a week were the average rate of wages here, or the rate of wages where the people cultivated the soil in other countries was only 4d. a day, as in the case of Mecklenburg and North Germany—how was it possible that the farmer could cultivate the ground on equal terms? They must, then, come to some terms, to some arrangement with those countries; for the English Gentlemen of Nottingham, Sheffield, and all the great towns who did not like the dietaries of the poor-houses, must see that the farmers could not stand, unless they could find labourers on the low prices of foreign countries, at 4d. or 5d. a day. That was the state of things abroad. In point of fact, it was very much the custom here, and he was happy it was so, and hoped it would continue, for the country to be extremely anxious about the condition of the labouring classes; and, under the present law, they were in greater comfort than similar classes in any country on the Continent. In illustration of this fact, he might refer to the authority of Mr. Jacob, who was a political writer, and a gentleman who had been sent abroad by the Government for the purpose of examining into the price of corn, the state of agriculture, and the condition of the people of foreign countries. This gentleman declared, that he never saw white bread to the eastward of the Rhine, the bread was all black and sour, and made of rye. It might be said, that sour black bread was as good as white bread, but he believed, that noble Lords would have very great difficulty in persuading the unfortunate inmates of poor-houses, that black bread was as good as white. There was, too, the valuable report of Mr. Senior, on the hand-loom weavers, which contained much information. He knew, that during the short time he was a the Board of Trade, he made particular

703
inquiry into the condition and feeding of the crews of Russian and Prussian ships; and he found, that their food was of the lowest description. They were allowed hardly any meat of any kind. Then he said the people of this country must choose upon this subject. If they were so besotted and deluded, as to believe, that the removal of the Corn-laws would relieve them; if they were of opinion, that they should throw their markets open to competition and consumption abroad, they mnst live as the labourers abroad lived. He trusted, it might not be supposed, that he wished any such thing—far from it; for he believed, that notwithstanding all the difficulties which this country was said to be labouring under, and which never failed to exist in any country, she was going on prosperously, compared with other parts of the world. As a proof of that, he would state one or two facts in regard to the consumption in this country of articles something beyond the mere necessaries of life. He would take the article of sugar—an article very unfavourable, as it was taxed enormously, and, moreover, from the condition of the West Indies, was at a very extravagant price. Now, it was stated by Dr. Bowring, a free trader, that the consumption of sugar in France was only on the average 4lb. per head, and in Germany only 3lb. per head; whilst in this country it was 17lb. He knew no circumstances, that more fully proved the general comfort of the great mass of people of this country than facts of that description. There was also another circumstance that might be considered as affording a still stronger proof. In a report laid before the French Chambers the other day by the French Minister of Commerce, M. Cunin Gridaine, it was stated, that the consumption of butcher's meat in France was only 46lb. per head, of which, indeed, only 28lb. was really butcher's meat, and the other 18lb. was pork, whilst in England the consumption was 134lb. per head. If then they found such a proportion in different countries as compared with this, and which as legislators they were bound to look at, they could not come to the conclusion that there was anything so radically wrong in the system and the law as to make it worth their while to overturn the condition of the country for the purpose of making some addition to the revenue. On the subject of meat, the French Minister also
704
stated another very remarkable fact, which was, that the ox in France weighed only from 4 to 6 cwt., but in England the same animal weighed 8 cwt., and he stated it as a lamentable circumstance as connected with the condition of the agricultural interests in France, and said it behoved them to see whether that could not be remedied. He said, also, that he believed one of the reasons why they did not roast and boil so much in that country was, that the meat would not enable them to do it. The noble Earl opposite said, that this was a landowner's case, and that the fanner had nothing to do with it. But in what did the prosperity of the farmer consist? in his stock; and he feared, that the farmer had not much more capital generally than his stock, and yet the noble Earl told them, that the stock of 1,500 l. would come down to one of 1,000 l.
Earl Fitzwilliam: I did not say that exactly; what I said was this —that if any person could stock for 1,000 l. a farm which he now stocks for 1,500 l., I did not think there would be any harm in it.
Lord Ashburtoncontinued.—But it was quite clear they must give up the present high state of cultivation, and that portions of land not fit for cultivation must be thrown out of cultivation. And when they talked of that, their Lordships should be aware, that when they went into any measure of that description they must begin with a change in other matters, as, for instance, the Tithe Commutation Act. He ventured to say, that land about him would not be cultivated to-morrow if such a measure were brought in, and, that when tithes remained in perpetuity they would have to avoid leases and be obliged to come at last to what used to be called an equitable adjustment (as we understood). Of that he was quite sure; but he objected to any measure that materially reduced the value of the produce of land. And the objection he had to that which was at present propounded, namely, a duty of 8s., was, that it would be most oppressive on the poor man at certain periods, and would, at the same time, completely destroy the farmer in that on which he relied whenever corn was at any moderate price. The noble Earl opposite was fond of quoting the period when corn was at 39 s., which it was for a short period within the last six years; but the produce of the year was almost universally used within the year, so that, as a

705
question of rich and poor, the poor would have their bread heavily taxed when the price was high, and would get relief which they did not want when the price was low. There was not one of the high authorities on political subjects who had not uttered grave warnings as to the danger of adopting too hastily the abstract theories of political economy. They did not say, that those theories were always to be rejected and avoided; but one of the propositions for which they contended was, that though they were not at all times to be followed, yet they were entitled to this degree of respect—that those who departed from them ought to be called on to show the grounds of their departure. The authority of Mr. Huskisson had frequently been referred to upon occasions of this nature, and one observation of his appeared to be well worthy of the serious consideration of the House. Mr. Huskisson said:—
" First principles bad been alluded to, but first principles, as well as other principles, must depend on positive circumstances and relative situations for the mode in which they were to be applied. If this were an untaxed country, if we had no poor-rates, if a perfect freedom of trade existed in every branch of commerce, the arguments of hon. Gentlemen would be irresistible."
Those were the opinions of that eminent person, and when his authority was referred to, the House should not forget the passage to which he had just called their attention.
Petitions laid on the Table.