Lords Sitting of 8 February 1842

MINUTES.
Bill. 1a Appropriation Acts (1841) Amendment.
Petitions presented. By Lord Brougham, from a congregation of Presbyterians in Dublin, and by Lord Stafford, from several places in the North of Ireland, for an Alteration in the Law of Marriage (Ireland).—By Lord Brougham, from Paisley, Coldstream, and eight other places in Scotland, by Viscount Melbourne, from Arbroath, by the Earl of Minto, from Falkirk, and by Earl Fitzwilliam, from Ludlow, Nottingham, and other places, for the Abolition of the Corn-laws.

CORN-LAWS—EDINBURGH CONFERENCE.
Lord Broughambegged to call the attention of their Lordships to a petition which he held in his hand, and which he considered of great importance, both by reason of the subject, and of the body from which it proceeded. It was a petition from the conference lately held at Edinburgh, and which, having sat for three days, came to a unanimous determination on the subject of the Corn-laws; that was, to petition for their total repeal. That conference, as perhaps was known to their Lordships, was composed of the ministers and elders of the various dissenting congregations throughout Scotland. He understood, that originally an intention was announced from 712 congregations to send delegates to Edinburgh, but instead of that number, there were more—instead of there being a falling-off in the body of delegates represented as was usual, it generally being the case on occasions where meetings were appointed, that more delegates, where such meetings consisted of them, were named as likely to attend, fewer than was stated appeared—but on the present occasion that was not the case, for instead of 712 delegates, 802 ministers, and members of congregations appeared. The conference assembled, as he had said, in Edinburgh; they met day after day successively for three days, and the number of
132
persons who attended varied from 1,400 to 1,600 daily. The debate was carried on with the greatest possible order. In temper, manner, and tone, there was the utmost moderation. He would not trouble their Lordships with reading the petition, important as it was, for the arguments which it urged were the same as had often been urged in that House, and were familiar to their Lordships. The prayer was for a total repeal of the Corn-laws, and when he read their own words from the statement of the conference, published by their authority, it would be seen with what perfect impartiality they treated the plans both of the late Government and of the present, and their Lordships would see, that if any charge could be made against their proceedings, at least it could not be that of faction. They said, that they viewed with equal disapprobation both plans—both the sliding scale of Sir R. Peel, and the fixed duty of Lord John Russell. They passed an equal condemnation upon all projects for taxing the food of the people. They denounced such taxation as being against the principles of religion, contrary to the precepts of morality, and injurious to the best interests of society. He, however, must say, that he differed from the petitioners on the first two grounds on which they put their objections to the Corn-laws, and he agreed with the noble Viscount (Melbourne) that the question is not a religious one at all, or one of morality. He did not think, that morality or religion was peculiarly connected with this question, unless by a very strained construction. But he agreed with the conference in their last statement, that the Corn-laws were adverse to the best interests of society. Although this was a conference only from dissenting congregations, it was not to be inferred, that the congregations of the Established Church did not hold the same opinions. He was aware of no reason why a conference of dissenting ministers should be holden on this question more than on any other political question. He had stated, that he could not concur in the first two points of objection contained in the petition: nevertheless the petitioners had entrusted it to his hands, and had entrusted it to him be believed, after being aware in what respect he differed with them. He had never in any way placed upon exaggerated grounds his advocacy of the repeal of the Corn-laws. He had never held out the pros-

133
pest of such a repeal very much lowering the price of bread and other provisions in this country, That it would lower them to a certain extent he had no doubt; that it would lower them to such an extent as had been stated by many advocates of the repeal, he did not believe. There could not be a greater error than those persons committed, who in their zeal allowed themselves to be led into exaggeration; it was a mode of diminishing, the effect of their own claims, and not of increasing it, to exaggerate the consequences of any abuse. It was like an unskilful person employing a magnifying glass, which might be so used as to diminish, instead of enlarging. There was, however, an undeniable truth in the arguments by which the objections to those laws were supported, and in the proposition, that the best interests of society required their total repeal. In that opinion, as be had already said, he entirely concurred. The noble and learned Lord presented the petition.

WOOLLEN MANUFACTURES-CORN-LAWS.
The Marquis of Lansdownerose to present the petition of which he gave notice yesterday. The petition he was about to present, was from a body so respectable in their character and position in society, and at the same time so deeply interested in the present state of the commerce of this country,—unfortunate state, be was afraid he must call it—that certainly they had had peculiar reason for applying their most anxious consideration to that particular position, and for bringing their views upon that subject before their Lordships, The parties to this petition were the master woollen manufacturers of the West of England, chiefly situate in the counties of Gloucester, Somerset, and Wilts. Towards the close of last year, business in all those counties getting daily worse, upon a communication between the master manufacturers it was agreed that a conference should take place for the purpose of throwing light upon the subject, and ascertaining the opinions of the general body in that part of the country. A meeting was accordingly held at Bath, and, after exchanging communications, they came to certain resolutions, which were embodied in this petition. The petitioners in the first place, stated, that it was their opinion that there was a gradual decline in the woollen trade, which was fearfully destroying capital, neutralizing skill, and pauperising the working classes
134
of society. They then proceeded to state that the evils they deplored were, in their opinion, principally, if not entirely, occasioned by partial legislation, founded on the principle of protection, and more especially by the unjust and oppressive effect of the corn and provision laws; and thirdly, they declared it to be their opinion that all restrictive and prohibitory duties interfering with the free exchange of commodities, and not levied solely for the purpose of revenue, were, in principle, erroneous and unjust, and in their effects prejudicial to all classes of the community; and they conclude by praying, and by stating it as their desire, that all duties intended for the British manufactures, should also be repealed. Upon each of these points, he should offer a very few observations. With respect to the first proposition, he was afraid it was one which admitted of no doubt; namely, the decline of the woollen trade. There had been, perhaps, too much declamation and loose assertion upon the subject of distress, true and unquestionable as it was, that it prevailed among the manufacturing population of this country. But, although he should not dwell upon any such general statement, and general declamation, it was as well to have recourse to facts which could be proved. Without troubling their Lordships with any details at length, he might state, with regard to that manufacture to which this petition alluded, that the following had been the state of it in some of the principal places in the West of England. In Bradford, there were, in the year 1820, nineteen master manufacturers, producing 620 pieces of cloth per week; in the last year, these nineteen had diminished to two, and the quantity of pieces produced was reduced to 100. Of the nineteen masters, nine had failed, five had declined business for want of success, three had gone into other establishments, and there remained two only. Unquestionably Bradford was, from its local circumstances, one of the places affected by the greatest suffering, but suffering was by no means confined to that place—it extended, in a greater or less degree, to all the towns engaged in the woollen manufacture. In Trowbridge, one-third only of the looms were now employed. In Frome, which was one of the principal towns in Somersetshire, and might be taken as a fair representative of the state of trade in that county, twenty years ago there were twenty-eight woollen manufactories; now

135
only fifteen were employed, and these not wholly, five were only occasionally employed, five were entirely shut up, and three were converted to other purposes; and, from having altogether fifty establishments of cloth and kerseymere manufactures, making 300 pieces per week, there were now only fourteen establishments, making 150 pieces per week. So much for Somersetshire. As to Gloucestershire, it appeared from the reports the petitioners had been able to collect, that ten years ago there were 133 mills at work, but there were now seventy-seven only. In the year 1831 there were in Gloucester 1,083 looms at work, and now only 430; while in the county generally, in 1831, there were 3,200 looms, and now 1,530. He would not trouble their Lordships with details. He was sure he had stated enough to prove to their Lordships the rapid decline of the woollen manufacture; and that which must follow such a decline was, the increased misery of the people, increased Poor-rates, and a diminished consumption of agricultural produce in the neighbourhood of those towns. He had heard it said, and he had been led more to entertain that opinion himself than was perhaps justifiable on former occasions, that there was a disposition in the trade to quit that part of the country, and to take refuge, or rather to establish itself, in other and distant, and particularly in the more northern parts of England. But, upon a communication with these gentlemen, they stated to him (the Marquess of Lansdowne) that they acknowledge no ground whatever for trade removing itself from that district to another, they had advantages nearly similar of fuel and water carriage, and they appealed to that to which, unfortunately, they might appeal with great justice and confidence—to the fact that in the north of England, and even in Scotland itself, the same distress, and the same decline of trade prevailed. The petitioners proceeded to inform their Lordships that, upon consideration, they were of opinion, that the state of the Corn-law, if not wholly, was the principal cause of that decline. He, for one, was not prepared to state, that he considered the Corn-law as the sole cause of the decline of trade. He, perhaps, might not be disposed even to think that it was a cause to the same overwhelming degree that these petitioners considered it to be; but of this he was well convinced, that if there
136
were other causes at work operating that declination, the state of the Corn-laws was that which interfered with all the natural remedies for a declining trade, and that the vis medicatrix which existed in all trades, and which was inherent in commerce, was by those laws deprived of its power, force, and efficiency, at the moment when that efficiency was most required. The petitioners stated to him a fact so strong, so simple, and so strikingly illustrative of this view of the subject, that he was induced to mention it to their Lordships. Some of the principal of these manufacturing establishments had consigned a considerable quantity of cloth to the United States. They sent these consignments upon limited credit, to be paid for at a fixed time, When that time arrived, the disorder of the monetary system in the United States was such, that it was impossible for the parties to effect a money payment, and the agents informed these gentlemen that the consignees could not give money for the goods, but they could procure and send corn. But such was the state of the Corn-law, such was the state of the averages at that time, and such the uncertainty which prevailed in the corn-trade, it was impossible for these persons to venture to take the corn, or to feel any sort of confidence that the corn, if taken, could be advantageously disposed of, and from that circumstance, the distress which prevailed was aggravated, and pauperism was increased. And such was the case among the 70,000 or 80,000 persons who were dependent upon these petitioners. It had been said, that one cause of the decline of trade in the West of England was the withdrawal of the orders by the East-India Company; but the article purchased by the East-India Company was principally manufactured in Devonshire; whereas this petition referred to the declining state of trade in the west of England generally, and was not confined to the particular species of manufacture which the East India Company used to buy. The third proposition which the petitioners took up certainly was one calculated to attract the attention of their Lordships. It was, perhaps, the first time—certainly it was a very remarkable and rare occurrence, as compared with petitions from manufacturers of former periods—that a body of manufacturers should petition their Lordships to repeal all prohibitory duties and all monopoly protections which were not intended to be

137
levied for the purposes of revenue. This might, at least, be allowed to be a striking and unanswerable proof of the deep confidence which they felt in the truth of the allegations which they made. He trusted, indeed, that if any change was to take place in the law upon this subject. It would not be confined to the Corn-law, for the felt that the landed interest of this country, if a change did take place in that law, would be most cruelly and unjustly treated if they were not relieved from any monopoly in other quarters, from which they suffered, and if the great and abundant supplies which the markets of the world furnished were not left open to them, at a time when they were called upon, and justly called upon, to give up their own monopoly. It gave him great satisfaction that this petition, expressing the sentiments of these manufacturers, who were so deeply interested in the welfare of trade, was presented at a more auspicious moment than it could have been a short time ago. He perceived symptoms that the Corn-laws were about to follow the fate of the laws formerly affecting the woollen trade. Some people who once had held and vaunted the opinion that the Corn-laws were the bulwark of their prosperity, were now beginning to come round to the notion that they were not so absolutely indispensable; while others thought that almost any alteration of them would be for the benefit of the community. Some openly and avowedly held this doctrine, and others were silently giving way and abandoning a system to which they had long obstinately adhered. To what extent the intended alterations might go, he was not prepared to say, and future opportunities would occur for discussing the subject. Whatever duty might be allowed to remain, the petitioners hoped that if any it would be a fixed duty in order to avoid injurious fluctuations. The petition had been agreed to at a meeting of the manufacturers of Gloucester, Wilts, and Somersetshire, and only one or two persons dissented from its prayer.
On the question that the petition do lie upon the table,
Lord Broughamagreed that it was rare for persons engaged in manufactures to petition against anything like protecting duties; but there was one remarkable exception, and that was when he (Lord Brougham) laid upon the table a petition from persons authorised by all the great manufacturing bodies in the kingdom. They prayed the repeal of every duty
138
levied under the pretence of protection. He perceived from the petition just presented that the petitioners were not in favour of a fixed duty on corn.
The Marquess of Lansdowneobserved that the petitioners were opposed to any duty on corn but what might be necessary as a measure of revenue.
Lord Broughamsaid, that in that case the petitioners were for a direct bread-tax—a tax on bread for the sake of the revenue; on that point he was utterly at variance with them.
The Marquess of Lansdowneadded, that the petitioners were for only such a duty on corn as was necessary for the purposes of revenue. They felt that the trade in corn ought not to be exempted from burdens to which other trades were liable.
Lord Broughamremarked, that though the petitioners did not call it a bread-tax, it was such, in fact, if preserved only for the sake of the revenue.
The Marquess of Lansdownesaid, that they did not wish for any such duty, but that they were willing to submit to it.
Lord Ashburtonremarked, that the subjects introduced by the noble Marquess were so important that it was impossible to discuss them with all the advantage that became them on the mere presentation of a petition. The question of free trade (continued the noble Lord), the question whether any portion of the distress was owing to the Corn-laws, in part, as described by the petitioners; and the question whether any portion of it sprung from some derangement in the monetary system, would, each of them, probably be sufficient for the discussion of an evening. He could not, however, hear such statements as those made by the petitioners without entering his protest against the conclusions to which they had come. He entertained no doubt whatever of the existence of great distress prevailing among the woollen manufacturers; he had no doubt that it was severe among that class of persons; but he doubted whether there was not some exaggeration in the statement that the number of looms which had been employed in the particular district, being 3,000, had fallen off to 1,500, that being about one-half. If this were, however, so, it was pretty clear that such a declension must be owing to something more than the petitioners had described. There must be, he was induced to believe, something in the local position of those manufactories which placed them in a disadvantageous position. The decline,

139
too, had not taken place suddenly, but somewhat gradually; and it was the nature of manufactures to undergo a change. It had been well observed on a former occasion by a noble Viscount opposite, when distress was complained of as applying to a particular body of manufacturers—the noble Viscount said it was the penalty which was frequently paid for that species of wealth. It was the common course of things that one manufacturer in one place drove out another manufacturer in another. One district often superseded another in manufactures. Their Lordships heard of the distress of the manufacturing population one day, and the distress of the agricultural population another. He must protest, therefore, against the principle of one body of petitioners suggesting a remedy for their own relief, at the expense of other portions of the community. This was a species of doctrine to which he strongly objected, and he would urge their Lordships not to yield to it. As a general principle, change per se in the making of laws was a great evil. In saying this, however, he did not mean to say, that no change should take place; but then he would assert that no change in the laws affecting the interest of the great body of the people ought to be made, except under the conviction that such change was most desirable, and was a change for the better. The legislature ought not to be called upon to interfere to alter or vary the laws on light grounds, or because a partial evil existed, or because one branch of commerce was in a declining state. There was a good deal of fallacy often mixed up in these matters. One instance of a false conclusion the petitioners had fallen into he begged to remind their lordships of. It had been suggested as a remedy by the petitioners, that were the Corn-laws abolished they would be benefited in that way. It was stated, that owing to some derangement in the monetary system in the United States of America, and such a derangement no doubt had existed, the manufacturer in England would not be paid for the goods which he had sent thither. But, the correspondent added, that if there were a free trade in corn he would pay that way by sending corn instead of money. How was this to be accomplished he begged to inquire? Most likely the party who had made that assertion was engaged in the woollen trade in New York, or some other city, and of course he was not a dealer in corn. He must have his corn to
140
buy, and, consequently, must pay for it in money. Now with that same money he might have paid for the manufactured goods. Surely, he might have remitted it to England. He must say he was surprised to find his noble Friend was to be deceived by a fallacy like this. He objected to discussions on such matters taking place night after night, because he was persuaded that they were calculated to mislead the country. He could not, however, hear such opinions as those broached by the petitioners without protesting against them. As regarded himself, their Lordships would not be troubled with any observations of his for some time to come. The petitioners seemed to think that the millennium of free trade was about to take place, but they would be disappointed. If the principles of free trade were, however, to be acted upon by all the world, he should be among the first to hail such a prospect. But this was far from being the case; for every year some exclusive system was brought to light as being acted upon, injurious to our commerce, by different countries. Indeed, scarcely a week passed but some part of the world displayed a determination to act upon the restrictive and condemned principles; therefore it was, that he denounced such notions as he had just adverted to. The principle against which he had entered his protest was this, that distress experienced in any one branch of trade, or even in agriculture itself, however important that interest, or however great the number of persons whose labour was absorbed in that pursuit, was no reason, and should be no reason, to induce the Ministry of the period to propose, or the Legislature to adopt, propositions which would upset and shake the whole commercial system of the nation.
Petition laid on the Table.

CATHOLIC PRIESTS IN MADRAS.
Lord Cliffordrose to beg their Lordships to postpone till after the Easter recess a motion of which he had given notice to the House, on the 1st of October last, for the appointment of a Committee to inquire how far it was in the power of the Government and Council of Madras to afford protection to natives of this country and Hindostan, and to hear evidence on the subject, and report it to the House. The reason why he thought it necessary to bring that motion forward was, that the Governor-general of India bad asked for the fullest information on every point to

141
which he had referred, when speaking upon that subject on a former occasion. He understood, that a report had been sent to the presidency of Madras, stating what had taken place in that House, on the 23rd of September. His speech on that occasion lasted upwards of an hour, but did not occupy more than twenty lines of the columns of the newspapers. He had, therefore, thought it necessary to make a protest in the papers as to the report which had appeared on the 24th, relative to what he had said on the 23rd. If any of the reports which appeared in the public papers of the 24th, had been forwarded to India, those reports were only calculated to promote confusion: and the question on which he had addressed their Lordships was one of so great consequence, that it was absolutely necessary, that false reports should not go abroad. He would not now go further into the motion, which be wished their Lordships to postpone till after the recess, but would merely ask, whether any answer had been received at the Board of Control, with regard to the information which had been sent out relative to the correspondence between Lord William Bentinck and J. Manuel de Castro, the Governor of Goa? He was not disposed to condemn, upon such information as he had yet received on the subject, the conduct of Mr. Blackburn towards the Catholic subjects of Queen Victoria in Bengal, in refusing to allow them access to churches or chapels built with their own money and on their ground, except on the condition of assisting, in defiance of the prohibition of the head of the Catholic church, officially notified to them by their bishop, at divine service performed by clergymen who were not in communion with the see of Rome, on the ground, that in such conduct he was not borne out by the law of Madras, which did not recognize the decision of Sir Peter Grant, at Calcutta, that after the Order in Council of Lord William Bentinck, laid on the Table of the House, Oct. 4, 1841, no one could plead in court, as a Catholic priest, who was declared in court by the Catholic vicar apostolic, recognised by the Governor in Council, as sent by the Pope with the consent of the British Government to be superior of the Catholic missions in the Presidency, "with all the jurisdiction given him by the Pope," and admitted by the Governor in Council as beneficial to
142
the interests of England. This was the statement to which he had drawn the attention of their Lordships on the 23rd of September last, making a motion at the same time for the production of certain papers; some of those papers were laid on the Table; others it was declared could not be found at the India House, which was the case with nearly all the papers relating to the subject. He repeated his motion on the 4th of October, and notwithstanding this declaration, the papers were produced. He entreated their Lordships, between the present time and the Easter recess, to direct their attention, in some degree, to the subject, which he considered as one of immense importance to the peace of India, and one on which he thought it most material, that no false reports should go abroad. He had thought it right to protest against what he had been made to say in the public papers, though he did not think himself called on to state what he did say on that occasion. When the aggrieved parties came forward, as they intended to do with a petition and address to her Majesty, and not till then, he should bring his motion forward. He had expected, that the address and petition would, by this time, have arrived in this country, but circumstances had occurred to prevent it; he expected both the petition and the address, however, would reach this country by the Easter recess, when they would be presented in due form. He was not authorised to state the precise terms in which they were couched, but there was one particular about them, which had pleased him much. In the address to the Queen, it was expressly stated, that if on examination it should be found, that any injury had been done to any one, it was the petitioners' first request, that no vindictive measures might be taken on their account against the persons who might have aggrieved them. They asked for tranquillity and security for the future, and not for vengeance for the past, which they utterly disclaim. He concluded by asking the noble Lord, the President of the Board of Control, if he had received any further communication on the subject?
Lord Fitzgeraldwould confine himself to answering the question put to him by the noble Lord. Their Lordships would not expect, nor would the noble Lord expect, that he should make any observations relative to the speech which he had

143
addressed to their Lordships in September last, or in reference to any observations which he might make in respect of the committee to be moved for. He agreed with the noble Lord as to the importance of the subject, which, when it was brought forward, would, doubtless, receive that attention from their Lordships, which the noble Lord thought it entitled to. The noble Lord had yesterday mentioned to him, that he intended to ask a question on this subject, and he then told the noble Lord, that no answer had yet been received in reply to the inquiry made by Lord Ellenborough, at the period alluded to. He was not prepared to say, nor did he think, that any one was competent to give the information to the noble Lord, as to the nature of the inquiries directed to be made by Lord Ellenborough. Nor did he know how much or how little of the speech alluded to by the noble Lord had been communicated by Lord Ellenborough to the parties in India, to whom the interrogations were sent. This was what he had stated yesterday to the noble Lord; but to-day he observed in the mail that had been received from India, a private communication to Lord Ellenborough from Lord Auckland, in which it was stated, that the information he could give on the subject, was generally imperfect, and not very satisfactory. As soon as he could make himself master of the question, he would lay the information, such as it was, before their Lordships, but he was afraid it was not so satisfactory as it might have been, had more time been allowed for inquiry.
Adjourned.