Lords Sitting of 24 May 1842

Preamble
MINUTES.] BILLS. Public.—1a. Roasted Malt.
2a. Excise Duties Compounds; Turnpike Roads (Ireland).
Reported.—Law of Evidence Improvement.
Private.— 1a. Rouma Pierre Lambert Flavian, and others Naturalization; Faversham Navigation.
2a. Bristol and Gloucester Railway; Aberdeenshire Roads; Liverpool Health of Town and Buildings Regulation; Earl of Devon's Estate; Viscount Fitzwilliam's (or Herbert's) Estate; Forth and Clyde Navigation.
Reported.—Warwick and Leamington "Union Railway (specially); Yarmouth and Norwich Railway (specially).
PRTITIONS PRESENTED. By the Earl of Hardwick, from Soham, Mildenhall, and Fordham, against the proposed Alteration of the Import Duty on Mustard, Canary, and Carraway Seeds.—By the Duke of Richmond, from Black Isle, in the county of Ross, for Protection to the Agricultural Interest.—By the Duke of Richmond, from Kirk Michael, Joraven, Mortlack, and Cabraek, against the Importation of Cattle and Sheep.

LOCKING RAILWAY CARRIAGES.
The Earl of Riponobserved that a question was asked yesterday, by a noble and learned Lord (Lord Campbell), respecting the practice which prevailed on one line of railway of locking both sides of the carriages in which passengers were confined; and the noble and learned Lord desired to know what course the Government had taken, or was disposed to take on the subject. The accident which had recently occurred in the neighbourhood of Paris, was certainly of a nature calculated to excite the greatest alarm in this country, and was one which made it the duty of the Board of Trade to take some steps on the subject. He, having the honour to preside over that Board, had accordingly directed his attention to this matter, and the first thing he had felt it his duty to do was to ascertain how far the practice of locking the carriages on both sides prevailed, and it appeared that,
676
with the exception of one railway—the Great Western—none of the companies locked up both sides. Some of them were in the habit of locking up one side of the carriage, leaving the other side unlocked. Feeling, however, that this was a very dangerous practice, and one which might lead to a similar serious calamity to that which had overwhelmed the passengers at Versailles, he referred the subject to the inspector-general of railways, for his opinion as to the degree of danger arising from the practice, and as to the necessity that existed for its being followed. That gentleman had reported that the practice was a very dangerous one, and that he saw no possible advantage that could arise from it, and that he thought it was a practice which ought not to be pursued. Upon the receipt of this report, he directed a circular letter to be addressed to the directors of the different railway companies, calling their attention to the danger of the practice, and inviting them not to continue it. That was the utmost extent of interference which the law authorised the Government to exercise in a matter of this kind, and certainly it was a question of great difficulty as to whether Government should be armed with larger powers of imposing positive restrictions upon all these companies. However, the suggestion had been made by the Government, and he had the satisfaction of stating that he had every reason to believe that there would not be the smallest hesitation on the part of the directors of the Western Railway to comply with that suggestion.
Lord Campbellsaid, that the explanation of the noble Earl must be very satisfactory to the public. The question was one of great importance, and was well deserving the consideration which the Government had given to it. Although his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack had, since the accident occurred at Versailles, travelled in one of these locked up carriages without any inconvenience or apprehension of danger, he believed that his noble and learned Friend's case was a singular one, for there could not be a question that very great apprehensions prevailed in the public mind in consequence of the frightful calamity which had occured in France. He hoped, therefore, that it would be possible to make some arrangements with the railway company, and it not, that some positive law would be passed on the subject.—Subject at an end.

THE TARIFF— CATTLE
The Duke of Richmondpresented a petition from Kirkmichael and several other parishes in the county of Banff, praying their Lordships not to pass the tariff without giving due protection to the agricultural interest, more particularly as to the importation of foreign live stock. He made some observations last night on presenting a similar petition in the absence of his noble Friend the President of the Board of Trade, which he was told he ought not to have made until his noble Friend was present. The reason he did so was, that he understood there was every probability of the tariff being passed yesterday in the House of Commons. If that had been so, it would have been contrary to the orders of their Lordships' House for him to have presented a petition against the bill, as it would then have been before their Lord ships. He could only express his great regret that his noble Friend had not acceded to what he considered the just and very reasonable request of the agriculturists, namely, that the duty should have been taken in a more satisfactory manner, and he would again express the deep anxiety he felt as to the results of those very great changes that were proposed to be adopted—changes which could not be of service to the agricultural interest, but which might, by possibility, be very prejudicial to it. He made no attack on his noble Friend or on the Government last night, nor did he intend doing so now, but he thought that the Government had gone from one extreme to another very injudiciously. The farmers had throughout conducted themselves with great forbearance, and in avoiding holding county meetings and petitioning Parliament, they had shown themselvas desirous of making a corn-compromise between all classes and interests of the country. From his knowledge of the farmers he could venture to say that they did not wish to be protected for the purpose of enriching themselves to the detriment of the other classes of the community; but they did feel, and he agreed with them, that a reduction of wages, which would be the necessary consequence of reducing the profits of the farmer, would cause great misery among that valuable class of the people—the agricultural labourers of this country. The petition was very respectfully framed, and many of the petitioners he knew, and it prayed their Lordships to give adequate protection to the agricultural interest.
The Earl of Riponwas not the least disposed to find fault with his noble Friend for having presented a petition yesterday without communicating with him. He had no right to complain; his absence yesterday was his own fault; but, if he had been present, he should only have addressed a very few observations to their Lordships, because matters like this which involved questions of detail were better discussed in the regular way than upon the mere presentation of a petition. He would say, generally, that after the most mature consideration he had been able to give to the subject, and after the closest examination of the facts relating to it, he could not participate in the apprehensions which the petitioners entertained with respect to the effect of the proposed alterations as to the importation of live cattle. The maintenance of the doctrine of prohibition, as well as its practice, he considered to be now utterly impossible. This his noble Friend must himself admit. What the Government then had to do was, to consider what would be a moderate and reasonable duly, and, looking not only to the circumstances connected with this country, but to those connected with other countries also, they had been led to the conclusion that the duty proposed was one which live cattle could fairly bear, and which would not expose the agricultural interest to any injury whatsoever, and that was really his sincere conviction. He was not, however, at all surprised at the apprehensions that were entertained on this subject, because he knew, from some years' experience in these matters, that when an alteration was proposed to be made from a system of prohibition to one of a moderate duty, all sorts of evil consequences were prophesied as being likely to result from it. He remembered, not many years ago, what occurred upon this very subject of the importation of cattle. When Ireland began to supply this country with considerable numbers of live cattle, there prevailed in his part of the country—he meant Lincolnshire—as great a panic then as it had recently been labouring under; and be recollected being at that time told by his own tenants that they were about to be ruined by such masses of Irish cattle coming to the English market, and that it would be impossible for them to obtain adequate remuneration for rearing cattle. He did not entertain any of those apprehensions, and he ventured to tell them that he could not participate in their fears, but that he

679
thought that in a very short time, although the number of cattle from Ireland might annually increase, no injury would fall upon them, nor would their means be diminished for cultivating the land, nor would they be deprived of those reasonable profits which they had been accustomed to realize. This expectation of his had been fulfilled. The quantity of cattle imported from Ireland had increased by thousands and thousands year after year, and certainly with advantage to Ireland and to this country into the bargain, and yet not one of those disadvantages apprehended by his tenants had ever befallen them. At least, as far as his experience went, he had no evidence of the want of remunerating prices which they apprehended. The motive for making the change at. the present moment undoubtedly was, that it was impossible to maintain the principle of prohibition upon any ground whatever. Nobody could be found to undertake that task; therefore her Majesty's Government came to the conclusion that any attempt to make this particular article the sole exception to the general principle of the whole tariff, as it was now already constructed, would be untenable, and that if they had been inclined to take so erroneous a course, they would certainly have been foiled in the attempt. It was supposed that the opening of the British market, under a moderate duty, to cattle from abroad, would lead to such an importation as would have a ruinous effect upon the price of cattle in this country. That it might have some effect under certain circumstances, and at some future time, was very possible; nor ought they to be surprised, or even disappointed, if it should; for let anybody watch the gradual increase of the price of meat for the few last years in this country, and consider also the vast increase of our population, and then the necessity of endeavouring to secure to the people some protection against an undue elevation of price of an article which was in fact one of necessity would be apparent. In considering the rate of duty to be imposed, it was necessary to look to those quarters whence it was supposed these great importations would come. Now, there really were only two countries in Europe from which there could be expected to be any importation of cattle into this kingdom: the one was that portion of, the kingdom of Denmark forming the Duchy of Holstein, and possibly a small quantity might come from Holland; but
680
all those countries which were continuous with those two limited spots had such vast populations that they were obliged to import cattle for their own use. France, with a population of 36,000,000, imported more than it exported, and, notwithstanding that, the price of meat in France for the last twenty years was actually doubled, and the consumption, though vast, in no degree kept pace with the increase of the population, nor had the stock of cattle kept pace in any sort of ratio with the population. In Belgium they had not enough cattle for their own consumption, but were obliged to import; and throughout the whole German League, comprising a population of 26,000,000, the same state of things actually existed. In every one of those countries there had been a gradual increase of prices going on during the last twenty years, and in all of them prices were tending to the maximum they had attained in France, and which, after all, was not a great deal less than the price of meat in this country. The case, then came to this—there were 64,000,000 of people on the continent, to which might be added 27,000,000 for the United Kingdom, making 91,000,000, who were about to compete for a few thousand head of cattle, being the small surplus supply of a small portion of the continent of Europe. Was it possible, under all these circumstances, that any evil consequences could arise as far as regarded the interests of those who thought that the price of meat would be unduly diminished? His impression was (and so far it was to him a matter of great regret) that the reduction of price, generally speaking, would be very little indeed. But though that might be the case, still the country would derive all the benefit of a free competition which the alteration would introduce. And this, after all, was the great benefit to besought for in the reduction of duty upon any article. It served rather as a check to the undue elevation of prices, than as a means of reducing prices. To this extent, then, the country at large would be benefitted, and that without inflicting the smallest injury upon any individual interest in it.
The Duke of Richmondwithout wishing to offer any advice to his noble Friend, would not hesitate to repeat the observation he made last night, that in his opinion the tariff was inconsistent with itself. He could not understand why they were to allow lean stock to come in upon the payment of a duty of 1l., and fat stock, which

681
was worth five times as much, to come in upon the same terms. Again, if a calf were imported worth 2l. 10 s., the duty was to be 10 s., but if a sheep were imported, which also might be worth 2l. or 2l. 10 s., the duty would only be 3s. Upon what principle was this difference made? He was against all prohibition ss well as his noble Friend, but he certainly wanted to know who was the Gentleman who drew up this tariff. He wished to learn of that Gentleman upon what calculation it was that he proposed to allow the importation of a fat animal alive at a duty of 20 s., which of course brought with it the tallow and the hide free of duty, whereas if that animal were killed before it was imported the duty would be upwards of 64 s., thus giving a premium for bringing the animal to this country alive of no less than 44 s. The passing of the Corn-law would of itself reduce the price of cattle, because the duty on barley and oats was not sufficient to protect the English farmer from competition, the result would therefore be that the farmer would keep more cattle on the produce of his farm. But what he complained of was, that these great experiments all affected one interest only, and that was the agricultural interest. That interest would have to sustain all the risk, while it could by no possibility obtain any advantage. His noble Friend had said that he did not think the price of meat would be reduced by this alteration of the tariff; if so, then why did the Government excite this panic throughout the country? If the consumer would not be better off. why induce him to entertain hopes that would be disappointed? One effect had already taken place in the reduction of wages. In consequence of the tariff, and of the Corn-laws, agricultural wages had been already reduced. He, however, hoped that the farmers would not reduce the wages of their labourers, if they could possibly pay them, for there was no worse economy than that of badly paying labourers. If his noble Friend had complied with the requisition made to him by many friends of the Government, and had put the tariff in a way in which it could have been satisfactorily argued, it could not have failed to have done a great deal of good. He did not wish to speak strongly upon this subject; but he felt it right, and a duty he owed to himself, to express his opinion, though what fell from him might not be worth much either there or elsewhere. He did not wish to say more: he
682
did not wish to say there was great danger to be apprehended from these changes; he only desired to express his own great and deep anxiety upon the subject. He was far from wishing to alarm the farmers by any observations that might fall from him; on the contrary, he would recommend the farmers not to be alarmed, but to entertain the hope that they might by industry and skill be able to pursue the course they had heretofore pursued, for he felt that all opposition on their part at the present time would be of very little service. At the same time he did hope and trust that if his noble Friend should have the opportunity to read the papers which had been forwarded to him, he would read them. His noble Friend should remember that firmness was a virtue to a certain extent, but after a certain extent it became obstinacy. He would not give any notice of an intention to oppose the tariff. He did not wish to pledge himself upon the subject; but he was extremely anxious that his noble Friend should read the papers which had been sent to him from every part of the country, and then he would agree in the opinion that considerable alarm had prevailed among the farmers as to the effect of the intended alterations.
Earl Fitzwilliamsaid, that it was not his office to endeavour to reconcile the different parts of the tariff, but he could not help expressing the satisfaction which he derived both from the speech of the noble Earl opposite and also from the speech of the noble Duke on the cross benches. That noble Duke had followed the example of the noble Earl in declaring that he was not an advocate for prohibition. This was a great step gained. The noble Duke, who had always been—though he, perhaps, would not allow it—a great advocate for prohibition, [" No, no,"]—the noble Duke had undoubtedly always been a great advocate for protection, and as such, he must place him in the category of those who were in favour of a protection which amounted almost to prohibition. It was, therefore, in his opinion, a great step gained, to find the noble Duke now declaring that he was not an advocate for prohibition. He could not refrain from adding his own testimony to that of the noble Earl opposite, as to the unfounded alarm which existed on this subject, and he was justified, à fortiori, in supposing that the alarm on the subject of the Corn-laws was equally unfounded. The noble

683
Earl had mentioned the from which an importation take place, and had correctly stated that such an importation would not lower the price of cattle in this country in ordinary circumstances, but would merely prevent an undue rise in the price of cattle and meat in this country. The noble Earl had correctly stated that such would be the effect of the alteration in regard to cattle, and such, he believed, would be the effect in regard to corn. He had always stated that the farmers need not look, in the event of a reduction of the duty on corn, with any alarm on such an alteration, in the belief that it would lower the price of corn in ordinary times, and that such an alteration would only have the effect of preventing an extravagant rise of price in the case of a deficient harvest. That he apprehended would be the effect of an alteration of the Corn-law. It was perfectly true that France did not raise cattle sufficient for her own consumption, and that she was obliged to import cattle from Germany. What had the French graziers done? They had addresssd the French Legislature, and had obtained what they called a protection against German cattle. What had been the recoil of that blow made against German cattle for the purpose of protecting the home trade? The effect has been to put a stop to the importation of French commodities into Germany, and such would always be the effect of protecting or prohibitory laws.
The Duke of Richmondsaid, that he had never been the advocate for prohibition in regard to corn or anything else. All he contended for was a protection to the English farmer equivalent to the taxes which he was called on to pay.
Lord Kinnairdsaid, that he thought the argument for the alteration of the duty on cattle applied with equal force to an alteration of the duty on corn, and from what he had heard to-night, he did not despair of seeing the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Ripon) either bringing in or supporting a bill for the repeal of the Corn-laws. The noble Duke who sat on the cross-benches (the Duke of Richmond) said, that the farmers deserved great praise for the manner in which they had consented to the late alteration of the Corn-law. They might deserve praise, or they might not; but for his own part he saw no reason for giving it them, because they had got a very good bargain, for ever since the Corn-bill had been passed prices had been
684
rising, and he had good authority for stating, (at least it was his belief) that in six weeks corn would be admitted at the Is. duty. In regard to the averages, he was led to believe that there was some difference between England and Scotland. The averages in Scotland were much higher than in England; and he found on inquiry that this arose in consequence of the English farmers being interested in keeping down the averages, and giving a return of all the inferior grain which they sold, whilst in Scotland the farmers were not so interested, and did not make any return of the inferior grain sold, which was generally consumed in making spirits in malting and other purposes. In regard to the distress of the country, he wished to ask the Government if they had any objection to state the reason why at the present moment they had thought it expedient to advise her Majesty to issue a begging letter, soliciting subscriptions for the relief of that distress? They had been told that the distress was only temporary, but it had been in existence since 1837, it would appear from such a letter having been issued that it was increasing, and that at this moment there was little or no prospect of its being decreased. He had been informed that that letter had been issued in consequence of communications received by the Government from different parts of Yorkshire and Lancashire, and he wished to know whether any objections to produce these communications to the House. His noble Friend near him had informed him that he had heard the letter read at the church which he attended last Sunday, and he wished to know why her Majesty had been advised at the present moment to issue such a letter? [The Earl of Ripon was not aware that such a letter had been issued.] Did her Majesty's Government mean to say, they did not know anything of such a letter—did her Majesty's Government mean to say that it was not issued by their authority? This only made the matter more deserving of inquiry, and he now gave notice that he should move for a copy of the letter, and on Thursday week, he would move for a select committee to inquire into the cause of the present distress of the country. He hoped there would be no objection to this, inasmuch as their Lordships were not burdened with business at the present moment; and the only thing they did, was to throw out good measures, and pass bad ones.
The Duke of Richmondsaid, the noble

685
Lord made an unfounded attack on their Lordships' House, when be asserted that they only threw out good measures and passed bad ones. In regard to what the noble Lord had said of the farmers of Scotland he thought that he knew a great deal about them, bnt he bad never heard of their selling wheat for the purpose of being malted. The noble Lord ought not to talk on a subject which he did not understand. Had he mixed more with the agriculturists out of doors, he would not have made the mistake he had done in supposing that even the farmers of Scotland malted inferior wheat.
Lord Kinnairdexplained: He had stated and again repeated, that the inferior wheat was sold for malting and other purposes, and was not included in the returns made by the farmers. He had paid great attention to agriculture from his youth upwards, and he had gained his knowledge of the effects of legislating on the question from studying the speeches which a noble Lord (Lord Ashburton) used to make on the subject.
Petition laid on the Table.

INCOME-TAX.
The Duke of Richmondpresented a petition from Ross-shire against the proposed plan of taxing tenants.
Earl Fitzwilliamsaid, that this was a petition against the Income-tax. He did not think that the rent a tenant paid was any criterion of his profits, or even of his capital. He would take that opportunity to observe that wages were falling previous to the meeting of Parliament, and before the fanners had any idea that the Government would propose the measures they bad done. The fall was not to be attributed to the change in the Corn-laws, but it arose from the want of a demand for agricultural labour in the manufacturing districts.
Petition laid on the Table.

THE QUEEN'S LETTER.
Lord Kinnairdthen moved that the letter issued by her Majesty, calling on the clergy to make subscriptions for the relief of the national distress, be laid upon the Table.
The Duke of Wellington: Before moving for the letter, the noble Lord should be perfectly certain that such a letter had been written.
Lord Kinnairdsaid, that his noble Friend near him could certify to the fact, because he had heard it read last Sunday at church.
Lord Colbornesaid, he certainly was in the belief that he had heard such a letter read last Sunday.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, if there were such a letter, he would offer no objection to the production of a copy of it.
The Earl of Riponsuggested that the noble Lord should give notice of his motion.
Lord Kinnairdthen gave notice, that on Thursday next he would move for the production of the letter.
Adjourned.