Lords Sitting of 22 March 1844

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—Received the Royal Assent.—Consolidated Fund; 3½ per Cent Annuities; 3½ per Cent. Annuities (1818); Gaming Transactions; Teachers of Schools (Ireland).
Private.—1a. Blythswood Estate (Campbell's); Capamagian, Hatzik, and Manouk Naturalization; Ramsay Inclosure; Bury (Huntingdon) Inclosure; Liverpool New Gas and Coke Company; Birmingham Canal Navigation.
2a. Ribble Navigation.
3a. and passed:—Spartali's Naturalization; Lascaridi's Naturalization.
PETITIONS PRHSENTED. By the Duke of Richmond, from Justices of Ross and Cromarty Shires, against Repeal of the Corn Laws.—By the Duke of Richmond, and Lord Prudhoe, from Brockdish, and several other places, for Protection to Agricultural Interest.—From Clergy of Evesham, against Union of Sees of St. Asaph and Bangor.—From Debtors in Coventry and Worcester Gaol, in favour of Creditors and Debtors Bill.—From Llanmowdry, and 2 other places, for the Establishment of Local Courts.—From Ministers and Elders of the Presbytery of Berwick and Stafford, against the Dissenters' Chapels Bill.—From Inhabitants of Bermondsey, complaining of the Lambeth Water Works Company.—By Lord Lilford, from Silk Hand Loom Weavers of Leigh, and places adjacent, for Inquiry into certain Grievances, and for Relief.—By the Marquess of Clanricarde, from Inhabitants of Clare, County of Digby, province of Nova Scotia, in favour of the Repeal of the Union (Ireland).—By the Duke of Richmond from Peculiar of Harefield, for Exemption from Ecclesiastical Courts Bill,

CORN LAWS.
The Earl of Radnorwas anxious to notice a charge which had

1361
been thrown out against the manner in which a petition that he had recently presented to the House, from the County of Somerset, in favour of Free Trade, had been carried. It was said that persons had been sent, at the expense of the Anti-Corn-Law League, from Taunton to Bridgewater, by whose means the petition had been carried, although the meeting had been summoned for a very different object. It was true that many persons friendly to the principles advocated by the League were present, but they were not sent there in the manner alleged. At the time of presenting the petition to which he alluded, he had adverted to some observations made by a noble Lord, with reference to the Anti-Corn-Law League, at a meeting in favour of the Corn Laws, held at York. It had been supposed that he alluded, on that occasion, to Lord Feversham, as the speaker. Such, however, was not the fact. He referred to observations made by the Earl of Harewood.
The Duke of Richmondthought that from what the noble Earl himself said, it might be inferred that a great number of persons were at the meeting who would not have been present if some extraordinary influence had not been used. The noble Earl did not deny that many members of the Anti-Corn-Law League were present, and it was admitted, that by waiting till the meeting grew thinner, they carried their point. He believed that they considered this a great triumph, and he fancied that most of their triumphs were achieved in the same way. He was glad to find that they were angry, because they now discovered that the farmers had come to a determination to oppose their machinations, and support the existing Corn Laws.
The Duke of Buccleuchhoped that he might be permitted to make one observation, as a relation of his own (the Earl of Harewood) had been alluded to by the Noble Earl. His noble relation had certainly made a speech at the York meeting against the proceedings of the Anti-Corn-Law League, which speech contained the statement, that a farmer who had spoken against the Corn-Law League, had had his stacks set on fire the following night; but he could assure the noble Earl, that what his noble relation stated on that occasion, he stated as a fact that had appeared in a newspaper.
The Earl of Radnorsaid, that on read-
1362
ing the statement made by the noble Earl, as given in the Leeds Mercury, in which paper some commentaries appeared at the same time, on the expressions used by the noble Earl, he wrote to the noble Earl to ascertain whether the statement was accurate, and he received a note from him signifying that the report in the Leeds Mercury of what he had said was correct. Now there was a direct accusation made in those expressions, against the Anti-Corn-Law League, intimating that their proceedings led to incendiarism.
Lord Wharncliffecould not avoid remarking that the Anti-Corn-Law League attacked the Aristocracy, not in measured language, but with considerable bitterness of expression, and he was not a little surprised to find that persons who thus acted, should be so thin-skinned themselves, as not to be able to bear strong language when applied to themselves. It appeared that his noble Friend had made a statement, at the York meeting, that a farmer, who had spoken against the Anti-Corn-Law League, had had his corn-stacks burnt the following night, and this the Anti-Corn-Law League could not endure. If that party used strong language, they must expect strong language being applied to them in retaliation.
Other petitions being presented on the subject of the Corn Laws,
The Earl of Radnorrose, and begged to offer a few words in reply to the observations which had been made a short time ago, by the Lord President of the Council, who expressed his surprise that persons who had themselves made attacks, should be so thin-skinned that they could not bear to be attacked in their turn. If the Corn-Law League had sinned, they had not been without imitators; but he (Lord Radnor) was not aware that the Anti-Corn-Law League had been guilty of making such attacks as those alluded to. The noble Earl said, that his noble Friend (Lord Harewood) had stated a fact, but he denied that it was calculated to lead to the inference that the Anti-Corn-Law League had incited parties to incendiarism. Now he (the Earl of Radnor) had, as he had before said, called die attention of the noble Earl to the paragraph in the newspaper in which the meeting was reported, and the noble Earl admitted that it was correct. With regard to the Anti-Corn-Law League not being able to bear remarks on their proceedings, he begged to remind

1363
noble Lords that this was not the only language of the kind that had been used towards them. Among other things said of them, a Gentleman who for many years had represented the County of Lincoln, said that if the Anti-Corn-Law League came into Lincoln again, it was likely they would be thrown over the bridge into the river.
The Duke of Buccleuchobserved, that the Earl of Harewood admitted that the newspaper report of what he had said was correct, but he did not admit the inference drawn from it in a newspaper article; the noble Earl did not impute, nor did he intend to impute to the League, that they incited to incendiarism.
The Earl of Radnorsaid that the words of the noble Earl were—"There are other views in the Anti-Corn-Law League agitation, than those which meet the eye of the public. What happened to a farmer the other day in Lincolnshire, or Norfolk, I forget which? He attended a meeting, and openly stated his opinions against the Anti-Corn-Law League. His stacks and his crops were burnt that night." If that did not mean an inference that the League incited to incendiarism, he did not know what it meant.
Lord Wharncliffesaid, upon the face of the noble Earl's own report of the words used, there was no such charge. Two separate facts were stated.
The Earl of Radnor: Yes; but the one follows immediately on the other.
Lord Beaumontsaid, he was present at the time the noble Earl made the speech, and he could distinctly state, that no idea was raised, among those on the platform, of any intention on the part of the noble Earl to make such a charge against the League. The noble Earl alluded to the violent language used at the League meetings, and to the fact of the stacks being burnt, but he never implied that there was any intention on the part of the League to incite incendiarism.
The Marquis of Normanby said, he was neither an Anti-Corn-Law Leaguer, nor an anti-anti, but he must express his regret that a noble Earl, not so accustomed to public speaking as the noble Lord (Beaumont) was, should have stated two facts in such close succession, as to lead to the inference imputed to him.
The Duke of Richmondentertained no doubt whatever, that Lord Harewood was not aware that the House of Lords was to be made a court of appeal, to consider a
1364
speech that he had made in the City of York. He (the Duke of Richmond) hoped that his noble Friend (Lord Radnor) would recommend the Anti-Corn-Law League to be more guarded in their expressions than they had hitherto been. His noble Friend had stated that an hon. Gentleman at Lincoln had recommended that if any of the Anti-Corn-Law League should appear in that City, that they should be thrown over the bridge; now, if the hon. Gentleman to whom allusion had been thus made, had said so, all that he (the Duke of Richmond) could say was, that he would recommend them not to go.

HANDLOOM WEAVERS.
Lord Lilfordrose, pursuant to notice, to present a Petition from 5,000 inhabitants of Leigh, in Lancashire, praying for a Committee of Inquiry into the condition of the Handloom Weavers. The noble Lord stated, that the statements of the Petitioners related chiefly to low wages, unjust abatements, and the want of employment. They complained also that the Arbitration Act was not properly carried out. The noble Lord read a number of papers for the purpose of showing that the Silk Weavers were subject to unjust abatements of wages, and that the law, as at present existing, was not sufficient to protect the workmen—justice being neither so speedy nor so economical as it ought to be. The petitioners, he observed, came before their Lordships with a statement of grievances, which, looking to the condition of the manufacturing districts, to the state of the markets in those districts, and to other circumstances, would, he thought, justify the Government in holding out some indication, however slight, of an intention to take their case into consideration, with a view to remedy those grievances. As he understood the noble Earl opposite intended to make a statement in reference to the petition, he would not move for a Committee. He would only assure the noble Earl he had every reason to believe that the allegations of the petitioners could be distinctly proved. The noble Lord concluded by presenting the Petition, in which the petitioners prayed for some legislative enactments to protect them from the unjust encroachments of unprincipled masters, for the establishment of a board of trade, composed of masters and workmen, and for a Committee to inquire into the system of cruel and unjust abatements of which they complained.
The Earl of Dalhousiewas glad the

1365
noble Lord did not intend to move for a Committee, as he (Lord Dalhousie) should have felt it an ungracious task to attempt to persuade their Lordships from granting it as it would have been his duty to do. But the case of the Handloom Silk Weavers had so frequently been the subject of inquiry before Committees of both Houses, and more particularly by a Commission whose labours extended over three years, their distress was so well known, and the result of those inquiries had proved so clearly that the remedies which the parties themselves had looked for were beyond the reach of legislative power, that to attempt now to renew the appointment of a Committee would only excite and encourage hopes which, ending, as they inevitably and unfortunately must, in disappointment, would only aggravate the distress and increase the difficulties which the Handloom Weavers were from time to time unhappily involved in. The noble Lord did not enter into any general statement of their case, but restricted himself to the point, as stated by the petitioners in their memorial, of those abatements of wages which they alleged to be unjustly made by masters in the oppressive exercise of their power; and he was not inclined to dispute any of the statements made by the noble Lord on that point. He believed that documents at present on their Lordships' Table would afford sufficient proof of the partial existence of such a system; and show, that although a great number of manufacturers were free from any charge upon the subject, yet that there were some who did take advantage of the necessities of the workmen, and deduct an undue proportion of their wages. The matter was one which had already engaged the attention of the Government, and been for some time under their consideration; but, as the House must be aware, it was necessary to proceed with extreme caution in a law which affected a trade scattered over the country as this was, and governed by regulations which were as various as the localities themselves. It was necessary gravely to consider all the evidence that had been collected upon the subject before they could venture to make alterations in the law, however plausible they might be, so that in removing the grievances in one locality they might not make the matter worse in another. He would give no positive pledge for the introduction of a Bill to amend that Clause of the Arbitration Act, to which the noble Lord adverted but he could assure the
1366
noble Lord that the question would be considered without loss of time, and that the sincerest desire existed on the part of the Government to remedy such imperfections as might be found in that Act. If after a deliberate consideration of the whole case it should be found that the difficulties were such as to render any attempt at alteration undesirable, his noble Friend would, of course, have notice to that effect, and it would then be open to him to renew his Motion for a Committee of Inquiry, or adopt such other course as he might think best.
Lord Lilfordthanked the noble Earl for his assurance that the question would be anxiously considered, particularly as he admitted the existence of the grievance of abatement of wages in the district from which the Petition emanated.
The Earl of Dalhousiewished to be perfectly accurate in his statement. He admitted the existence of the grievance of abatement of wages; but he did not say that it existed in the particular place alluded to, because the inquiry had not been carried into that particular place.
House adjourned.