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.
§ 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.