PROCEEDINGS OF THE ANTI-CORN-LAW LEAGUE. (Hansard, 19 February 1846)

§ LORD DACRE
, in presenting a petition from Exeter, for inquiry into the proceedings of the Anti-Corn-Law League, in inducing parties resident at a distance to purchase 40s. freeholds in counties, observed that the present was not the time to enter into a discussion on the general subject; but he could not help reminding their Lordships, that in 1829 so great were the evils in Ireland produced by the 40s. freeholders, that the Legislature were compelled to get rid of them; and, therefore, the proceedings of the League, in the creation of these votes, could not be too much condemned. He did not mean to say that the acts of the Anti-Corn-Law League in this respect were not legal, as they had the authority of almost the first law officer in this country (Lord Chief Justice Tindal); but he considered that if they were in accordance with the letter of the law, they were not in accordance with the spirit of the Constitution. He considered, therefore, that this petition was worthy of the attention of their Lordships.

LORD KINNAIRD
said, that this was the second time this Session that the noble Lord had called attention to the proceedings of the Anti-Corn-Law League; and he, as a member of the League, agreed with the prayer of the petition for an inquiry. The League courted inquiry. Every thing that had been done by the League was fair and above-board. As to the League's getting hold of the counties, he could assure the noble Lord that he need not be alarmed about the minute subdivision of land caused by the creation of 40s. freeholds. Men of all parties and classes had bought them. If the noble Lord wished to open the whole question of the Reform Bill, he (Lord Kinnaird) should be glad to go into it with him; but when they talked of creating large numbers of 40s. freeholders, the nomination boroughs must not be forgotten, which were so openly controlled by Peers of that House. He maintained that the League were acting legally and constitutionally in giving facilities to persons who wished to acquire votes; and they were only doing what had been done by others for worse ends. Why, there was the town of Buckingham, where the proprietor, using the most legal means, could return any Member he chose to the Lower House; and the same thing was done in many other cases by noble Lords on both sides of the House, as both parties were well known to have their nomination 1148 boroughs. The Anti-Corn-Law League was quite willing and prepared to go into the whole question; and he, as an individual, should rejoice in such an inquiry, as preparatory to a better reform of Parliament. In present circumstances, if those who were called protectionists or monopolists went to the constituencies, his firm conviction was, that, from their power over nomination boroughs, and other influences, they might return a party adverse to free trade; but if they did so they might depend upon it that nothing would be more likely to raise into existence illegal or unconstitutional bodies, instead of such safe and legal associations as they now found in the Anti-Corn-Law League.

§ LORD REDESDALE
, in presenting a petition from Northumberland, praying that protection might not be removed from agriculture, said that, in his opinion, the proceedings of the Anti-Corn-Law League, in regard to registration, were directly unconstitutional, although, according to the strict letter of the law, they were legal. The Constitution of this country required that the population and property of each electoral district should return Members to represent that district in Parliament; and the Legislature had more than once interfered to prevent the disturbance of that right by strangers. When, therefore, he saw a body saying that Liverpool and Manchester should secure the representation of Cheshire, he called that an interference with the rights of the people of Cheshire. When, again, he saw the same body, in one of their printed addresses, saying that the inhabitants of London ought to secure Hertfordshire, because it was near to London, he called that an unconstitutional interference with the electors of Hertfordshire. If the Legislature neglected to do something to put a stop to this undue interference with the election of Members of Parliament, they would have clubs and knots of persons constantly interfering with the constituencies of England, contrary to their privileges and to the spirit of the Constitution. The Anti-Corn-Law League were worse than the Duke of Bedford, in making the celebrated fagot votes in Huntingdonshire. He created on his property in that county more votes than belonged to it, though still within the range of law; but it was held, nevertheless, to be an undue interference with the electors of Huntingdon. But, under the operations of the League, they might have parties whose interests were solely the interests of Manchester, and not 1149 those of Huntingdon, coming forward and swamping the people of Huntingdon in the election of a Member of Parliament, so that the general interests of that county were, by these means, left unrepresented. If they went on in this way, the consequence might be that one interest would obtain the representation of every constituency in the kingdom. If Parliament did not give a strong expression of its will in regard to this matter — unless the practice should naturally drop—("Hear.") He understood the meaning of that "hear," and would refer to it again; but in the meantime, he must say that, unless the Legislature interfered, the consequence would be, that Parliament would cease to be the most important body in the country. A great deal that was going on in Ireland and in this country had a tendency to lower Parliament in the eyes of the country; especially the House of Commons, as that branch of the Legislature was more affected by it than that to which their Lordships belonged. People would begin to look to the proceedings of other bodies more than to Parliament; and in process of time would learn to say that they did not care about the House of Commons, but would rather look to such bodies as the Anti-Corn-Law League, or the Repeal Association, who could counteract the decisions of Parliament. He must say, therefore, that unless this evil was watched, there was a process going on in this country, and in Ireland particularly — for it began there — that would tend in effect to alter the whole Constitution of the country. That such a state of things should be going on without Parliament interfering—without calling forth the attention of those whose peculiar duty it was to watch over the interests of the country—without any interference on the part of the Government, was not very creditable to the parties concerned. As to the evil dropping, he knew what noble Lords opposite meant by that. It just amounted to this—that if they gave those people what they asked, they would drop their undue practices. Now, was this the way to meet such a course as that followed by those parties? No. It might be said that the people were with them, and that what they asked, therefore, should be conceded; but if it was so, why did they not let the people alone? The effect of conceding the objects which the Anti-Corn-Law League and the Repeal Association demanded, would just be to encourage any other body of agitators that might choose 1150 to arise. He repeated that the practice of the League was contrary to the spirit of the Constitution, and could never be followed either for a good or bad purpose, without evil resulting from it.

LORD KINNAIRD
was not lawyer enough to know what might be the constitutional rule in this matter; but this he know, that the practice complained of was followed by all parties. One of the watchwords of the party to which the noble Lord belonged was, "Register! register! register!" Well, the League attended to the registrations, and made legal votes for that purpose in a way much more legal than was followed by proprietors to an enormous extent in Scotland. He agreed with the noble Lord that this was an abuse, and he was quite ready to go into the whole matter, and have the entire abuse reformed. But he thought that the Anti-Corn-Law League were in the mean time justified in adopting the same legal means with others for the promotion of their object; and he would tell the noble Lord that, if the repeal of the Corn Laws was carried immediately, the Anti-Corn-Law League would be dissolved. It would not be continued for any other purpose, the sole object of the association being to obtain the repeal of the Corn Laws. Perhaps the knowledge of this fact might somewhat relieve the mind of the noble Lord.

§ EARL GREY
observed, that whatever party first commenced the practice of increasing the constituency far beyond what a country naturally should have, he must say that he concurred with the noble Lord opposite in thinking that the existence of such a party embodied as the Anti-Corn-Law League was a serious evil. But when he said it was a serious evil, he must also say that he thought it was only a symptom of a still greater and still more serious evil, and that was, the existence of a state of the law which a large proportion of the intelligent people of this country felt to be an intolerable grievance—a grievance against which they found it necessary to take even such means as these for relieving themselves. The noble Lord had said, and said truly, that the manner in which these things were gone about, both in this country and in Ireland, and in respect to Irish affairs, was calculated to lower the authority of Parliament: he cordially concurred with him in that view. But he would ask, what was the cure they ought to apply to such evils? It was not by adopting any coercive means to prevent such manifestations of 1151 opinion—it was not by adopting any law to prevent the existence of the Catholic Association, or the Anti-Corn-Law League, or preventing the purchase of property to make votes for those not resident in a county—it was not by any machinery of that kind they could formally grapple with this evil; but it was by Parliament taking the lead of public opinion, instead of lagging in the rear—not waiting to be driven by the loudly-expressed wishes of the community to make necessary reforms—not waiting to be compelled by the voice of public opinion that had been roused into agitation by the long continuance of a great grievance and abuse. It was by looking beforehand—by taking timely care to remedy evils before they were felt to be intolerable—it was by Parliament again performing its ancient duty of leading public opinion, instead of waiting to be driven by that opinion, that they could hope to put an end to those evils of which the noble Lord complained. No man could see more strongly than he did the inconvenience of all the great changes of modern times being deferred, till they were passed, not as matters flowing from the judgment of Parliament, but from necessity. He thought they incurred high responsibility who prevented the public from having sooner understood what was required, for having used their influence to perpetuate ancient prejudices and unsound opinions. Those who had done so, misguided, no doubt, themselves; and, shortsighted as to the consequences that were about to follow, it was they, and not the party of the League or the party of the Catholic Association, who were responsible for the great evils that might result from the course complained of by the noble Lord.

§ LORD ASHBURTON
observed, that the noble Lord opposite took it for granted that all public opinion was good; that any views which were opposed to public opinion must be wrong; and that, therefore, the latter should be adopted. If public opinion in this case was with the Anti-Corn-Law League, what necessity was there for creating fictitious votes to carry Members in Lancashire and Cheshire, and the West Riding of Yorkshire? He regarded the course pursued by the League as fraught with disastrous consequences to the country. It was an evil with which Government could not be dealing rightly unless it proposed some measure to check and stop it.