Lords Sitting of 16 June 1848

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Protection of Justices from Vexatious Actions; Administration of Justice (No. 2); Administration of Justice (No. 1).
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Horncastle, and a great number of other Places, against the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on the Sabbath.—From Guardians of the Taunton Union, for the Adoption of Measures for the Better Prevention of Vagrancy.—From the Haymarket and Lyceum Theatres, for Limiting the Number of Foreign Theatres in the Metropolis.—From Bristol, against any Alteration in the Navigation Laws.—From Forres, for Alteration of the Laws relating to Lunatics and Lunatic Asylums in Scotland.—From Kirkmichael, and a great number of other Places, against the Marriage (Scotland) Bill, and the Registering Births, &c. (Scotland) Bill.

FOREIGN THEATRES.
EARL FITZHARDINGEpresented two petitions—one from Mr. Webster, lessee and manager of "the Little Theatre in the Haymarket," and the other from the performers of the Lyceum Theatre, signed by about 110 persons. The petitioners represented that the patronage bestowed upon foreign theatrical entertainments in London was injurious to English actors, and crushed all the efforts to support the national drama of this country. The petitioners stated that they wished to raise no objection to the Italian Opera, so long established, nor to the French Company at the St. James's Theatre; but the petitioners stated that recently, in addition to these, there had been another Italian opera opened, served entirely by foreign artists, and a troop of French equestrians had been performing at Drury-lane Theatre; and they found it now announced that Drury-lane Theatre was again let to a French company, from the Theâtre Historique, Paris, for the performance of melodrame. He (Earl Fitzhardinge) by no means advocated protection to particular classes in regard to amusements, any more than in regard to the necessaries of life; but an actor was probably rather more entitled to consideration in this respect than any other class. He could not, like a painter or author, dispose of the produce of his talent; he could only exercise it in his own person. But, though disposed to a certain extent to sympathise with the petitioners, no person could deprecate more strongly than himself the infamous—he could use no milder term—the infamous attempt of certain individuals to put down the present performances at Drury-lane Theatre. He was happy to say, on the part of the respectable members of the dramatic profession, that they repudiated it as strongly as any men could do, and were no parties to it. He could state that on the authority of Mr. Webster, than whom a more respectable and talented member of that profession did not exist. He (Earl Fitzhardinge) told a deputation that waited on him on the previous day, that if he thought the profession would lend themselves to so barbarous a practice he would not present this petition. Mr. Webster's petition stated—
"That the circumstance of Drury-lane and Covent-garden Theatres being open for foreign, and not English performance, tended to pervert and vitiate the taste of the public, and to distract them from the love and patronage of the English drama."
716
It represented—
"That Her Majesty's Italian Theatre in the Haymarket, and the French Theatre in St. James's, were known to be more than adequate for the wants of the nobility, gentry, and the public, who patronised foreign performances;"
and it prayed the House—.
"To consider the propriety of the adoption of some measure for restricting foreign performances to two theatres in the metropolis, in order that the apparently inevitable downfall of the higher order of British drama as an art, in writing and in acting, might be averted, and that the English theatres, which were entirely matters of private speculation at present, unsupported by patronage or protection, might be enabled to continue to Support the numerous performers, mechanics, and others, dependent upon, connected with, and living by those establishments."
The other petition prayed for some enactment to restrict the number of foreign theatres in the metropolis to those already established.
LORD BEAUMONTthought the petitions appeared to be conceived in a most illiberal spirit. The petitioners seemed to act exactly like the dog in the manger; they were not able themselves, by their talents and attractions, to fill the theatre, and they wished to keep the doors of it shut against those who were willing to try whether they could. There ought to be no interference of the Legislature beyond what was necessary for the protection of morals; the principle of free trade ought to be allowed to operate, and talent to have a clear stage and fair play.
LORD BROUGHAMhad been applied to to support the prayer of these petitions, but he really could not. Would it be any benefit to English workmen to have the theatre shut up? He must take that opportunity of expressing the disgust with which he had read accounts of scenes which did such discredit to the good sense as well as to the justice and peaceable conduct of the frequenters of our theatres. Nothing could more tend to injure our countrymen abroad; we should have this quoted as a sort of bad justification of, or set-off against, the ill-treatment of English workmen there.
THE DUKE of CLEVELANDwas sorry to find the name of an eminent actor, such as Mr. Webster really was, appended to one of these petitions; though the English drama had been at a low ebb of late years, his theatre had been generally full. If Drury-lane Theatre could be filled by English artists, there might be some ground for the complaint that it was let to French; but it had been attempted in vain, to the

717
ruin of many who had made the effort. No English company being ready to take it, why should Mr. Webster complain of its being let to a French company? If they did not give satisfaction, the undertaking would soon wear itself out. The noble Duke condemned the conduct of those who had interrupted the performances at Drury-lane Theatre, and expressed his regret that these petitions were presented, and his wish that the noble Earl would withdraw them.
EARL SPENCERwas understood to intimate his satisfaction in observing the expression of opinion on the subject elicited from the House. With regard to the outrages which had occurred, he felt as strongly as any noble Lord who had spoken; but it was not in his power as Lord Chamberlain to interfere with them. He left them to the police; and he believed that the magistrates had taken the proper course.
EARL FITZHARDINGEwished to state that, in consequence of what he saw in the Times that day, with reference to an actor who had been charged at Bow-street with most scandalous conduct, he had written a note to Mr. Webster expressing his strong opinion that the conduct of the person in question, and of others who engaged in these riots, was most prejudicial to the cause of the English performers.
LORD BEAUMONTsaid, that he had been to the Haymarket and Lyceum Theatres, and had seen at both those houses plays which were translated from the French. Now, if the choice lay between a bad translation of a French piece, and the same piece in the original, he would prefer the latter.
Petitions to lie on the table.

THE CORN LAWS.
LORD STANLEY: My Lords, in calling your Lordships' attention—which I shall do very shortly—to the present state of the laws regulating the importation of foreign corn, I desire to preface the very few observations I have to make by the declaration that I have in no degree altered or modified the views I have before expressed in this House with regard to the propriety and policy of giving protection to the agricultural industry of this country. But I do not desire to invite your Lordships to any discussion, on the present occasion, on the policy of that principle, as I am desirous of keeping it altogether apart and separate from that view of the
718
question which alone I am desirous of laying before your Lordships, and to which I invite the attention of your Lordships and of Her Majesty's Government. I have, my Lords, heard it stated more than once, and I recollect reading more than once, and not long ago, that it was exceedingly fortunate that, at a time when general distress was prevailing in this country, and when very general dissatisfaction was also prevailing, that distress was not aggravated, and that dissatisfaction was not increased, by the existence of any corn law which might tend to increase that discontent, and aggravate that distress, by augmenting the price of the food of the people. Now, my Lords, that observation was certainly not a very correct one, because those who made it must have omitted to recollect that at the present moment—though not, certainly, adding to the discontent in the slightest degree, or in the slightest degree decreasing the supply of food—there was in existence a corn law, under the operation of which law the duty upon the importation of foreign corn was considerably higher than the average payments upon a series of years under the corn laws which were abolished in 1846. My Lords, it will not be necessary for me to remind your Lordships that upon the repeal of the corn laws in 1846, a temporary law was introduced, which was intended to be in operation for a period of two years, similar in principle to that for which it was substituted—I mean similar in principle, as far as it proceeded on the principle of fixing the duties according to a sliding-scale, namely, fixing the duty according to the price of corn upon an average of weeks. I do not mean to say that they are actually identical, I mean only upon the same principle—assuming the principle of the sliding-scale—that sliding-scale, however, being of less extent, less range and compass, than that which it superseded, that is, taking a lower price by which the 20 s. duty under the old law was reduced to 8s. But that is not the case under the operation of the temporary law as it stands at this moment, for the duty, as now paid upon the importation and introduction into consumption in this country of wheat, amounts to no less than 9s. a quarter. I do not pretend to say that the Legislature intended that the Act so introduced in 1846 should have more than a temporary operation; but it certainly was intended that the Act should be in operation for a period of two years from

719
the time of its introduction, during which the country would have an opportunity of watching the operation of the substitute, and at the expiration of that time it would be for Parliament to judge, by the experience they had had, whether any modification should he made. Now, my Lords, you are aware that very shortly after the introduction of that Bill, there was a failure of the potato crop in Ireland, and general distress prevailed, which, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, and, I believe, I may say in the opinion of the country, rendered it a matter of importance that no restriction in the way of duty should stand in the way of importation of provisions for the purpose of meeting the temporary exigencies of the occasion. But the consequence of the repeal—or the suspension rather—of the temporary law which took place, has been, that instead of having had the experience of two years, we have had an experience practically of little more than three months up to the present time; and if Parliament should separate at the usual time, towards the close of the month of July, or at the beginning of August, Parliament will not have had experience of the operation of that temporary Act for more than five months; and if they should adjourn without entering into a consideration of the subject, before the next Session of Parliament the Act will have expired altogether. Now, my Lords, as to the value of the experience we have had of that temporary Act, I think I shall be able to satisfy your Lordships by a few figures—I think I shall be able to satisfy you—that the experience of that Act has not been unimportant. A short time ago, I moved for a return which has been laid on your Lordships' table, and is numbered 147 in the present Session—for the purpose of showing the quantities of all corn, meal, flour, &c, imported into the United Kingdom since the 1st of March; the period when the temporary duty was revived, together with the amount of duty received upon such corn; and also the average weekly price of all descriptions of corn since the 1st of February, 1848. Now, in the first place, my Lords, I shall call attention to the fact, that in the period of eleven weeks which have elapsed under the operation of a duty of from 7s. to 9s. a quarter, there have been imported and brought into consumption, 993,348 quarters of foreign corn. Of those there were 198,000 odd hundreds, or say 200,000 quarters, which, having been imported be
720
fore the 1st of March, did not pay any duty; leaving thus about 800,000 quarters which have paid duty in the space of eleven weeks subsequently to the 11th of March. The sum paid as duty upon those 800,000 quarters amounted to 127,930 l. Now, my Lords, supposing that in the first instance we take the amount only of the corn which paid duty within the space of the eleven weeks, omitting all consideration of that which was previously imported free, and assuming that it afforded a fair average of the consumption of foreign corn, we find it paying to the revenue of the country within the space of eleven weeks a sum of 127,000 l., so that, on the same scale, the annual receipt by the revenue would be about 604,760 l. And if you take, as I contend you may fairly take, into consideration the other fifth which was imported and brought into consumption, but which, having been shipped in time, was admitted free of duty, it will give you no less than 755,947 l. additional revenue in the year, for the sum which would have been received for duty within the eleven weeks, would have been, had the exempted fifth been paid for, 159,000 l. Now, my Lords, it is to the financial part of the question that I desire to draw your Lordships' attention; because here is a duty paid into the coffers of the Exchequer, not exciting any discontent or dissatisfaction amongst any set of people, not aggravating the price of the food of the people, but bringing into the revenue, at a period when there is a great and serious defalcation in the revenue—without complaint—without distress—without difficulty—a large sum of money, and which, too, is mainly paid, not by the consumer, but by the foreign importer—a sum of nearly 750,000 l. sterling annually; and a sum which you are about—unless Parliament interpose within the present Session—to throw away. This is a matter, my Lords, of sufficient importance, I am sure, to justify me in calling the attention of Her Majesty's Ministers to. And it is a sufficient excuse for me, I should hope, if I feel compelled to place before your Lordships some figures in detail. I want to show your Lordships, not only that this duty has been realised, but that it has been paid without aggravating the prices of provisions to the people of the country. I asked, my Lords, for returns of the average prices of all provisions imported into this market since the 1st of February, 1848. Your Lordships are aware, there was only a nominal duty payable until the

721
1st of March, when the 7s. duty on wheat came into operation. Now, your Lordships might naturally expect that when the duty came into operation, there would be somewhat of a corresponding rise in the price of the foreign corn; and that, as the period approached for the levying of the duty, the price of corn would be gradually rising in anticipation of that event. Now, I find by those returns, that in the month of February, 1848, the price of wheat, so far from rising, fell from 51 s. 2d. to 50 s. 2d.; barley was at 30 s. 9d. in the first and last weeks of the month; oats rose from 20 s. 7d. to 20 s. 8d.; rye fell from 32 s. 6d. to 30 s. 3d., beans from 38 s. 5d. to 38 s., and peas from 42 s. 9d. to 41 s. 7d. What, then, was the effect of imposing a duty of 7s. a quarter upon wheat, and a corresponding-duty upon other descriptions of grain? In the week preceding the re-imposition of the duty, the price of wheat was 50 s. 2d.; in the second week, after the revival of the duty, the price continued the same, although the importer, before he came into the market, had to pay a duty of 7s. out of the 50 s. 2d. I do not take the first week of the imposition of the duty, as that was a broken week. During the following week, the price of barley had fallen from 30 s. 9d. to 30 s. 4d., of oats from 20 s. 8d. to 20 s. 2d., of beans from 38 s. to 36 s. 2d., and of peas from 41 s. 7d. to 39 s.; while the only increase was in rye, the price of which in the last week of February was 30 s. 3d., and in the second week of March, 33 s. 3d. I may add, that during the whole period for which the reimposed duties have been in operation, from either the 1st of February or the 1st of March, down to the 11th of May—the latest period to which the return extended—the price of all these articles, so far from rising, has fallen, although only to a trifling extent. Surely, then, my Lords, I am justified in saying, that that amount of duty has been levied without being the cause of any increase of prices, and that it has been gained to your revenue at the expense wholly of the foreign owner or importer. Well, then, another matter remains to be considered. Has the effect been to discourage the importer? And has this duty prevented the introduction of the same quantity of corn subsequently to its imposition that came in before? If the quantity imported since the 1st of March, independently of that for which no duty was paid, be less in proportion than that which was imported before; if the importation be declining,
722
I must admit that it would be a fair inference that the duty had acted as a discouragement. But so far is that from being the case, if you compare the four first weeks after the imposition of the duty with the last four to which the returns are made up, you will find that, so far from there being any diminution in the importation, a very considerable increase has taken place. In the first four weeks there were 97,278 quarters of corn taken into consumption, being an average of 24,319 quarters a week. In the last four weeks there were 141,541 quarters, giving an average of 35,985 quarters a week. The amount of duty paid on the corn imported in the first four weeks, was 12,444 l. In the last four weeks it was 46,689 l., being at the rate on the average of from 680,000 l. to 750,000 l. a year, and the receipt of that revenue has not deranged by one halfpenny the price of corn; so that the cost has fallen entirely upon either the foreign producer or the importer; whilst, so far from checking the introduction of foreign corn, there is actually at the present moment an increased importation. Now, my Lords, this is the state of things on which I wish, not indeed to make any Motion, although as a matter of form, and to comply with the rules of your Lordships' House, I shall conclude with a Motion, for I shall move that those returns be continued up to the next period. But to what I wish to direct attention—for I think it is the duty of Her Majesty's Government at this period of the Session, and in the present state of the financial affairs of the country, to look to it—I wish to call the attention of the Government and of the other House of Parliament to this matter, for unless they interpose with some step before the 1st of February next, this large amount of duty will be wholly lost to the revenue, which is suffering depression of a serious nature already, and it will be lost without conferring any corresponding advantage upon any human being. I may be asked, what do I suggest? I may he told, that if it should be found there will be a loss, it will be time enough next Session to retrace our steps. But I pray your Lordships to bear this in mind: there should be a greater introduction of foreign corn for public consumption in the winter months of November, December, and January, than at any other period of the year. But, with the prospect of the duty of 7s. being taken off suddenly on the 1st of February next, it is

723
quite clear that, so far as the imposition of the duty goes, you are placing a direct impediment, by the present condition of the law, in the way of the introduction of foreign corn during the winter months previous to that period, and an inducement is held out to the holders of foreign corn to hold it back, and to refrain from importing it until a time when it will be less required in this country, but when it will be subject to a smaller duty on importation. I am quite aware that no Motion on this subject can well be made in your Lordships' House, or, at all events, no Bill introduced; but I desire the Government, who are charged with the responsibility of the finances of this great country, seriously to consider whether it would not be in accordance with sound policy, and with their own sense of public duty, not that a permanent alteration of the law should now take place on so exciting and important a question as this, but that a short Bill should be introduced for the purpose of continuing the existing duties as they now stand for a period of five or six months, so as to enable Parliament, on reassembling next year, deliberately and candidly to determine, with an experience not of three months only, but of a complete year, whether the inconvenience of the imposition of a duty to a trifling extent will not be more than counterbalanced by the financial advantage of receiving three quarters of a million of money. I must be permitted to say that, even if such a Bill were extended to a greater period than that which I have suggested, as leaving to Parliament the means of judging dispassionately on this subject, I do not think that the Government could justly be taunted on either side of the House with any inconsistency or dereliction of their avowed principles. For, though it is true that, as against the corn law as it stood in 1846, the present Government supported the measure for the prospective and entire abolition of the corn duties, I cannot forget that up to that period the doctrine always maintained by the Whig Government was, that the importation of corn and grain was a legitimate subject for the imposition of duties with a view to revenue; and a 7s. or 8s. duty was more than once contemplated by the Whig Government as their own proposal. Though, for various reasons, with which I will not trouble your Lordships, I am of opinion that the operation of the sliding-scale was more advantageous than the imposition of a fixed duty, more especially because
724
it afforded the opportunity of doing away with the duty, for the relief of the consumer, when prices were high; yet, as between a fixed duty of 8s., and a duty fluctuating as at present between 10 s. and 4s., I do not see that there is any such difference in point of effect as can justly subject the Government to the slightest charge of inconsistency, if they uphold a continuance of the existing duties. I have called your Lordships' attention to this subject, in order to afford Parliament the fullest opportunity of considering what should be the principle of their permanent legislation on this important subject, and to give the Government also an opportunity of stating the course of policy they intend to adopt.
EARL GREYconfessed that he had heard with a great deal of surprise, and also with a great deal of satisfaction, the speech of his noble Friend, because the House would observe that the object of that speech was to the effect that a duty levied on corn, not for the purpose of protection, but for the sake of revenue—that a duty approximating, as his noble Friend observed, more to a fixed duty than to the sliding-scale—that a duty of this description, which, he said, did not raise the price of corn to the consumer, but would produce revenue—was a scheme attended with advantage. Still, he was bound to say, that he thought the facts on which his noble Friend founded his conclusion, were a little too limited to justify it. His noble Friend had omitted to take into consideration many more circumstances and facts than could be witnessed within the last few weeks; and on his noble Friend's short experience of some months, it was absolutely impossible to found any sound opinion whatever. His noble Friend was entirely in error in believing that, when the Act of 1846 was passed, deferring the period when free trade was to take place, that was a course justified on the ground of the measure being an experimental one. In the whole course of the debates on the question, that proposition was justified on totally different grounds. It was justified on the ground of making a gradual preparation for the change to come, and of letting down the farmer as easily as possible.
The DUKE of RICHMOND: Letting down the farmer!
EARL GREY: He was not using his own expression, because he contended, and always had contended, that it would be

725
better for the farmer if the change had been made complete at once; but the object was to make the transition gradual. He repeated, that he did not think that the facts stated by his noble Friend made out his case; but if they did, he (Earl Grey) asked their Lordships to whom was the country indebted for not at the present moment having a law which, according to his noble Friend's statement, would have been attended with such great advantage? It was most true, as his noble Friend had stated, that it was a doctrine maintained by many Gentlemen with whom he (Earl Grey) was connected, and a doctrine he had himself maintained in the other House of Parliament, that a moderate fixed duty on corn, without raising the price to the consumer, would be productive of considerable revenue, and be an advantageous measure. But how was this argument invariably met? It was observed—"What! would you have a tax on the food of the people?—that is indefensible. You may have a corn law for protection, but to have a corn law for revenue is an injustice and outrage;" and to that Parliament was called on, and successfully, not to agree. It was maintained that they had no right to raise a revenue from the food of the people; and the duty repealed in 1846 was a duty which practically did not raise any revenue of consequence in the great majority of years, though it undoubtedly did in some few years, but it had the most material effect in raising the price of corn when it otherwise would have been dear, and of depressing the price of corn when it otherwise would have been low. By the law repealed in 1846 the duty on corn at the present moment would have been a perfectly prohibitory duty. It was against that state of things that they—the opponents of that law—contended; and, according to his noble Friend's own showing, they did perfectly right; for, by getting a corn law which approximated to a fixed duty, they did not raise the price of corn, or injure the farmer. Therefore, according to his noble Friend's own showing, they justly objected to the law in existence in 1846; and if there were not at this moment in force a permanent law for raising a revenue by a duty on corn—supposing that to be a good thing—the blame rested with the noble Lord and his political friends. At the same time he (Earl Grey) must disclaim being supposed to think that it could be assumed that the imposition of a fixed duty would have been
726
the best course of proceeding. Sometime ago he did believe, and still believed, that such a course would then have been the best to be adopted; but now—not speaking for his Colleagues, but expressing his own individual opinion—he, for one, could conceive no course so much to be deprecated as, after all the agitation on this subject, and after the settlement come to with such full consideration and discussion in 1846, Parliament once more throwing into doubt what was to be the permanent law on this most exciting subject, by passing a temporary Bill of the kind suggested. He concluded by expressing his earnest hope and confident belief that nothing would induce Parliament to depart from the settlement effected in 1846.
The DUKE of RICHMONDsaid, that if the Exchequer were very good, the noble Earl might have been justified in making so magnificent a speech; but as the Government was going to pay 500,000 l. for immigration to the West Indies, the extension of the existing corn duties for another year would provide them with the money. The Government had proposed an additional income-tax, which they were not able to carry; how, then, were they to supply a daily losing revenue? His noble Friend had pointed out a way, if they only would not care about the ridiculous free-trade nonsense of the Anti-Corn-Law League and Mr. Cobden, who appeared never to have agreed with them since they carried out his plans. The noble Lord (Earl Grey) had alluded to the agitation on the question of the corn law; but did the noble Lord think the farmers of England would allow themselves to be "let down," as the noble Lord said, though he observed that it was not his own expression? There was a prospect of a good harvest abroad, and the very moment foreign corn came in next year there would be agitation on the part of the farmers, who would be driven to join any set of men in refusing to pay taxes, as that would force the Government to the adoption of some such measure as that suggested by his noble Friend (Lord Stanley). He should never forget the scandalous manner in which the present corn law had been carried, namely, by the desertion of a great body of those men who, during their lives, had always thitherto been for protection, and by the aid of many noble Lords in that House, who voted against their own opinions. The House of Lords had lowered itself by its conduct in 1846 in

727
the estimation of the great body of the people of England; and if the House did not mind what it was about, it never would regain the confidence of the people.
Subject at an end.

CASUAL POOR.
LORD BROUGHAMreferred to certain circumstances that had recently taken place in Hertfordshire connected with the administration of the poor-law. Persons coming on their way to London, and wishing to have a little accommodation on the road, had been received into the workhouses and allowed to receive supper, breakfast, and a night's lodging. Some friends of his had inquired into this proceeding, and had expressed astonishment at the arrangement, as it was contrary to the principle of the poor-law, and seemed like using the workhouses as inns. This abuse was of an alarming nature, for in one week nearer 300 than 200, and in another week nearly 400 persons had been so accommodated, and the strongest suspicion existed in Hertfordshire that those persons had come up to town for no good purpose, for all this took place previous to last Monday; and the inhabitants there thought it very hard that they should be paying for people coming up to disturb the peace of London. He understood that the facts bore out this suspicion to some extent, and he mentioned the matter in order that some inquiry might be made into it.
The DUKE of RICHMONDsaid, it often happened that poor men travelling with their wives and children—sometimes four or five children—stopped at night unable to move. The overseers were liable to be indicted if they did not, under such circumstances, yield them the necessary assistance. Now, he should be sorry if any clause were introduced to set free the overseers from that responsibility. He thought, however, that the burden of granting these reliefs should be thrown on the union, and not on the particular parish in which the suffering poor were found. This suggestion he merely threw out for their Lordships' consideration.
LORD BROUGHAMobserved, it was true that the poor, under these circumstances, could only get their supper and the use of a fire and their beds for the night—not their breakfasts in the morning, unless they worked two hours; but the advantages which they did receive were well worth their acceptance, and if they were not willing to work for their breakfasts,
728
it could scarcely be said that they had any claim to that meal.
LORD REDESDALEthought that giving such people fire and beds, and supper, in the parish workhouse, was the worst way in which they could be relieved. The best way would be, not to allow casual poor to be received into the parish workhouses, but to provide for them elsewhere.
House adjourned.