Star.
London, England, 1826-05-12 00:00:00

measures

'rent; corn was then rising for two years. He cautioned
the House against admitting bonded corn at this time.
He did not` like to be deeendentifor his bread on the
cerise of foreiggess. He hoped the House would resist-the. mew
sumer • asiniumpb, untiris they were satisfied from inquiry 'that
these measures were imperatively called our. They were unjust to
the prosperity awl character of the evicukural interests. He or
posed the discretionary powers demanded by Nlinisters, and would
continue to oppose them unless the Noble Hari (Liverpool) pledged
himself that the request originated with him ; fur in his honour and
good faith he would place confidence. If the House granted this
power,tbere would be no means of effecting an equitable adjustment.
The Earl of WESTMORELAND observed that the
measure before the House did not employ that the dis-
tress arose from the Corn Laws. It might as well be
said that the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act im-
plied that the Act itself w.s not beneficial. It was proper
to grant the power required by Government, under the
present circumstances. It was proper for his Majesty's
Government to demand such powers, and he was a little
surprised at some arguments which had been used on
the opposite side. It had been maintained that the
measure gave Ministers a discretionary power which
ought not to be given, and at the same time it was ad-
mitted that circumstances might occur which would
render it proper for them to exercise such a power,
without being authorised to do so by the provisions of
the Coin Bill. It the price of that commodity was 50s.
on the 15th August, were we in consequence to suppose
that the price of corn would be proportionably low at
other times of the year ? The low price of corn in the
month of May was no proof that it would below in the
month of October. The year 1766 had been alluded to.
In the month of September of that year, corn was from
60s. to 70s. and in the month of December, 100 s. In
that year an embargo waslaid on to prevent the expel'.
talon of corn. That exercise of the prerogative of
the Crown was considered dangerous, but others
argued that it was indeed an act r.f power, but used to
a good purpose for the "salus populi." He complained
of the improvident conduct of Ministers, who, had they acted as
Statesmen—had they looked before them, those distresses which
now prevailed would not have come unforeseen ' • they would then
have felt it their duty, with such knowledge, to have prepared for
such a mate of things. With respect to the discretionary power
which was to be vested in the Ministers (should the country concur
in granting such a power) the Ministers should consider that it they
got that power they were responsible for a discretionary use of it.
If they possessed that power, they were bound to exercise it with
discretion, and in such a manner that no dispassionate mw in the
country could disapprove of it.
Earl GROSVENOR said the m inner in which the
Noble Earl (Malmesbury) had brought forwaid his mo-
tiou met with his entire satisfaction. He could not
prevail on himself to vote for the measures introduced
by his Majesty's Ministers, and he was convinced that
if the proposal were adopted every person in the king-
doms would believe that the duty proposed would be
considered as the standard duty, and that the whole
question of the Corn Laws would be finally settled in
that manner. Could anything be more vacillating than
the conduct of Ministers, during the whole of the ques-
tion ? He considered that the expenditure of the country
should be diminished before this question should be
introduced. He was satisfied that it this question had
been brought earlier before the House of Commons,
that House would have said, reduce first the expenditure of the
country to the lowest ebb, before such a measure be introduced.
He would not consent to a proposal of this nature, which could not
lead teeny permanent relief, but would ultimately do great harm.
Earl DARNLEY said, that if Ministers had been
actuated by proper motives, they would have brought
forward this measure three weeks ago, when they might
have foreseen the distress which would have taken place,
at which period it was certainly the most proper to
introduce this resolution. Had the Ministers acted so
they would have conducted themselves in a Statesman-
like manner; but at that time it was confidently stated
by them that they would not meddle with the Corn
Laws.. As they have now come forward with this
proposition, be would not hesitate in telling them that
it was not for,the purpose of relieving the distress, but
for some sinister object. If he thought such were the
case—to afford relief—he would have given them his
support ; but for the manner they had come forward, he
felt bound to oppose them. He felt that the precedent to
be established by this measure would be highly injurious;
and instead of Ministers introducing this measure, they
should have made some provision for the employment
of the population of the country. He believed the Corn
Laws had nothing at all to do with the distress, neither
could he believe that the adoption arf the proposed mea-
sure would afford that benefit to the manufacturing
classes which the Government avowedly proposed. He
defied the Noble Earl (Liverpool) to state the distress
14 the cause of bringing forward this measure; and he
would never consent to the placing se much discretion-
ary power in the hands of Ministers. lie would do it
with regret, but stilt he found it his duty to vote for
the previous question. He must at the same time say,
that without the Corn Liws the state of the country
would have been much worse than it is at present. A sudden alter-
ation, however, hid taken place : the whole systems, hi fact, had
changed, and it was necessary to take some Iniassilate steps suitable
to the exigency of the occasion. If the subject were to be taken
up In the manner proposed by the Noble Lord, they must go into
the great question at once, and discuss the expediency or the inex-
pediency of the Corn Laws this Session. The present time was most
unfavourable. The result, he was =winced, would not be satis-
factory, and for those reasons be would vote against the motion.
Lord KING said, his Noble Friend who spoke last,
charged him and the Noble Earl opposite (the Earl of
Liverpool) with having done mischief, and produced an
impress on in the country that the distress was occasioned
by the Corn Lan s. What really produced mischief was
the law itself. The Noble Earl opposite (Liverpool) or
himself could have done no mischief, was it not for that
law. The Noble Earl who brought forward this motion
forgot to state what his real motive was. The object
was to catch the votes of the innocent politicians on that
side of the House, and to resist ix &sine any alteration
of the Cora Laws. He knew not how the motion
would be received on the other side, but it had a ten-
dency some how to disturb the equilibrium of the House..
Hard things had been said of his Majesty's Ministers,
but they knew well how to deal with the House en
questions that interested them so nearly. Some thought
it very hard to reject the propositions of Government,
and tun the risk of leaving the country for three or
four months without the possibility of getting any
foreign corn. Others thought it the highest presumption
to insinuate that any alteration of the Corn Laws was
necessary. Alter the experience of eleven years, it
would be mere drivelling not to decide that the law
required alteration. It had been said that it had nothing
to do with the present di-tress. It had every thing to
du with it, and the country could never be secure from
distress until it was altered. This he would prove
in the following manner. Every quarter of foreign
corn that was brought into the English market furnished
, the means of paying for goods of British manufacture.
It was only by permitting foreign corn to enter that
the present want of demand could be relieved. The
distress that now prevailed was telt by the producers of
such goods es were intended lot the foreign markets,