Sivut kuvina
PDF
ePub

not seeing how, in the result, they must not ultimately come to what was now proposed, he felt bound to give it his support. The Corn Laws were not a question of religion, of faith, or of morals; and he must pursue that course which he believed to be most consistent with the real interests of the country.

Lord John Russell supported the measures, being the first member who rose on the opposition side of the House. Lord John began with some general arguments in favour of removing protection. He admitted that the theoretical writers had thrown little light on the proper mode of effecting the transition to a different state, and he allowed that the transition could not be made without the risk at least of some suffering. He derived courage, however, from the success which has attended the dreaded transition from prohibition to protection, made by Mr. Huskisson, and recently by Sir Robert Peel.

Sir R. Peel now proposed to go beyond the reduction of duties to their abolition.

"I am of opinion that if the right honourable gentleman had undertaken this task, in 1842, in a different spirit, and had made a far greater reduction in the duties on corn than he then made, it would have been better for the agriculturists as a body, and better for the country in general; but, as matters stand now, I am ready to say, seeing the contest that is going on-seeing the struggle that would go on if you attempted any intermediate step, either of a sliding-scale over a few shillings or a small fixed duty-I am prepared to say, as, indeed, I have al

ready said in public, that I think the abolition of the duty is the most expedient course for a Government to propose to Parliament. Considering the plan of the right honourable gentleman as a great measure as a measure that is to

lay the foundation of a completely new principle with regard to our commercial legislation-that principle being neither to foster one trade nor the other, neither to attempt to promote agriculture nor manufactures, but to leave them 'to flourish or to fade,' according to the energies and skill of the people of this country-and believing that is the sound principle, I am prepared to give every support I can to the plan brought forward by the right honourable gentleman.'

With regard to the new system of corn duties, proposed by Sir Robert Peel for three years, every thing tended to strengthen the opinion expressed by Lord John, in December, in favour of immediate change. The farmers exclaim"If we are to have the system of free trade instead of protection, let us know at once what that system is to be. If there is any danger to the English farmer from competition, it can only be increased by the lapse of time; and the circumstances of the present year, with the failure of the crops abroad, render it peculiarly favourable to the change. I think, the way in which the immediate prospect of the duty being reduced to 4s. has been encountered in the market-for; I believe, the price of corn has generally rather risen than otherwise-is a proof that there is no great danger at the present moment. If there be any danger to encounter, it is when, both on the Continent of Europe and in

the United States, preparations are made, the ground has been cultivated, and the seed has been sown, with a view to send in large supplies to the English market, and then at that very moment the duty is to cease. It is as if the right honourable gentleman were to furnish the farmer with a great coat, provided he wore it only in the summer, and were to make it a condition that he should take it off when Christmas arrived. I will put it to the right honourable gentleman whether he will not reconsider that part of his plan. (Loud cheers.) But, as I have already said, I wish the plan of the right honourable gentleman to succeed; I wish to see his measure, with respect to corn, successful in this and the other House of Parliament, and no vote of mine shall tend in the least to endanger a measure of such a character.

If, therefore, when we come into committee the right honourable gentleman tells me that he has considered the representations made from various parts of the country, but that upon the whole he considers the delay of three years, and the duty to be imposed in the mean time, an essential part of his plan, I for my part shall go out with the right honourable gentleman upon it. (Loud cheers.)

[ocr errors]

Much need not be said with regard to other parts of the plan. Sugar might for the present be passed over. Duties on manufactures, of a protective kind, unless yielding a large amount of revenue, ought, in justice to the agriculturist, to be removed altogether; it ought to be shown that protection is abandoned as a principle vicious in itself and injurious to the country. Sir R. Peel had proposed to give relief with respect to certain

local burdens: those amendments of the law were upon their own ground just, but no compensation ought to be offered. Formerly Lord John had doubts whether the land did not sustain more than its due share of local burdens; but he found that whenever a proposal for inquiry was made it was resisted, which made him suspect that a case could not be made out. If he had had to propose a scheme, it might have differed from Sir R. Peel's; but there would not have been any more very material relief. Sir R. Peel had this alternative-either to devote the surplus in the exchequer to the equalization of burdens, or to remove those burdens by an increase of taxation.

[ocr errors]

Now, that increase of taxation, I think, would be a most inexpedient course. I believe it would expose the landed interest to very great unpopularity; I believe nothing they could gain in point of money would be equal to the odium which would attach to them, if it was to be said that the taxes of the country were to be increased in order to provide a compensation for the abolition of the Corn Laws. For these reasons, therefore, I say at once that I concur in the general scheme of the right honourable gentleman. I wish that the repeal had been immediate instead of deferred; but, in the present state of affairs, seeing the attachment that there is on the part of a large portion of the community to this protective system, I think the advantage so great of getting rid of that system as respects corn in three years, and of almost every other protection giving way immediately afterwards, unless it be really some case which will bear argument, that I am unwilling to disturb in

any way the settlement of this question."

He proceeded to notice a remark, by Mr. Lascelles, that the present measures would be more successfully carried by those now in power than by the Whigs. Plans of moderating duties he thought were not properly Whig measures, nor were they exclusively Tory measures; and when such plans were proposed by the Whig Ministers, in 1841, they were opposed by many who would have supported them, but who were prevented by party ties. Mr. Lascelles was an honourable exception to that rule. But if Sir R. Peel was more able to carry these plans, it would be by the aid of the opposition. ("Hear, hear!" from Sir Robert Peel and some other members.) "If the right honourable gentleman has the glory of adopting plans of commercial freedom which will benefit his country, which will enable the poor man to get a better reward for his labour, which will increase the demand for all the productions of this country, and which, after these questions are settled, will, I hope, open the way to the moral improvement of the people, hitherto prevented by their want of adequate means of comfort—if the right honourable gentleman has the glory of carrying a measure fraught with such large and beneficial results, let ours be the solid satisfaction, that, out of office, we have associated together for the purpose of aiding and assisting the triumph of the Minister of the Crown.' (Much cheering.)

Sir R. Inglis commented severely on those who had deserted protection. He did not accuse his right honourable friend of sordid motives; he was satisfied that his recent

changes were dictated by motives most pure and honourable-he could be actuated by no conceivable motive but a sense of duty. Precisely in proportion, however, was he to be distrusted; for if he were now a great statesman, all his former propositions must be wrong, and all his past conduct, that not of a statesman-he must hold himself as having hitherto acted as a statesman who was insensible to the real wants and necessities of the country. There was his noble friend (Lord John Russell)-whatever he said—whether he said he would carry out the Appropriation Clause, or that he would support the Established Church-he might be relied upon for making good to the utmost of his power. Sir Robert Inglis would rather trust an enemy who would tell him what he meant to do, than one who he would not exactly call him an enemy-but one who had acted as the right honourable baronet had done; for the right honourable baronet could not fail to see how he had broken up a great party. He deeply deplored that event; but he should, if possible, say nothing to excite an angry feeling.

Mr. Sidney Herbert vindicated the measure and its authors with much ability. He combated the allegation that there was no sufficient dearth in Ireland to warrant the proposed interference; he avowed, also, that the Corn Law of 1842 had failed on its first serious trial by adverse circumstances. Lord Sandon had expressed his regret that the measure should have been proposed by Sir Robert Peel's Government: "I have no hesitation in saying," continued Mr. Herbert, "that I held the same opinion, and that I strongly advocated the neces

sity of intrusting it to other hands than ours. The noble lord (John Russell) is a recent convert to free trade; but I think that, as latterly he has, from his party connections, been so much mixed up with the cause, he had a better right than we had to bring forward this measure, and I for one should have been heartily glad if he had undertaken its conduct."

Mr. Herbert adverted to the complaint that the introduction of this measure by the Government would be a fatal blow to the combination of parties, and the system on which our political constitution had been carried on.

"It has been said, that party is part of our constitution. I think it is contrary to the whole spirit of our constitution. I am not one of those who wish to see the constitution of this country rendered more democratic than it is; I cannot think that the public mind wishes it to be more democratic than it is. I think late events have rather shown that the mantles of despotic kings who disgraced the world have fallen upon democratic, rather than upon temperate and mixed governments. I wish to see the aristocratic clement preserved in our constitution; and it is upon that account I say, do not peril it on a question in which your motives may be impugned, when once you are convinced, as I am, that these laws are not for the good of the community. I say that, with that opinion, no earthly power can induce me to rise from this bench to defend them.

[blocks in formation]

society; it is the great source of our maritime power; by extending it you are able to carry your institutions into every part of the world, to civilize and exalt the remotest and wildest regions: the men who contribute to those advantages are entitled to a full share of the advantages of the State." He awaited to see the two interests of agriculture and manufactures firmly united; and he believed that the measures of the Government tended to that union.

Mr. Stafford O'Brien denied that there existed, as Lord J. Russell represented, an impression among the farmers that the repeal of the Corn Laws, if it took place at all, should take place immediately. He regretted that the agricultural interest had not an opportunity of publicly and constitutionally declaring their opinion. Alluding to the assertion of Mr. S. Herbert, that the law of 1815 was the greatest error the landlords had ever committed, he asked who it was that had urged those very landlords not to retract, but to persevere in their so-called error? After the late declarations, he wanted to know upon what principles parties in this country were in future to be kept together? Not only had the present Government changed its principles since it came into office, but it had also taught us this valuable truththat parties in this country were no longer to be kept together by distinctive principles. Mr. Sidney Herbert had told them that the law of 1842 had signally failed. What he wanted to know was this

"Did that law fail to the Sidney Herbert of 1845, or to the Sidney Herbert of 1846?" The Sidney Herbert of 1845 found that it failed because it let in corn too freely;

Mr.

the Sidney Herbert of 1846 found that it failed because it restricted the free importation of corn. Sidney Herbert asked too much, if he supposed that the Corn Law of 1842 could, by any human ingenuity, be made to answer the views of a Minister of so changeable a temperament. The failure of a law which had succeeded two years and failed only one year, was not a sufficient reason why he should give up the principles of a whole life. He then noticed the arguments which Mr. Sidney Herbert had drawn from an exaggeration of the chances of famine in Ireland; and contended that, even supposing the facts on which those arguments were founded to be true, famine would not be averted, but would even be greatly aggravated, by the changes now proposed in the Corn Laws. He could not agree with the proposition of Lord John Russell, that protection to agriculture was no longer defensible; and, in reference to his assertion that labour was the property of the poor man, observed, that it was well for those who had used up that property most cruelly in the manufacturing districts, to come forward and say now that we ought to let it alone. We were propounding the most selfish doctrines when we brought forward measures of which the avowed object was to leave the poor man without protection, and so to consign him to unmitigated ruin. He had been accustomed to consider the present as a landlords' question. He was convinced that he had been wrong. It was not a landlords' question, but a tenantfarmers' question; and, being such, he refused to alter the existing law relative to the importation of foreign He then drew a highly co

corn.

loured picture of the ruin which would fall upon the tenant-farmers and the labourers whom they employed-whose honest hearts were worth more than all the heaviest volumes of political economy-if the new-fangled doctrines of Mr. Cobden should be carried into execution under the auspices of Sir R. Peel. Their great fault was that they, like their landlords, had trusted in the faith of the Legislature, and the misfortune which they would most deplore in their common ruin would be the loss of all confidence in public men.

Mr. S. Crawford considered that the eloquence of the last speaker was much greater than the power of his arguments; for though he professedly took great interest in the welfare of the working man, he showed the value of his professions by refusing to give to that working man cheap food. Nothing would promote the prosperity of the country so much as cheap corn, and therefore it was that he wished to repeal every tax which was imposed on its importation from foreign countries. He then entered into a discussion upon the social and domestic condition of Ireland, and upon the bearing of the changes now proposed upon the labouring population of that country; and after warning the House that the danger of famine in Ireland was not visionary, but actual and substantial, concluded by declaring his intention of giving his cordial support to the proposition of Her Majesty's Government on this oc

casion.

The Marquis of Granby believed that Sir Robert Peel was actuated by the most pure and honourable motives; but if he had promulgated in 1841 the same opinions which

« EdellinenJatka »