Sivut kuvina
PDF
ePub

change of circumstances in the state of the country, combined with the experience of the last three years, formed no justification for Sir R. Peel in abandoning the whole course of policy he had pursued for the last thirty years. Accepting the challenge that had been thrown out to name any articles on which the repeal of prohibitory or protective duties had operated injuriously either to the consumer or producer, the noble lord adduced a variety of statistical details connected with the silk, woollen, spelter, and timber trades, for the purpose of showing that a relaxation of the protective system had, in these instances, signally failed. In fact, the free trade doctrine was an absolute delusion. The price of wheat was now actually lower than the average of three years before 1842.

He contended that the rate of wages would fall with the price of corn, and the working classes would be better off with undiminished wages and wheat at 70s. per quarter, than with corn at 45s. and reduced means of procuring it. The apprehension of famine, at present, was altogether a mistake. The crop was more than an average one, and in some parts of the country, in Scotland particularly, there was positive repletion. The potato murrain was by no means so extensive as it had been represented; indeed, he complained that only one side of the question had been stated to the House. He had himself made some inquiries on the subject, and he found that in Roscommon there was no disease at all, while in Tipperary and Queen's County

it prevailed but very partially. According to his noble friend, the Marquis of Clanricarde, onehalf of the evil was attributable to the conduct of the Government in sending commissioners to Ireland and creating an alarm. The potatoes were dug up before they were ripe, and they rotted. The cry of famine was a mere pretence for a party object. The Duke of Wellington had admitted that there was no scarcity of food in Ireland; and Lord Cloncurry declared that there was a sufficiency of oats now in that country to feed the whole population. Never was there a change of so extensive a character proposed on so slender a basis, and with so little just cause shown. He should not have objected to open the ports had that been necessary; but he could not see how the necessity alleged by Government could be met by free trade in corn three years hence. Much greater benefit would be derived by the public from a remission of the duties on tea and sugar, two of the main necessaries of life, produced by countries favourable to commercial intercourse with England, and which came into no rivalship with our domestic produce.

The House divided at twenty minutes to three. The numbers

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

CHAPTER III.

The House of Commons goes into Committee on Sir Robert Peel's Resolutions on the 2nd of March-Mr. Villiers moves as an Amendment, That all Duties on Imported Corn should cease-Division of Parties on this Proposition-Speeches of Sir Robert Peel and Lord John Russell-The Amendment is lost by a Majority of 187-Debate on the Second Reading of the Corn Bill continued by adjournment for four nights-Mr. E. Yorke, seconded by Sir John Yarde Buller, moves an Amendment for the rejection of the Bill-Speech of Sir Robert Peel in answer to the Attacks made upon him-The Amendment is lost, and the Second Reading is carried by a Majority of 88 -Further Debates on the Corn Bill in the House of Commons- The Third Reading is moved on the 11th of May, by Sir James Graham, and is carried by 327 to 229, after an animated Debate -The Corn Bill is discussed in the House of Lords, on the Motion for a Second Reading, on the 25th of May-Speeches of the Earl of Ripon, the Duke of Richmond, Earl Fitzwilliam, the Duke of Cleveland, the Marquis of Londonderry, Lord Stanley, Lord Brougham, the Earl of Wilton, the Duke of Cambridge, the Marquis of Normanby, Earl Grey, Marquis of Lansdowne, the Earls of Dalhousie, Clarendon, Carnarvon, Haddington, Hardwicke, and the Duke of Wellington— On a Division there appear for the Second Reading (including Proxies) 211; against it, 164; Majority, 47-Various Amendments are moved in Committee, by the Duke of Buckingham, the Earl of Wicklow, and Lord Ashburton, which, after much discussion, are rejected by considerable Majorities-The Duke of Richmond opposes the Third Reading by an Amendment, which is subsequently withdrawn, and the Bill is passed.

THE

HE large space occupied, in the preceding chapter, by the preliminary discussions on Sir Robert Peel's commercial policy renders it impossible, and at the same time unnecessary, to pursue with the same detail the numerous debates which succeeded during the progress of the Corn and Customs Acts, through their successive

stages, until they became law. Night after night, these discussions continued for several weeks with little interruption, every inch of ground being pertinaciously contested by the opponents, and all the resistance being made to the Ministerial scheme which the forms and usages of Parliament allow. It is needless to say that debates

change of circumstances in the state of the country, combined with the experience of the last three years, formed no justification for Sir R. Peel in abandoning the whole course of policy he had pursued for the last thirty years. Accepting the challenge that had been thrown out to name any articles on which the repeal of prohibitory or protective duties had operated injuriously either to the consumer or producer, the noble lord adduced a variety of statistical details connected with the silk, woollen, spelter, and timber trades, for the purpose of showing that a relaxation of the protective system had, in these instances, signally failed. In fact, the free trade doctrine was an absolute delusion. The price of wheat was now actually lower than the average of three years before 1842. He contended that the rate of wages would fall with the price of corn, and the working classes would be better off with undiminished wages and wheat at 70s. per quarter, than with corn at 45s. and reduced means of procuring it. The apprehension of famine, at present, was altogether a mistake. The crop was more than an average one, and in some parts of the country, in Scotland particularly, there was positive repletion. The potato murrain was by no means so extensive as it had been represented; indeed, he complained that only one side of the question had been stated to the House. He had himself made some inquiries on the subject, and he found that in Roscommon there was no disease at all, while in Tipperary and Queen's County

it prevailed but very partially. According to his noble friend, the Marquis of Clanricarde, onehalf of the evil was attributable to the conduct of the Government in sending commissioners to Ireland and creating an alarm. The potatoes were dug up before they were ripe, and they rotted. The cry of famine was a mere pretence for a party object. The Duke of Wellington had admitted that there was no scarcity of food in Ireland; and Lord Cloncurry declared that there was a sufficiency of oats now in that country to feed the whole population.

Never was there a

change of so extensive a character proposed on so slender a basis, and with so little just cause shown. He should not have objected to open the ports had that been necessary; but he could not see how the necessity alleged by Government could be met by free trade in corn three years hence. Much greater benefit would be derived by the public from a remission of the duties on tea and sugar, two of the main necessaries of life, produced by countries favourable to commercial intercourse with England, and which came into no rivalship with our domestic produce.

The House divided at twenty minutes to three. The numbers

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

CHAPTER III.

The House of Commons goes into Committee on Sir Robert Peel's Resolutions on the 2nd of March—Mr. Villiers moves as an Amendment, That all Duties on Imported Corn should cease-Division of Parties on this Proposition-Speeches of Sir Robert Peel and Lord John Russell-The Amendment is lost by a Majority of 187-Debate on the Second Reading of the Corn Bill continued by adjournment for four nights-Mr. E. Yorke, seconded by Sir John Yarde Buller, moves an Amendment for the rejection of the Bill-Speech of Sir Robert Peel in answer to the Attacks made upon him-The Amendment is lost, and the Second Reading is carried by a Majority of 88 -Further Debates on the Corn Bill in the House of Commons- -The Third Reading is moved on the 11th of May, by Sir James Graham, and is carried by 327 to 229, after an animated Debate -The Corn Bill is discussed in the House of Lords, on the Motion for a Second Reading, on the 25th of May-Speeches of the Earl of Ripon, the Duke of Richmond, Earl Fitzwilliam, the Duke of Cleveland, the Marquis of Londonderry, Lord Stanley, Lord Brougham, the Earl of Wilton, the Duke of Cambridge, the Marquis of Normanby, Earl Grey, Marquis of Lansdowne, the Earls of Dalhousie, Clarendon, Carnarvon, Haddington, Hardwicke, and the Duke of WellingtonOn a Division there appear for the Second Reading (including Proxies) 211; against it, 164; Majority, 47-Various Amendments are moved in Committee, by the Duke of Buckingham, the Earl of Wicklow, and Lord Ashburton, which, after much discussion, are rejected by considerable Majorities-The Duke of Richmond opposes the Third Reading by an Amendment, which is subsequently withdrawn, and the Bill is passed.

HE large space occupied, in the preceding chapter, by the preliminary discussions on Sir Robert Peel's commercial policy renders it impossible, and at the same time unnecessary, to pursue with the same detail the numerous debates which succeeded during the progress of the Corn and Customs Acts, through their successive

stages, until they became law. Night after night, these discussions continued for several weeks with little interruption, every inch of ground being pertinaciously contested by the opponents, and all the resistance being made to the Ministerial scheme which the forms and usages of Parliament allow. It is needless to say that debates

so continued soon ceased to possess the attraction of novelty; the subject, extensive as it is, became fairly exhausted by the industry and ingenuity with which every argument bearing upon it was enforced and reiterated by successive speakers. It is conceived that the speeches of which a summary has been given in the last chapter will indicate sufficiently the main positions taken up by the supporters and opponents in these debates, and that it will be sufficient, in tracing the further progress of the measures through the House of Commons, to limit our notice to a brief statement of results.

On the 2nd of March, on the House going into Committee, the first resolution being moved, Mr. Villiers proposed, as an amendment, That all duties on imported corn do now cease. He explained, that this amendment did not arise from any desire to impede the Ministerial measure, but from a conscientious belief that the full advantage of the measure might be extended at once, without danger or inconvenience. The opinions of leading agriculturists, farmers as well as landlords, showed that they had no apprehension of injury from immediate abolition, but that, on the contrary, they preferred it. Protectionist members in the House -Lord Worsley, Mr. William Miles, and others—had asserted, that immediate abolition would be better than a postponement for three years. Lord John Russell was of the same opinion. Mr. Villiers thought that Sir Robert Peel himself must prefer immediate abolition, as he had proposed what was tantamount to it, the opening of the ports in November. He also claimed the support of the Duke of Rich

mond, on the ground of his expressed preference. The probability of a deficient harvest next year was urged.

Considerable difference of opinion was expressed by members favourable to free trade as to the policy of supporting the amendment or the original resolution. Mr. Ward and Mr. Cobden declared themselves in favour of the amendment, but Mr. Hume, Mr. T. Duncombe, and Mr. Wakley, avowed their intention of supporting the Government, whose measure had gone as far or farther than they had anticipated.

Sir Robert Peel said: If the case of Ireland were the sole question to be considered, he thought the immediate suspension of all duties would be the preferable course. But there were other considerations; and the Government had considered that the whole question could be better dealt with in the way they had proposed, than by the course prescribed by the amendment. Sir Robert proceeded to show that, by the adoption of his measure, certain descriptions of corn and other food would be admitted duty-free, and all other kinds at a greatly reduced rate. With respect to the amenement, he said—

66

Still, if the measure be carried that is, immediate instead of deferred repeal-I shall accept the amendment (though my conviction of the policy of my measure remains unchanged), and yield to the opinion of the majority of this House but it is totally impossible I can answer for the effect of such a change in the passing of the measure. I prefer the deferred to immediate repeal, on this, among other grounds, that the Government intend to accompany it by other

« EdellinenJatka »