Sivut kuvina
PDF
ePub

3

Duke of Richmond's proposal, as introducing the utmost possible confusion and endless litigation. The Earls of Malmesbury, Abingdon, and Stanhope, spoke in favour, the Earl of Mornington against the proposal. Lord Ashburton thought the scheme was surrounded with difficulties, and he did not see how he could vote for it.

Ultimately, the Duke of Richmond intimated that he should not withdraw his amendment, but he would not divide the committee. The amendment was then negatived, and the clauses of the Bill agreed to.

The Report was brought up on the 22nd of June, when Lord Ashburton moved the following amend

ment:

"That whatever may be the alterations which it may be expedient permanently to make in the laws regulating the introduction of foreign corn, it is the opinion of this House, that the sudden introduction of the large quantity of wheat, now in bond, at a very low rate of duty, while the prices are moderate, and the prospect of the approaching harvest is promising, may be productive of great injury and injustice to the cultivators of the soil of the United Kingdom; and that some better provision against such a calamity should be provided, than is contained in the Bill now before the House."

Some time ago, it appeared by the returns that the quantity of corn in bond might be fairly taken at 2,000,000 quarters; and since then large quantities had poured in, making a quantity equal to 2,500,000 quarters. The last price of wheat in our market which he had heard of was 52s. 10d.; and it was quite clear, if that price remained, or was to fall, every ounce

of this foreign corn would be poured into the market. To show how much this quantity exceeded the import of other years, he mentioned some particulars. In 1845, the amount exclusive of the ordinary import from Canada did not exceed 80,000 quarters; in 1844, there were 730,000 quarters; in 1843, 844,000 quarters; showing an average for these three years of 550,000 quarters. What prospect, then, was there that we could safely receive five times that amount, with a moderate marketprice, and the probability, so far as we were able to judge, of a good harvest? In 1838, 1839, 1840, 1841, and 1842, we received large supplies, averaging averaging 2,400,000 quarters; but from 1832 to 1837 the average was only 100,000 quarters, and during four of these years we received no corn at all. He showed how cautious former Governments had been in guarding against large influxes of corn at diminished duties. The resolution now submitted did not intimate any particular plan, but was simply a declaration of the facts of the case. He meant not to call on their lordships to retrace their steps-would to God he could induce them to do it!-but, seeing the hopelessness of it, he was not inclined to press the

matter.

The Earl of Dalhousie on behalf of the Government opposed the amendment.

Any address more at variance with facts and unsupported by argument, it had not been his fortune to hear in that House. From want of sufficient information, Lord Ashburton had greatly exaggerated when he stated the amount of corn in bond at 2,500,000 quarters. By the latest returns, the quantity did not reach, in wheat and wheat-flour

un

together, 1,900,000 quarters; and there was no likelihood of its being increased. The prospects of the harvest in foreign parts were as gloomy this year as they were last year. Both this and last year, nature seemed to be setting her various elements in conspiracy against this country as regards the obtaining of supplies from abroad. In the North of Europe there was an alarming deficiency of corn, from the superabundance of wet: in the South there was an equal or greater deficiency, from the ravages of the grub. In Poland and the corn-producing countries of the North of Europe the people were in a state of actual starvation; and in the South of Europe and in Anatolia the population were dying on the road-sides. Lord Ashburton wished it to appear that the quantity now in bond was exampled in extent; and in contrast had mentioned the quantities introduced in 1843, 1844, and 1845. Lord Dalhousie, however, would quote the importations for 1842 and 1841, the two previous years. In four weeks of 1842, the quantity introduced was 2,180,000 quarters; in 1841, the quantity was 2,017,000 quarters. It was not the fault of Sir Robert Peel, that the present accumulation had taken place; for he had offered to place corn in the same position as the other articles upon which a reduction in duty was proposed; taking a bond for the repayment of the difference of duty, if the measure did not pass. To this proposition great exception was taken by the opponents of the measure, and Sir Robert withdrew the offer. The resolution now under consideration contained no specific proposal. Upon what terms was the corn now in bond to be admitted? VOL. LXXXVIII.

If the resolution was affirmed as it stood, a glaring act of injustice would be done towards the owners of the corn in bond. By adopting it, the corn now in bond would be dealt with in one way, while the corn which arrived the next week would escape the resolution and be admitted as provided by the new Bill. His noble friend had altered the resolution, which, as it at first stood, was a mercantile monster in phraseology, for it talked of the "importation" of corn in bond. As to prices, it was notorious to every one engaged in the corn trade, that the whole of the transactions, external and internal, had been carried on with reference to the stock in bond. Its effect on prices, therefore, had been produced long ago. He much doubted whether the better course would not have been to make the change in the duties immediate. Under existing circumstances nothing could be worse than suspense.

Lord

After a short debate, the amendment was lost by 70 to 47. Stanley shortly afterwards stated that, after the divisions which had taken place, those who acted with him did not intend to divide the House on the third reading; but should enter a protest against the Bill on the journals. The clauses having been gone through, several noble lords, who were most warmly opposed to the measure, availed themselves of the final opportunity to declare their deep distrust and disapprobation of the measure, and of the mode in which it had been carried. The Duke of Richmond particularly maintained his opposition to the last. He said he was sorry to see such a measure become law without an amendment appearing on the journals of the House. He would therefore move that the

[H]

re

Bill be read that day six months. He renewed the inquiry about the "compensatory" measures; marking that their lordships would have given a third reading to the Corn Bill without seeing them. This measure could not be a final one. He would advise the farmers to agitate against it, not for the miserable sliding scale of the present measure, or for any nonsensical four-shilling duty, but for an adequate degree of protection, not

only to agriculture, but to every species of national industry. The Government would carry their Bill, and would have the satisfaction of thinking that they had broken up a powerful party, and that for some time the government of the country must be carried on by a weak administration.

The amendment was then put and negatived without a division, and the Bill was read a third time and passed.

[blocks in formation]

Customs Bill-Discussions in the House of Commons upon various Articles in the New Tariff-Mr. Plumptre opposes the Reduction of Duty on Hops-After some Debate, his Motion is negatived by a Majority of 47-Mr. George Bankes moves the omission of articles of Silk Manufacture--Remarks of Mr. W. Ellis, Mr. Brocklehurst, Mr. Hawes, Lord George Bentinck, Sir Robert Peel, and Mr. DisraeliMr. Bankes's Motion is rejected by 220 to 114-Mr. W. Thompson opposes the Reduction on Foreign Spirits-After a short Discussion, the Amendment is negatived─Mr. W. Miles moves an Amendment for exempting Live Animals from Reduction of Duty-A desultory Debate takes place, which ends in a Division in favour of the Government by a Majority of 39-Timber Duties-The Marquis of Worcester leads the opposition against the proposed Scale-Remarks of Mr. H. Hinde, Mr. Cardwell, Mr. A. Chapman, Mr. G. Palmer, Mr. Warburton, Mr. Hume, Lord George Bentinck, Sir George Clerk, and Mr. C. Buller-The Resolution is affirmed on a Division, by a Majority of 123-On the Third Reading of the Customs Bill being moved, Lord George Bentinck moves that it be read a third time on that day six months-He is answered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer— Speeches of Mr. G. Bankes, Mr. Hawes, Mr. Plumptre, Mr. Hudson, and other members-Lord George Bentinck withdraws his Amendment, and the Bill is passed-Debate on the Second Reading in the House of Lords on the 4th of June-Lord Dalhousie introduces the measure-The Duke of Richmond moves that it be read a second time on that day six months-Speeches of the Earl of Wicklow, Lord Ashburton, and Lord Monteagle, after which the Bill is read a second time without a Division-The Duke of Richmond, on going into Committee, moves that Counsel be heard against the Reduction of the Silk Duties-The Earl of Dalhousie opposes the motion, seconded by Lord Ellenborough and the Duke of Wellington-Lord Brougham supports it-It is negatived by 78 to 74-Lord Stanley opposes the Reduction of the Timber Duties, but without success-Other Amendments are proposed and negatived-The Bill is read a third time, after an ineffectual opposition by the Duke of Richmond-The Budget-The Chancellor of the Exchequer makes his Financial Statement on the 29th of May-Various Comments upon it by Lord George Bentinck, Mr. Charles Wood, Mr. Hume, Mr. Hudson, and other members.

TH

HE debates in the House of Commons upon the Bill for reducing the Customs Duties, which formed one branch of Sir Robert Peel's great scheme of commercial reform, were not very protracted, the efforts of the Protectionist party being mainly directed to the opposition to the new Corn Law, which has formed the subject of the preceding chapter. Upon a few only of the articles included in the Tariff a stand more or less vigorous was made; but none of these attempts to defeat the Ministerial scheme proving effectual, resistance to the principle of the measure was felt to be useless. We shall give a specimen of some of the discussions which took place in both Houses upon particular items in the new Tariff.

Upon the article of hops, Mr. Plumptre first took the sense of the House. He alleged that the homegrower could not maintain his position upon a protecting duty of 45s. per cwt., the amount now proposed. It would throw much land out of cultivation, and many persons would be deprived of employment. If the Excise duty were remitted, the hop-growers would be satisfied.

Sir Robert Peel reminded Mr. Plumptre of the alarm which was felt in 1842, when it was proposed to reduce the duty from 97. to 41. 10s. The cry was that land would go out of cultivation owing to foreign competition; but it appeared that, during the three years since 1842, only two cwt. of foreign hops had been brought in, and the whole amount of duty received had been 107. in the three years. He could not consent to repeal the Excise duty. As to foreign competition, he did not think there was anything to fear from it,

the English hops were so superior.

Mr. Plumptre's views were supported by Colonel Austen, Mr. Knight, Mr. A. J. B. Hope, Mr. Frewen, and Lord George Bentinck; and opposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

On a division, 91 voted for the resolution, and 44 against it; Ministerial majority, 47.

The reduction being proposed on articles of silk manufacture, Mr. George Bankes moved their omission from the list. He was prepared to meet Sir Robert Peel's challenge to show that any material interests had been injured for any length of time by reductions of duty. In 1832, six years after the reductions made by Mr. Huskisson, the silk trade urged such grounds for inquiry, that the House, then under the control of a Whig Government, could not refuse the appointment of a Committee. The Committee sat for five months, but the inquiry was brought prematurely to a close by a new election, and no report was presented to the House. The Committee, indeed, divided upon a report submitted to it; but Sir Henry Parnell gave a casting vote against it. The facts, however, proved that Mr. Huskisson's experiment had been productive of much injury to the operatives. The manufacturers might be satisfied with the change; but wages had been reduced one half, or more, and the poor-rates had been largely increased, in Coventry, Macclesfield, and other seats of the silk manufacture. The means of employment, too, had been largely dimnished. Mr. Brocklehurst, of Macclesfield, stated, that in 1824 there were 276,000 spindles in that town, and that the mill-people engaged in the trade were 10,000. In

« EdellinenJatka »