Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

ing their opinion through the choice of their representa- CHAP. tives in Parliament."

XXXV.

1835. 25.

tion of the

Sir R.

Notwithstanding this second defeat, the Prime Minister still held on, alleging that no vital point involving the Exasperageneral policy of Government had yet come on for discus- Whigs at sion. The Opposition leaders were much chagrined by Peel not this unexpected obstacle to their hopes, and very warm resigning. discussions took place in Parliament on reports which were eagerly circulated and credulously believed, in regard to alleged unconstitutional measures contemplated by the Government. On 2d March, Lord John Russell noticed March 2. two of these reports in Parliament: the first being, that Parliament was to be again dissolved; the second, that if this became necessary before the Mutiny Act was passed, the army would be kept up in the mean time on the sole responsibility of Ministers; and at the same time he gave notice that he intended to bring forward the Irish Appropriation question, and that of Municipal Reform. Sir R. Peel's answer was frank and explicit. He said that he had never contemplated a dissolution of Parliament, or a keeping up of the army by the prerogative alone; that he was anxious that the Irish Commission should prosecute its labours, and that Government would bring in a bill on the subject, adhering strictly to the principle that ecclesiastical property should be reserved for ecclesiastical purposes; and that they would be prepared to remedy all real abuses in corporations when the report of the commissioners appointed for their investigation was received. These were mere skirmishes, which were the precursors of Parl. Deb. the battle; but they indicated not obscurely where the 471-473. weight of the attack was to be directed.1

xxvi. 419,

The extreme distress of the agricultural interest in this 26. year, when wheat fell to 39s. 5d. the quarter, induced Motion for the Marquess of Chandos to bring forward a motion for repeal of the the repeal of the malt-tax; a project which has always been a favourite one with the agricultural interest, though

malt-tax

lost.

XXXV.

1835.

March 7.

CHAP. it may well be doubted whether, even if entirely conceded, it would yield the benefit to them which they seem to suppose. Sir R. Peel resisted the proposal, upon the ground that, however desirable it might be to give relief to the agricultural interest in that way, the state of the revenue would not admit of it. Lord Althorpe had stated the probable surplus, after taking into view the reduced taxation this year, at £250,000; the malt-tax proposed to be repealed brought in £4,812,000 last year. In other words, the reduction would leave the exchequer in a deficiency of £4,562,000. This statement was decisive, for every one saw that the inevitable result of going into the repeal would be the dire alternative of a property-tax. Sir R. Peel's words were: "My prophecy is, that if you repeal this tax, you will make an income-tax necessary; to that, be assured, you must come at last, if you repeal the malttax. You will lay your taxes on articles of general consumption, on tobacco, on spirits, on wine, and you will meet with such a storm that will make you hastily recede from your first advances towards a substitute. To a property-tax, then, you must come; and I congratulate you, gentlemen of the landed interest, on finding yourselves relieved from the pressure of the malt-tax, and falling on a good comfortable property-tax, with a proposal, probably, for a graduated scale. And And you who represent the heavy land of this country-the clay soils, the soils unfit for barley-I felicitate you on the prospect which lies before you. If you think that the substitute will be advantageous to your interests, be it so; but do not, when hereafter you discover your mistake, do not lay the blame upon those who offered you a timely warning, and cautioned you against exchanging the light pressure 1836, 116, of a malt duty FOR THE SCOURGE OF A PROPERTY-TAX.”1 Deb. xxvi. The Liberals and Ministerialists accordingly joined to resist the motion, which was thrown out by a majority of 158; the numbers being 350 to 192. This was yery

1 Ann. Reg.

128; Parl.

738,776,

834.

nearly in the proportion of the borough to the county CHAP. members in the whole house.

XXXV. 1835.

minution

beer.

Sir R. Peel stated a very remarkable thing, in the 27. course of this debate, in regard to the diminished con- Great disumption of beer in the country, compared with what it in the conhad been a century before. "In the year 1722," said sumption of he, "the population of the country (England) amounted to about 6,000,000, and the beer consumed, as stated in the returns, was nearly the same, being about 6,000,000 barrels; so that a barrel of beer was consumed by each person. In 1833 the population amounted to 14,000,000, and yet the annual consumption for the last three years preceding the repeal of the Beer Act was only 8,200,000 barrels, being little more than half a barrel to each person. This great diminution is to be ascribed chiefly to the increased consumption of other articles, especially tea, spirits, and coffee. The first has increased, since 1722, from 370,000 lb., or an ounce to each person, to 31,829,000 lb., or 24 lb. to each person the second, from 3,000,000 gallons, or half a gallon to each, in 1722, to 12,332,000, or nearly a whole gallon, in 1833: the third from 262,000 lb. in 1722, or

of an ounce to each person, to 20,691,000 lb., or 14 lb. to each person." These figures, which may be entirely relied on, coming from such a quarter, are very remarkable, and go far to account for the great diminution in the consumption of beer, by indicating a change in the national tastes. When it is recollected, however, how strong is the general predilection of the working classes for beer, and how necessary it is to recruit the strength of those who are worn out by incessant toil, it is evident that it does not explain it altogether; and that much was, at the same time, owing to the fall of wages in all classes, especially the agricultural, which had followed the contraction of the currency in 1819. And that it was this contraction, joined to the fact of three fine har

XXXV.

1835.

CHAP. vests having been reaped in succession, which was the real cause of the depressed price of agricultural produce, and not the malt-tax, is proved by the fact, also mentioned by Sir R. Peel, that the price of barley, heavily 1 Parl. Deb. taxed, was then higher in reference to that of wheat than 766; Ann. it had ever been known before-a fact which decisively Reg. 116, demonstrated that the fall was owing to some extraneous cause common to both.1

xxvi. 762

117.

28.

Lord Lon

appoint

ment as am

St Peters

burg.

A striking proof was soon afforded of the strength and Debate on blindness of the spirit of party which had now got posdonderry's session of the legislature, in the opposition made to the appointment of the Marquess of Londonderry to the basador at situation of ambassador at St Petersburg, which, though not as yet formally made out, had been officially announced by Government. This was strongly objected to by Mr Sheil and Mr Cutlar Fergusson in the House of Commons, mainly upon the ground that he had said the Poles were rebellious subjects of Russia, and that having ourselves violated the treaty of Vienna by partitioning the kingdom of the Netherlands, we had no right to complain of the Emperor of Russia having done the same by depriving the Poles of the constitution provided for them by the same treaty. Sir R. Peel made a feeble defence, resting chiefly on the well-known military and diplomatic services of the gallant Marquess, and the danger of the House of Commons interfering in one of the most important parts of the King's prerogative, the choice of ambassadors. Lord Stanley expressed opinions similar to the mover, adding a hope that Ministers would even at the eleventh hour cancel the appointment. As the appointment had not been made out, the motion was withdrawn ; 3 Ann, Reg. but as soon as the Marquess read the debate in the papers 133; Parl of the following day, he, with his usual disinterested manliness, relieved the Government of all embarrassment on the subject by resigning the appointment.2

1835, 128

Deb. xxvi.

939, 986.

The Marquess of Londonderry said, in announcing this in the House of Peers: "Having but one object, and that

XXXV.

1835.

29.

chivalrous

of the office.

is to serve the King honestly, and to the best of my CHAP. ability, were I to depart from this country, after what has passed in the House of Commons, I should feel myself, as a representative of his Majesty, placed in a new, Lord Lonfalse, and improper position. My efficiency would be donderry's impaired, and it would be impossible for me to fill the declinature office to which I have been called with proper dignity or effect. Upon these grounds I have now to announce that no consideration will induce me to accept the office which his Majesty has been graciously pleased to confer upon me." The Duke of Wellington said: "I recommended that my noble friend should be appointed ambassador at St Petersburg; and I did so, founding on my knowledge of my noble friend for many years past, on the great and important military services, and on the fitness he has proved himself possessed of for diplomatic duties in the various offices he has filled for many years, particularly at the Court of Vienna, from which he returned with the strongest marks of the approbation of the Secretary of State. Being a military officer of high rank in this country, and of high reputation in the Russian army, he was peculiarly fitted for that employment." This was said with the Duke of Wellington's usual intrepidity and manliness of character, and a soldier could not have said less of an officer who had bled with the heroic Russian Guard on the field of Culm, and, by his ceaseless efforts to bring up Bernadotte and the Swedes, had 1 Hist. of mainly contributed to the victory of Leipsic.1 But he lxxxi. § 48. might have added, that, of all men in existence, he was the one whom the friends of Poland should least have objected to for such an appointment; for he was the representative and inheritor of the policy of the statesman who had, by his single efforts, preserved a remnant of Polish nationality at the Congress of Vienna, when Parl. Deb. deserted by all the world;2 and who, while the Liberals 1007; Ann. of Europe had given them nothing but empty words tend- 133, 134. ing to insurrection and wretchedness, had conferred upon

2

Europe, c.

xxvi. 1004

Reg. 1835,

« ForrigeFortsett »