Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

ducing a considerable displacement of labour. In illustration, he referred to the present state of America, where, owing to the derangement of the circulating medium, such an extraordinary reduction of prices had taken place, that there was a disposition to force exports, under circumstances that would entail very great sacrifices, and at prices most unnaturally low. The agricultural districts of America had suffered even more than those on the sea coast; and things approached almost to a state of barter. There was not the smallest doubt, that the agricultural productions of the Mississippi had reached a most unnaturally low price. A person sent to the Western States by one of the corn houses in this country, to investigate the state of the harvest last year, and the probable quantities of wheat and flour that might be exported from the Mississippi in case of an opening into this country by a repeal of the Corn-laws, reported that the harvest last year was greater than was ever known before, and the price at New Orleans was likely to be 21s. to 24s. per quarter for wheat, and 13s. 6d. a barrel for flour; the quantity 350,000 quarters. He did say, that the introduction of that quantity of corn from New Orleans would be a national misfortune. He contended, that the short twelve-month's experiment of the present Cornlaw had been tried under peculiar and exceptional circumstances, yet experience thus far was favourable. Members were aware that there was generally a very large importation of grain during one week in the summer. It used to be complained, that no grain was released until the extreme

point of price was attained, and that then it was released in a most extensive mass. Now, in 1841, during sixteen weeks up to the week of the great delivery, there were entered for consumption 1,960,000 quarters of wheat. During the first fifteen of those weeks only 108,000 quarters were entered, while in the sixteenth week 1,852,000 quarters were entered. In the sixteen weeks ending with the week of the greatest delivery during the operation of the present law, the total entries were 2,214,000 quarters of wheat; of this quantity 1,354,000 quarters were entered in the sixteenth week, and 850,000 quarters during the preceding fif teen weeks. He thought, then, it could not be truly asserted that the operation of the existing law bad been similar to that of the former law, with respect to the withholding of grain from the market till the last moment. Nor had the producer any right to complain. He admitted that there had been a fall of price not compensated by corresponding abundance; but he attributed it to diminished ability to purchase, and he contended that under the old law the depression would, probably, have been greater. The price had actually been less under the old law: the average of 1834, 5 and 6, was but 44s. 67.; the average of 1835 was 39s. and some odd pence. But great changes had been made: the fraudulent operations on the averages had been rendered impracticable by the enlargement of the list of towns making returns. Under the old law, the price must have risen much higher than it had now done, to enable importers to release corn-corn must have risen

to 73s. instead of 64s., the higher price would have stimulated the importer from abroad, and the reaction and subsequent depression of prices must have been greater. He deeply lamented the ruin in which many persons engaged in the corn trade had been involved last year; but he considered that ruin was attributable to the circumstances of the country, and the extraordinary changes in the expectations with reference to the harvest, and could not be fairly imputed to the law. Shippers used to suffer from the haste with which the orders were formerly sent out, and the consequent rise of freights; a charge which could not be made against the present law. As to the currency, the derangement of which used to occasion so much inconvenience, no sensible effect, he believed, had been produced on it by the importations of the last year. He was not satisfied that the motion could be adopted, without a great action upon the currency; there was now a drain of gold on this country, which had sent 3,000,000l. to America since the commencement of the present year; and he was afraid, that any considerable importation of foreign corn must be paid for in bullion. Let the House look, moreover, to the effect on the revenue, for the present law had contributed in a time of need 800,000l. or 900,000l. above the sum received under the old law, and more than could have been received under the scale of fixed duties proposed by Lord John Russell. Mr. Gladstone, among some further general arguments against the Motion, took some pains to prove, that Sir Robert Peel had not promised to

corn in proposing the present law.

The debate thus commenced was continued by adjournment for five nights successively. A great number of Members on each side of the House alternately attacked or vindicated the existing system of protection. It would occupy a very large space, and would serve but little purpose, to enumerate the various topics and arguments of the numerous speeches that were delivered, a large proportion of which traversed ground which had been already well-beaten in former debates, and added little novelty or interest to the subject under discussion. A few passages from the more prominent speakers will sufficiently represent the tone and bearing which this oftrepeated controversy assumed on the present occasion.

Mr. Roebuck supported the Motion as a step towards general freetrade; while he severely censured the members of the League for their vituperation and imputation of bad motives in their opponents. He declared that the House incurred a serious responsibility if they refused some experiment, some sacrifice, with a view of lessening the existing misery; asked if they could deny, that the repeal of the Corn-law might afford some chance of relief; ridiculed Mr. Gladstone's idle and groundless assertion, that there would be a drain of bullion; and observed, that supposing it true that there would be an overwhelming importation of wheat from America, would it not be as likely to come through Canada under the intended Bill-American wheat being smuggled across the frontier, and sent hither free of all

Lord Howick supported the Motion for repealing the present Cornlaws, but not precisely with Mr. Villiers's object. He would not himself prefer the form of the present Motion, as his own proposition would be for a small fixed duty; not because he thought that agriculture required protection, for in his opinion, protection of every kind was a robbery of the community at large, but because it would be a fair compromise between conflicting parties; and it was always a wise course in any government, not to carry its opinions to the full extent, but to make a reasonable compromise with its opponents. Another reason why he would advocate a fixed duty was, that it would be a means of adding to the revenue, whilst it would produce no sensible effect upon the price, and without being felt by the consumer, would enrich the exchequer. If the advocates of the Motion found themselves in a majority, and if a resolution were to be proposed in favour of the repeal of the existing Corn-laws, it would be competent for any honourable Gentleman to get up in the committee, and, the ground being cleared by the sweeping away of the present laws, to propose such a fixed duty as he should think proper. If no other honourable Member did it, he should himself make a definitive proposition. If, however, he could not persuade the committee to adopt a small fixed duty, and if a free-trade in corn were to be the only alternative for the existing laws, he would support that alter

native.

Mr. Blackstone, representing the views of the uncompromising agricultural party, taunted the Government with some severity

He

on their equivocal policy. congratulated Mr. Gladstone on the altered tone of his speech on the previous evening, as compared with that which he delivered on the same subject at the beginning of the Session; for now he abandoned those hacknied expressions about free-trade, by which he heretofore had endeavoured to elicit cheers from the honourable Members on the opposite side of the House, and declared at last that the agricultural interests were in a great state of depression. Mr. Blackstone admitted that there was some truth in the statement that the tenant-farmers were in favour of a free-trade in corn. ("Hear, hear!" from the Opposition.) They did not hold this opinion from any desire of having a

free-trade in corn, and of having all protection removed from agriculture; but he feared it was from another spirit, which he was afraid was now deeply rooted among the agriculturists-that the change affecting their interests made by Her Majesty's Government had been so great, that they looked to the future in a state of the utmost despair, and conceived that there was so much doubt as to the line of conduct which Her Majesty's Ministers would pursue hereafter, that they would rather at once see the end come- (Loud cheering from Opposition Members)—than wait in suspense and die by inches (Continued cheers from the same quarter.) It was probable, that want of confidence in Her Majesty's Ministers had given rise to this opinion. (Cheers.) There was another feeling also strongly grow. ing upon the farmers, which he deeply regretted that they had been deceived in their attempts to save themselves from destitution

by the resident gentry and nobility, the landlords, and those to whom they naturally looked up. The feeling was visible in Hertford, and also in Berkshire. In the petition sent up from Wallingford in favour of protection to the farmers, he blushed to say that hardly a single magistrate had subscribed his name. (Laughter and cheers.) This was a melancholy contrast to the feeling exhibited when the country had been appealed to on the same ground at the last general election. (Cheers.) The magistrates and gentry had then been forward to come and turn out the Administration which had shown such extreme hostility to the landed interest, and had then been ready enough to urge on their tenants to the same course: but now the case was different; the farmers of the country were now acting for them selves. He held that to be a most disastrous feeling. (Loud cheers and laughter from the Opposition.) Sir Edward Knatchbull gave his unqualified support to the law as it now stood. He defended the agricultural Members from Mr. Blackstone's attacks, which tended to further the views of those to whom the honourable Member was opposed: he hoped the honourable Gentleman would not mislead those with whom he was now acting. Sir Edward contended, that if free-trade were applied in the particular case, it must be so generally and universally-(Loud Opposition cheers.) -but that he regarded as impracticable. If applied in the case of land, its peculiar burdens must be taken into consideration; among which he reckoned " pecuniary liabilities and provisions for younger

This admission was eagerly seized by Lord John Russell, as an instance of the new, untenable, and unsafe position taken by the supporters of the Corn-laws. "The right honourable Gentleman, a Minister of the Cabinet, stated it as one reason why they should keep up the law, that they might provide by their marriage-settlements for the younger members of their families." [Sir Edward Knatchbull explained, that if they deprived those who had entered into any obligations of the means of fulfilment, they would do a great injustice, unless they proceeded with some other measures. (Opposition cheers.) Lord John Russell proceeded.] He understood that to mean, not that the Corn-law ought to remain, but that if it were removed, then it would be the duty of Parliament to consider what was the amount of compensation to be given to the noblemen and gentlemen who were interested in maintaining the Cornlaw: if it was abolished, then it was said, that there was to be a case of great compensation, something like that of the slave-owners. Pursuing his satirical comment on Sir E. Knatchbull's language, he ridiculed the inconsistency with which, after having in 1841 argued that any reduction in the price of provisions would be calamitous, he became the colleague of Sir Robert Peel, who boasted of having effected such a reduction; and he likened his solemn advice to Mr. Blackstone, not to mislead his friends, to the warning of a veteran gamester to a youth on the miseries of gambling.

He (Lord John Russell) viewed the despairing readiness of certain farmers to cast off all protection

certain and vacillating conduct of Ministers; but he adhered to his old opinion in favour of a moderate fixed duty. Therefore he could not vote for the Motion as it stood, with the unnecessary words at the end of it: nor could he agree with Lord Howick's suggestion; because if he voted for the motion at all, he should be told next day that he had voted for the immediate abolition of all duties on corn. He would support a motion merely for going into a committee of the whole House on the Cornlaws. (Cries of "Move, move!") Well, he should have no objection to make such a motion, if he thought any practical good were likely to result from it. ("Hear!” and laughter.) As it was, he could not vote for the Motion.

Lord Worsley, who opposed the Motion, having called for an explicit declaration of the intentions of the Government, Sir Robert Peel responded to the call. He avowed that he had heard nothing new on the subject, and had nothing new to state. He praised the Motion for its directness and fair character. But the principle involved in it was wider than its terms: it was nothing less than the proposition that all protective duties, as well as the duties on corn, must be immediately abolished. If it received assent, the whole arrangement of the Tariff, excepting duties for revenue, most be reversed; then the whole of the colonial system-all monopolies, all preferences of colonial interests, all sacrifices in return, must be abolished. (Mr. Villiers Hear, hear!") "With that admission," said Sir Robert Peel, "I ask the House if it feels that it is in accordance with the national inter

[ocr errors]

one night to adopt a principle like this?" He added, "If I were prepared to agree to such an abstract principle as that embodied in the resolution, I should shrink from its application." He proceeded to defend the continuance of the Corn-law, mainly on the score of peculiar burthens on land; and the late change, as having reduced prices. To Lord Worsley's demand he answered, that when Government last year proposed their Corn-law, they meant it to be a satisfactory adjustment; he did not say final and unalterable, for he would never say that as to any such matter; but the Government had had no reservation or secret intention then of any further change, nor was any such intention entertained by them now. He denied his belief that the depression of manufactures was owing to the Corn-laws, or the depression of agriculture to the recent change. And the proposed Canada Bill, he said, was nothing new, but a part of the measure of last Session: it had been so announced, and Government had given an engagement to the people of Canada which it was their duty to fulfil.

Mr. Cobden, who addressed the House at considerable length, at the close of the debate, analysed the operation of the Corn-laws on the several classes of the agricultural community. "The law," he said, "inflicts searcity on the people, or it does nothing; and the condition of the agricultural labourers is the severest condemnation of the law." A return up to Lady Day, 1840, showed that ten of the largest agricultural counties stood highest in the list in the population of pauperism, and that was after the

« ForrigeFortsett »