Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

this country; but as far as he was a “reckless” speculator, he was made so by the law. When Regent-street was first built, somebody said—“It may be a very fine street ; but there are two things it won't bear—bad weather and criticism.” That was just the case with the sliding-scale. It was no good argument for a Cornlaw in 1843, that you had a Cornlaw under Charles II. or William III, ; the whole policy of those times, on all other articles as well as on corn, was to maintain prohibitory duties, but at the present day that policy had, in respect of all other articles, undergone a complete reversal; and yet we now kept up a higher rate of duty upon corn than had existed when prohibition was the general and established rule: we were actually applying a system of increased restriction to an increased population. But what he chiefly complained of was the present uncertainty, so injurious to the agricultural classes; he would quote Mr. Webster, and say, ‘do one thing or the other, let us either be warm or cool,’ which transatlantic doctrine would find many sympathisers here. He now arrived at his third point—the principle on which a duty should be imposed.

If a duty was imposed on any ar

ticle for revenue, it was not only not unreasonable, but it was simply just, that the foreign as well as the home producer of that article should pay that duty; otherwise you would be violating the principle of free-trade, in favour of the foreigner against the home trader. So, too, if the agriculturists could make out their allegation of burdens peculiar to the land, a countervailing protection to them would then be pursuant, not re

pugnant, to the principle of freetrade. He was, therefore, disinclined to lay down the broad principle of total abolition; he would prefer a moderate fixed duty; but if the House would consent to go into committee, the mode of compromise might best be considered there. He had seen and read enough of the history of great questions to be satisfied that it was often wisest to avoid, by some fair compromise, the enforcement of extreme opinions—witness the cases of the slave-trade and of the Roman Catholic disabilities. He admitted that when prices should rise to 80s. or even 70s, you must remit your duty; but such a case would be very rare; for the importers would generally bring in their grain at an earlier period, and so as to prevent that extreme rise. He was not solicitous to claim reputation for his party as the founders of the free-trade principle; the legislation of the country showed that they already had titles enough to the people's confidence, from the days of the Habeas Corpus and the Bill of Rights to those of the Reform Act, and the Act for the Abolition of Slavery. He was quite content, therefore, to see the principles of free-trade carried to their fit extent by a Ministry in which he and his friends had no share. Mr. W. E. Gladstone rose to answer Lord J. Russell's Speech, and oppose the Motion. Advert: ing to the noble Lord's division of his subject, he said that on the first of his topics, the case of the agriculturists, there was no neces: sity for any present occupation of the time of the House, as no proposal was before it for returning to the state of law which the agriculturists were supposed to regret, Nor would he quarrel with the general propositions contained in the third division of Lord J. Russell's speech; but to the application which he had made of those propositions he did object. Lord J. Russell had been very shy of stating what particular plan he had in view; he had kept his scheme involved in a good deal of mystery. On his own principles, he ought not to have caused by this Motion a new disturbance of 4 question so often agitated. Under the existing Corn-law, proviions were extremely cheap, and speculation had been materially thecked. He entered into some statements of figures, showing that the importation had been much less unequal in the last year than it had been in the years preceding. Nor could the new law be complained of as having operated unfavourably with reference to revenue. Then, if the law had not sailed in any of these respects, the case stood, as between that law and the proposal of a fixed duty, just where it had stood last Year, when the noble Lord's motion for a fixed duty was rejected by the House. He spoke with indignation of the vulgar and violent cry that this was a question of rents—a question caused by the Cupidity of the landlords. Surely that highly honourable and generous class were as well entitled to * spared from such an imputation as the manufacturers from the harge that they agitateagainst the Corn-laws only to lower the wages of their workmen. He protested against the constant renewal of uneasiness in the country, by sucCessive motions of this kind in Parliament. It was unjust not to give a fair trial to the existing law; and there was no reason to

suppose that experience would lay any ground for departing from it. He believed that the agriculturists in general, though dissatisfied with present prices, were not dissatisfied with the present law. Considering the course of former legislation, and the necessity of maintaining a due protection to invested capital and existing labour, he trusted that the House would resist this Motion. The principal speakers who fol. lowed were Mr. Labouchere, Sir W. Clay and Mr. Aglionby, advocating a moderate fixed duty. Mr. Hume, Mr. Ewart, and Mr. C. Williers standing out for total repeal. Sir R. Peel brought up the rear of opponents to the Motion. He sarcastically approved of Lord John Russell's concealment of his details until going into Committee, as a disclosure might produce a sudden explosion, that the mover would find very inconvenient. His fixed duty was to be removable by the Crown in bad seasons. To apply his Regentstreet simile, Lord J. Russell admitted that his own structure would not bear rain, and if he got into Committee he would find that it would not bear criticism, Sir Robert Peel made much of the conflict of opinion on the opposite side; and, repeating some of Mr. Gladstone's arguments, he averred that if wheat had fallen from 61s. to 52s., chiefly in consequence of the abundant harvest, the price of oats had varied less in the last six months than at any former pe. riod. He did not propose the present law as one absolutely final, but as one to be maintained until experience, facts and evidence, proved that it ought to be relin. quished; since there was great inthis country; but as far as he was a “reckless” speculator, he was made so by the law. When Regent-street was first built, somebody said—“It may be a very fine street ; but there are two things it won't bear—bad weather and criticism.” That was just the case with the sliding-scale. It was no good argument for a Cornlaw in 1843, that you had a Cornlaw under Charles II. or William III.: the whole policy of those times, on all other articles as well as on corn, was to maintain prohibitory duties, but at the present day that policy had, in respect of all other articles, undergone a complete reversal; and yet we now kept up a higher rate of duty upon corn than had existed when prohibition was the general and established rule: we were actually applying a system of increased restriction to an increased population. But what he chiefly complained of was the present uncertainty, so injurious to the agricultural classes; he would quote Mr. Webster, and say, ‘do one thing or the other, let us either be warm or cool,’ which transatlantic doctrine would find many sympathisers here. He now arrived at his third point—the principle on which a duty should be imposed. If a duty was imposed on any article for revenue, it was not only not unreasonable, but it was simply just, that the foreign as well as the home producer of that article should pay that duty; otherwise you would be violating the principle of free-trade, in favour of the foreigner against the home trader. So, too, if the agriculturists could make out their allegation of burdens peculiar to the land, a countervailing protection to them would then be pursuant, not re

pugnant, to the principle of freetrade. He was, therefore, disinclined to lay down the broad principle of total abolition; he would prefer a moderate fixed duty; but if the House would consent to go into committee, the mode of compromise might best be considered there. He had seen and read enough of the history of great questions to be satisfied that it was often wisest to avoid, by some fair compromise, the enforcement of extreme opinions—witness the cases of the slave-trade and of the Roman Catholic disabilities. He admitted that when prices should rise to 80s. or even 70s, you must remit your duty; but such a case would be very rare; for the importers would generally bring in their grain at an earlier period, and so as to prevent that extreme rise. He was not solicitous to claim reputation for his party as the founders of the free-trade principle; the legislation of the country showed that they already had titles enough to the people's confidence, from the days of the Habeas Corpus and the Bill of Rights to those of the Reform Act, and the Act for the Abolition of Slavery. He was quite content, therefore, to see the principles of free-trade carried to their fit extent by a Ministry in which he and his friends had no share. Mr. W. E. Gladstone rose to answer Lord J. Russell's Speech, and oppose the Motion. Adverting to the noble Lord's division of his subject, he said that on the first of his topics, the case of the agriculturists, there was no necessity for any present occupation of the time of the House, as no proposal was before it for returning to the state of law which the agriculturists were supposed to regret,

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

:

Nor would he quarrel with the general propositions contained in the third division of Lord J. Russell's speech; but to the application which he had made of those propositions he did object. Lord J. Russell had been very shy of stating what particular plan he had in view; he had kept his scheme involved in a good deal of mystery. On his own principles, he ought not to have caused by this Motion a new disturbance of a question so often agitated. Under the existing Corn-law, provisons were extremely cheap, and Speculation had been materially checked. He entered into some statements of figures, showing that the importation had been much less unequal in the last year than it had been in the years preceding, Nor could the new law be complained of as having operated unfavourably with reference to revenue. Then, if the law had not sailed in any of these respects, the case stood, as between that law and the proposal of a fixed duty, just where it had stood last Year, when the noble Lord's motion for a fixed duty was rejected by the House. He spoke with indignation of the vulgar and violent try that this was a question of rents—a question caused by the Cupidity of the landlords. Surely that highly honourable and generous class were as well entitled to to spared from such an imputation as the manufacturers from the harge that they agitateagainst the Corn-laws only to lower the wages of their workmen. He protested against the constant renewal of uneasiness in the country, by sucCessive motions of this kind in Parliament. It was unjust not to Éive a fair trial to the existing W; and there was no reason to

[blocks in formation]

would resist this Motion. The principal speakers who fol. lowed were Mr. Labouchere, Sir W. Clay and Mr. Aglionby, advocating a moderate fixed duty, Mr. Hume, Mr. Ewart, and Mr. C. Williers standing out for total repeal. Sir R. Peel brought up the rear of opponents to the Motion. He sarcastically approved of Lord John Russell's concealment of his details until going into Committee, as a disclosure might produce a sudden explosion, that the mover would find very inconvenient. His fixed duty was to be removable by the Crown in bad seasons. To apply his Regentstreet simile, Lord J. Russell admitted that his own structure would not bear rain, and if he got into Committee he would find that it would not bear criticism. Sir Robert Peel made much of the conflict of opinion on the opposite side; and, repeating some of Mr. Gladstone's arguments, he averred that if wheat had fallen from 61s. to 52s., chiefly in consequence of the abundant harvest, the price of oats had varied less in the last six months than at any former pe. riod. He did not propose the present law as one absolutely final, but as one to be maintained until experience, facts and evidence, proved that it ought to be relin. quished; since there was greatinconvenience and danger in constant alterations of laws of the kind. The House divided— For the Motion, 145; against, 244; Ministerial majority, 99. Previously, however, to the debate last referred to, a Measure partially affecting the operation of the Corn-laws had been proposed in the House of Commons by the Secretary for the Colonies. The object of Lord Stanley's proposition was a reduction of the duties payable on corn imported into the United Kingdom from Canada. The expectation of this Measure had created a good deal of uneasiness among the agriculturists, it having been represented by some parties as a design on the part of the Ministers to break in upon the protective principle of the Corn-laws, and let in corn through a back door, to the detriment of the English producer. In some parts of the country, accordingly, a good deal of sensitiveness and even distrust had been excited towards the Ministry with respect to this Measure; the topic was much discussed at agricultural meetings, and some members of Parliament who usually supported the Government, declared themselves hostile to the plan. The following were the resolutions proposed by Lord Stanley in a speech of much ability, in which he laboured to disabuse the public mind of some prevailing misconceptions as to the tendency and probable effect of his proposals:— “Resolved, that on the 12th day of October, 1842, an act was passed by the Legislative Council and Legislative Assembly of the province of Canada, and reserved by the Governor-General for the signification of Her Majesty's

pleasure, imposing a duty of 3s. sterling money of Great Britain on each Imperial quarter of wheat imported into Canada, except from the United Kingdom or any of Her Majesty's possessions, and being the growth and produce thereof. “That the said act recites, that it was passed in the confident belief and expectation, that, upon the imposition of a duty upon foreign wheat imported into the province, Her Majesty would be graciously pleased to recommend to Parliament the removal or reduction of the duties on wheat and wheat-flour imported into the said United Kingdom from Canada. “That, in consideration of the duty so imposed by the said act of the Legislature of Canada, it is expedient to provide that, if Her Majesty shall be pleased to give her sanction to the said act, the duties imposed upon wheat and wheat-flour imported into the United Kingdom from Canada should be reduced. “That, during the continuance of the said duty, in lieu of the duties now payable upon wheat and wheat-flour imported into the United Kingdom from Canada, under an Act past in the last session of Parliament, entitled “An Act to Amend the Laws for the Importation of Corn,' there shall be levied and paid the duties following—viz. “For every quarter of wheat, 1s. “For every barrel of wheatmeal or flour, being 196 pounds, a duty equal in amount to the duty payable on 384 gallons of wheat.” Lord Stanley prefaced his arguments in support of these resolutions by saying, that greatly exaggerated notions of the Measure had prevailed on all sides;

« ForrigeFortsett »