Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

there appeared-for Mr. Labouchere's amendment, 156; against it, 244 majority for the Government, 188.

A few days afterwards the House went into committee on Lord Stanley's resolutions. Lord John Russell then moved an amendment, which proposed to omit that part of them which referred to the act of the Canadian Legislature which he objected to as making the legislation of the Imperial depend on that of the colonial Parliament.

Lord Stanley defended the course proposed by him, as necessary to secure the object, that the Canadians should not first obtain the advantages offered by the Imperial Parliament in consideration of their own Act, and then repeal the latter.

After a desultory debate, in which the amendment was supported by Mr. Labouchere, Mr. T. Duncombe, Lord Worsley, and Colonel Wyndham, and opposed by Sir Robert Peel and other Members, the amendment was rejected by a majority of 109.

Lord Worsley then moved an amendment, to the effect that no alteration should be made in the Corn-law of the preceding Session, and in the degree of protection which it affords to British agriculture. This gave a broader character to the discussion, but produced little novelty in the shape of argument. The debate was chiefly characterised by the confusion of parties. The amendment was supported by Mr. Charles Wood, Mr. Henley, Colonel Rushbrooke, Mr. G. Bankes, Mr. Ormsby Gore, and Mr. Blackstone; and was opposed by Mr. Lindsay, Colonel Wood, Mr. G.

Hanmer, Dr. Lefroy, Mr. Hutt, Mr. P. Howard, Mr. Ward, Mr. Edward Buller, and Mr. R. Yorke. The amendment was negatived by 203 to 102.

After some further discussion, the House divided on the original resolutions, when the numbers were-for, 218; against, 137: majority, 81.

On the bringing up of the Report of the Committee, a third amendment on the resolutions was proposed by Mr. M. Gibson, seconded by Dr. Bowring. Lord Stanley declined to re-open the discussion, on a resolution so similar to that already debated on the motion of Lord J. Russell, and the amendment was negatived by 195 to 83.

A Bill being then brought in, founded on the resolutions, Lord Worsley, on the 2nd June, moved that it be read that day six months. This led to a renewed debate on the measure, but little novelty was elicited.

The amendment was supported by Mr. J. E. Dennison, Mr. Benett, Mr. P. M. Stewart, Mr. Bankes, Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Vernon Smith, Mr. Sheil, Sir Charles Napier, Mr. Wodehouse, and Mr. Blackstone; opposed by Mr. Eliot Yorke, Mr. Stuart Wortley, Mr. G. W. Hope, Lord Stanley, and Lord Norreys.

Mr. Sheil taunted the Ministers with having, at a private meeting, threatened their supporters with resignation if the Bill were rejected: they had much better have appealed to the country.

Lord Stanley sharply denied that Ministers had taken the "indecent liberty" imputed to them by Mr. Sheil; and did not wonder that a Member of the late Govern

1

sure rather than resignation. He remarked that the agriculturists had just now little to fear from the Bill: flour at Montreal was now from 22s. 6d. to 25s, per barrel; at New York it was 2s. 6d. higher; and it was expected that New York would require the chief part of the Western produce of this year.

Some recrimination took place between Lord Norreys and Mr. Blackstone, which afforded much amusement to the House. Ulti mately, the second reading was carried by 209 to 109.

The debate on the Bill in the House of Lords took place on its committal, which was moved on the 4th of July by the Earl of Dalhousie, adducing the same arguments as were used by the introducers of the measure in the other House. Lord Brougham seconded the Motion, not, as he said, because the measure was a step in the right direction, that is, towards the total removal of the Corn-laws-but because it removed an anomaly.

an

Earl Stanhope moved as amendment, that the Bill be committed that day six months. He said, that the measure ought to have been preceded by a Parliamentary inquiry it was said, for instance, that the freight of a quarter of corn from New York to Liverpool would be 15s.; he believed that it would be one-third of that amount; but the House was called upon to le, gislate, without a sufficient know ledge of the facts. Those who argued that American corn could already be imported through Canada, forgot that such importation was in direct contravention of the Corn-law of last year. It was said that smuggling would not arise; but there is nothing to prevent

what is frequently done already: a ship clears out from Canada, and when at sea meets another ship, and takes a cargo of American wheat on board. It was argued, both that the measure gave increased protection to British agriculture, and yet that it would confer inestimable benefits on Canada; arguments which could not stand together. He believed, indeed, that any quantity of corn required for the English market could be produced in Canada; and, though he felt a disposition to encourage the trade of so valuable a colony, it must bear equal taxation and other burdens before it could be treated on an equality with an "English county." These measures were only stepping-stones to the general adoption of the free-trade principles, which Ministers avowed. Mr. Gladstone said, that the principle was only delayed, for protection could not be abandoned at once! He dared them to attempt it--they would be blown from power like chaff before the wind. For the consequences of their policy, however, Ministers were responsible to the people of the country; with whom faith pledged at the last election had been broken.

The Duke of Richmond opposed the measure, as diminishing the protection to the British farmer. He opposed change for changesake; and Government had no where proved that any class would be materially benefited by the measure. Another objection was, that the Bill adopted the principle of a fixed duty; and as to preventing fraud, it was idle to talk of it, when fraud could not be prevented in the English Custom-house, nor under the Grinding Act, nor even in the

Post-office, where the charge is only 1d.

The Earl of Radnor opposed the Bill, on totally different grounds. The notice given to the Canadian Legislature could not be considered satisfactory notice to the English agriculturists. Some people said, that the measure would increase protection; in which case he should certainly oppose it: but if, as others said, a great deal more corn were admitted to this country, it would be in an illegi timate, unfair, and absurd way. Lord Dalhousie's speech, however, showed that the measure would have no effect at all: then why thus excite and alarm the country? As to its effect in Canada, it would raise the price of corn to the consumer and exporter by 3s.; it would newly establish protection; and it was not what the Canadians expected, for in his promise to them, Lord Stanley spoke generally and without limitation of admitting corn and flour from Canada, while the Bill only admitted wheat grown and flour manufactured in Canada. nally, he objected to these stant changes.

Fi

con

Lord Beaumont opposed the Bill, as a step in the progress of the Government towards free-trade principles, as reversing the law of the last year, and as diminishing protection to the English grower by 4s. He also objected to these constant changes- the petty but repeated assaults on the agricultural interest: it would be better to be destroyed at once, than to be stung to death by pismires.

Lord Wharncliffe defended the measure, as a compromise between the extremes of protection and

justment of duties to the peculiar circumstances of the Canada corn trade.

Lord Monteagle followed on the same side. He said it was true that the Bill gave increased protection-a fixed duty higher than the average on corn imported from Canada to this country, and that it would increase the price to the consumer in Canada : but it would establish a fixed duty; which he believed would encourage the importation of large quantities of corn from America, causing it to be much cheaper here; while it would promote the settlement of the fertile lands of Canada. It was necessary to redeem a pledge given to Canada, just subdued from rebellion; and though he saw objections to the measure, he thought them counterbalanced by the good.

Lord Ashburton advocated the Bill, as a measure of conciliation, and beneficial to the colony. Should the importation in future increase too largely, measures might be adopted to remedy that evil; for he did not consider that there was any fixed principle involved, either in a sliding scale, or in a fixed duty; but he would rather say, let in the corn from Canada, and shut out the foreign supply.

Lord Teynham opposed the Bill, as not being a free-trade measure. The Duke of Buckingham opposed it, because of the increased importation it would occasion ; because it would give rise to smuggling, and because it made a precedent for a fixed duty.

The House then divided on the amendment-for, 25; against, 57: majority, 32.

The House then went into committee, and the Bill passed with

CHAPTER VI.

Irish Affairs-State of Ireland under the Repeal Agitation-The Irish Arms Bill introduced by the Government-Long and vehement opposition to that measure-Debate on the Second Reading of the Bill -Speech of the Secretary for Ireland-Mr. Sharman Crawford, seconded by Lord Clements, moves the rejection of the Bill-Speeches of Mr. Bateson, Mr. Sheil, the Attorney General for Ireland, Lord John Russell, Viscount Bernard, Mr. W. Smith O'Brien, Mr. C. Buller, Mr. Shaw, Sir James Graham, Mr. Roebuck, Sir H. Barron, Sir David Roche, and Sir Robert Peel-The Second Reading is carried by 270 to 105—An amendment moved by Mr. Smith O'Brien is rejected-Protracted Discussions on the Bill in Committee-Discussions in the House of Lords on the Dismissal of Magistrates and other Irish Affairs-Motion of Marquis of Clanricarde on the case of Lord Ffrench-Remarks of the Duke of Wellington- General Discussion on the Repeal Meetings, and the conduct of the Government -Lord Clanricarde again moves, on the 14th July, resolutions condemnatory of the Dismissal of the Irish Magistrales-The Duke of Wellington vindicates the course pursued by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland-The resolutions are negatived after a Debate by 91 to 29Debate in the House of Lords on the presentation of a Petition from the North of Ireland by Lord Roden-His Speech-Answer of the Duke of Wellington-Speeches of Lord Winchilsea, Lord Brougham, Marquis of Clanricarde, and other Peers-Mr. Smith O'Brien's Motion in the House of Commons for a Committee on Irish grievances -General character of this discussion-It is continued for five nights-Able and temperate Speech of Mr. O'Brien-The Motion is seconded by Mr. Wyse-Opposed by Lord Eliot-Some of the Conservative Members speak in favour of the Motion-Speeches of Mr. C. Wood, Sir Howard Douglas, Captain Rous, Viscount Howick, Mr. M. J. O'Connell, Mr. Smythe, Mr. Colquhoun, Mr. Sharman Crawford, Mr. R. Bateson, Sir R. Peel, Lord John Russell, Mr. B. Roche, Lord Palmerston, Lord Stanley, and other MembersThe Second Reading is carried by a majority of 79-The Third Reading is carried by 66, after a Debate on the 9th of August -Speeches of Mr. Sheil, and Sir Robert Peel-Debate on the Second Reading in the House of Lords-Speech of Lord Camoys-He avows his hostility to the Protestant Church-Discussion upon the construction of the Roman Catholic Oath-Severe Remarks of Lord Brougham on Lord Camoys's Speech-Speeches

chilsea, Shrewsbury, and Wicklow, Lords Beaumont and Campbell. -The Bill read a Second time without Division-Brief Discussion in Committee-The Bill is passed.

N

TO Session has passed by for several years, without a large portion of time being occupied in the discussion of the affairs of Ireland. The Session with which we are now engaged formed no exception to this rule. The debates on Irish questions were not only as long, and as copious, but several of them were as much signalised by party animosity and excited feeling, as those of preceding years. Towards the latter part of this Session, indeed, the unusually agitated state of the country, produced by the Repeal movement, to which it will be necessary to allude more fully in a subsequent chapter, lent an additional element of exasperation to the debates in Parliament. The measures of repression which the Government deemed it necessary to adopt in this emergency, were met by the advocates of the popular party in the House of Commons, with all the resources which an angry and determined spirit of resistance could supply for their purpose. Towards the latter part of May a Bill was proposed by the Ministry, nearly similar to one which had been passed by the Whig Cabinet in one of the troubled pe iods under their rule, requiring the registration of firearms, and restricting the importation of arms and ammunition. This Bill was opposed by some of the Irish Members with an unusual vehemence and pertinacity, every stage of its progress was obstinately though vainly resisted, nor did it finally pass into a law, untila great deal of the latter part of the Session had been consumed in re

pics to the postponement of several other Government measures of importance, nor until both Parliament and the country had become wearied with a controversy so tedious and unsatisfactory. All the grievances which the Irish people or their advocates had to urge against the English Government were canvassed and contested in these discussions, and all the details of the policy of the existing Government, and of the Whig Cabinets which preceded it, were contrasted at the utmost length and with quite the usual amount of acerbity and party-feeling. It would require the larger part of this volume to follow the course of the numerous discussions on these subjects, and present even an abridged summary of the arguments which were used on either side. It will, however, be sufficient for the purpose of exhibiting the main grounds on which the policy of the Government was supported and opposed, to give some passages of the more important and effective speeches that were delivered, and to notice the few more striking features of a discussion, for the most part remarkably destitute of novelty and attraction. The second reading of the Bill was moved on the 29th May by Lord Eliot, the Secretary for freland. In introducing the subject, the noble Mover gave a short history of the origin and successive renewal of the Irish Arms Acts, beginning with the 33rd Geo. III. ch. 2. and ending with the bill introduced by Lord Morpeth, in 1838. He admitted that all such

« ForrigeFortsett »