Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

Ountry were too great a drain upOn i. resources of India—if the disasters at Cabul had so created enemies to the British name that it was not possible without great sacrifices and enormous efforts to establish permanently such a goVernment there as Lord Auckland had contemplated—still, despite of all these things, I should have thought the Governor-General, instead of exhibiting feelings of malignant revenge, ought to have thdeavoured to leave Afghanistan in the hands of some chief capable of Carrying with him the confi. dence of the people of that country, and of reestablishing as much Order as possible, and by that means have endeavoured to attain that which Lord Auckland had declared he hoped would be the result of the expedition—namely, the establishment of a government at Afghanistan favourable to the relations of peace with India, and to the developement of industry in that country. It seems by that proclamation, and also by other transactions, such as the burning of the bazaar, as if, contrary to any policy which I can remember in the history of this country, our sole purpose were retaliation and revenge in consequence of the great losses and disasters which We had suffered, instead of a calm and well-considered policy. But there is another proclamation, the Very mention of which almost extites the ridicule of those who have read it, a proclamation so Strange that I believe there are many persons in this country who believed at first that it was not genuine. (Laughter.) I have certainly heard of some sagacious individuals who were last year made the dupes of a very clever article in a newspaper pretending

[ocr errors]

to give an account of a debate in the French Chambers, which article they conceived to be genuine; but when they met with the proclamation of Lord Ellenborough, their sagacity was more alive, and determining not to be taken in a second time, they observed that the other article was so well disuised it was not surprising that they had been deceived by it, but in this instance it was so evident and gross a hoax that they could not. Although there is much of that proclamation that is very absurd—so much so, that the very name of “the despoiled tomb of Sultan Mahmoud looking upon the ruins of Ghuznee” got to be a jest in the country—yet the whole tone and substance of it have a very direct meaning. The honourable Gentleman who moved and seconded the Address spoke of our introducing Christianity into China. Now, much as I desire the introduction of Christianity into China, I could not approve of any attempt that should be inconsistent with the most perfect respect for what other people conscientiously believe. I should, indeed, be sorry to see any attempt, partaking in the least degree of violence, made or sanctioned by this country for such a purpose; but, on the other hand, that any man coming from this Christian land, who had lived under and enjoyed the benefits of its institutions, and who had been bred in the religion which it professes should pay the respect which that proclamation indicates, to such gross and idolatrous worship, does appear to me to be a proceeding well calculated to lessen the respect which Englishmen and the English Government ought to be regarded with in India. I am

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

told that even the the most superstitious of the Hindoos have no knowledge of those transactions of 800 years ago; but, as regards the mass of the Hindoos, that must greatly diminish their belief in our conscientious attachment to our own faith which sets up their superstitious idolatry, as the object of respect and almost of reverence. These matters in the proclamation are not, as I consider, simple and insulated blunders. They certainly do alarm one as regards the general calm, sober, and judicious conduct of the present Governor of India. That noble Lord is doubtless a man of considerable talent, a man who took an active part with others in the Cabinet and House of Lords, where he gave proofs of those talents; but when a man is placed in the extraordinary and almost awful situation of Governor of India, where so many millions of inhabitants and so much of the

ower of this great country are intrusted to his hands, it requires more than a common degree of judgment, more than common exoneration from the temptation of vanity to carry on that government in a manner calculated to satisfy his country that that empire is in no danger. I need not say any thing respecting the original expedition into Afghanistan, as an honourable Gentleman has given notice of a motion on the subject. The question, too, was discussed last year, when my right honourable Friend the member for Nottingham made an excellent speech in reference to that expedition. When it comes before the House again we shall be quite ready to enter into the discussion of it. For my part, I shall shrink from no responsibility that may

belong to me respecting the conduct of Lord Auckland. In adverting next to the Ashburton treaty, Lord J. Russell blamed Lord Ashburton for ultimately conceding what in his first dispatch to Mr. Webster he said could not be conceded, as the Madewaska settlement. The Americans believed in the justice of their claim, we in ours. As for war, we had no more reason to be apprehensive of it than they. We had great reluctance to go to war; so had the United States; and we had both the same reasons for wishing to avoid it. The circumstances, therefore, having been equal, the settlement ought to have been equal. He considered that in one respect, though not in others, the choice of Lord Ashburton was unfortunate. Of his talents, his long experience, his knowledge of this country and of America, no one could be ignorant; but in 1838, Lord Ashburton, after a two days’ previous notice in the other House of Parliament, gave a very elaborate opinion not only respecting the colonies in general, but Canada in particular. He stated it to be his opinion, that no wise man could expect Canada to belong to this country for more than twenty years. He (Lord J. Russell) could not but think that some such feeling must have swayed him in consenting to such a boundary. He believed that the hold of this country upon Canada depended upon two things, giving the Canadians a constitutional government, which he thought the Government had done; and giving them proof that the Queen of this country would be ever ready to employ, as far as possible, the resources and means of the empire in their defence against any foreign enemy whatever. It was a part of such a duty to secure them a good boundary. With respect to Domestic Af. fairs, Lord John Russell said, that experience of the new Corn Law had confirmed him in the opinion that a moderate fixed duty would be the best system upon which to carry on our trade in corn : “I see that the operation of the sliding scale is, by the largeness of duty, to keep up a quantity of corn in this country, and then let it out at particular times, when the consumers are so much in want of it, and when it is obvious that the farmers would be injured by the sale of so vast a quantity. It is as if a gardener, instead of watering his garden, waited for the appearance of a great deal of rain, and only began the process of watering as soon as the showers began to descend. In the early part of the year we had the high prices of 60s. and 61s., with no great introduction of foreign corn; but in August, when a favourable harvest was about to be reaped, and when this country could enjoy the benefit of it, then you had more than 2,000,000 quarters of corn and wheat flour admitted into the markets. The markets were then depressed for the time to come, the people suffering from want of bread did not get relief, and the operation of the sliding scale was such that the speculator was ruined by not getting his expected price, the farmer was injured by the low price competing with him, while the consumer did not get the benefit which he ought to have had many months before. I cannot conceive that the right hon Baromet is determined to maintain this

[graphic][graphic]

law. Nothing which I heard from him to night at all persuades me that it is his intention permanently to abide by that law. I recollect the principles laid down by the right hon. Baronet last year. They applied to the articles of the tariff, but not to the corn laws. The Secretary of State for the Home Department said that he did not consider the corn law a final measure.” He observed that the Minister had reduced his supporters to this difficulty; that they were obliged to vindicate the Tariff on principles of free competition, and the Corn Laws on principles of protection. Last year, the Anti-Corn-Law League (to whose opinions he did not subscribe) would have been content with an 8s. fixed duty; and would it not have been for the interest of Farmers, if there had been no such powerful body as the League agitating the country P He next touched upon the Income Tax; waiving general arguments against it, and addressing himself to abuses in its administration. There had been the old ad captandum statement that persons of incomes under 150l. a-year were not to pay the tax. “Why I have heard of several cases of persons having 30l., 40l., or 50l. a-year in the funds, from whom the tax is deducted at the Bank in the first instance, and when they complain you tell them ‘Oh, they may recover it.’ Why, here is the case of a poor widow I heard of yesterday who lives at Boulogne, and who having had the tax deducted in this way, upon complaining was told that if she will come over and be examined before some board, her case will be taken into consideration. But she is required to appear before this told that even the the most superstitious of the Hindoos have no knowledge of those transactions of 800 years ago; but, as regards the mass of the Hindoos, that must greatly diminish their belief in our conscientious attachment to our own faith which sets up their superstitious idolatry as the object of respect and almost of reverence. These matters in the proclamation are not, as I consider, simple and insulated blunders. They certainly do alarm one as regards the general calm, sober, and judicious conduct of the present Governor of India. That noble Lord is doubtless a man of considerable talent, a man who took an active part with others in the Cabinet and House of Lords, where he gave proofs of those talents; but when a man is placed in the extraordinary and almost awful situation of Governor of India, where so many millions of inhabitants and so much of the power of this great country are intrusted to his hands, it requires more than a common degree of judgment, more than common exoneration from the temptation of vanity to carry on that government in a manner calculated to satisfy his country that that empire is in no danger. I need not say anything respecting the original expedition into Afghanistan, as an honourable Gentleman has given notice of a motion on the subject. The question, too, was discussed last year, when my right honourable Friend the member for Nottingham made an excellent speech in reference to that expedition. When it comes before the House again we shall be quite ready to enter into the discussion of it. For my part, I shall shrink from no responsibility that may

belong to me respecting the conduct of Lord Auckland. In adverting next to the Ashburton treaty, Lord J. Russell blamed Lord Ashburton for ultimately conceding what in his first dispatch to Mr. Webster he said could not be conceded, as the Madewaska settlement. The Americans believed in the justice of their claim, we in ours. As for war, we had no more reason to be apprehensive of it than they. We had great reluctance to go to war; so had the United States; and we had both the same reasons for wishing to avoid it. The circumstances, therefore, having been equal, the settlement ought to have been equal. He considered that in one respect, though not in others, the choice of Lord Ashburton was unfortunate. Of his talents, his long experience, his knowledge of this country and of America, no one could be ignorant; but in 1838, Lord Ashburton, after a two days’ previous notice in the other House of Parliament, gave a very elaborate opinion not only respecting the colonies in general, but Canada in particular. He stated it to be his opinion, that no wise man could expect Canada to belong to this country for more than twenty years. He (Lord J. Russell) could not but think that some such feeling must have swayed him in consenting to such a boundary. He believed that the hold of this country upon Canada depended upon two things, giving the Canadians a constitutional government, which he thought the Government had done; and giving them proof that the Queen of this country would be ever ready to employ, as far as possible, the resources and means of the empire in their defence against any foreign enemy whatever. It was a part of such a duty to secure them a good boundary. With respect to Domestic Af. firs, Lord John Russell said, that experience of the new Corn Law had confirmed him in the opinion that a moderate fixed duty would be the best system upon which to Carry on our trade in corn : “I see that the operation of the sliding seale is, by the largeness of duty, to keep up a quantity of torn in this country, and then let it out at particular times, when the tonsumers are so much in want of it, and when it is obvious that the farmers would be injured by the sale of so vast a quantity. It is as if a gardener, instead of watering his garden, waited for the appearance of a great deal of rain, and only began the process of Watering as soon as the showers legan to descend. In the early part of the year we had the high |tites of 60s, and 61s., with no great introduction of foreign corn; but in August, when a favourable harvest was about to be reaped, and when this country could enjoy the benefit of it, then you had more than 2,000,000 quarters of Corn and wheat flour admitted into the markets. The markets were then depressed for the time to (me, the people suffering from want ofbread did not get relief, and the operation of the sliding scale was such that the speculator was ruined by not getting his expected Mice, the farmer was injured by the low price competing with him, while the Consumer did not get the lenefit which he ought to have had many months before. I cannot conceive that the right hon Baromet is determined to maintain this

law. Nothing which I heard from him to night at all persuades me that it is his intention permanently to abide by that law. I recollect the principles laid down by the right hon. Baronet last year. They applied to the articles of the tariff, but not to the corn laws. The Secretary of State for the Home Department said that he did not consider the corn law a final measure.” He observed that the Minister had reduced his supporters to this difficulty; that they were obliged to vindicate the Tariff on principles of free competition, and the Corn Laws on principles of protection. Last year, the Anti-Corn-Law League (to whose opinions he did not subscribe) would have been content with an 8s. fixed duty; and would it not have been for the interest of Farmers, if there had been no such powerful body as the League agitating the country P He next touched upon the Income Tax; waiving general arguments against it, and addressing himself to abuses in its administration. There had been the old ad captandum statement that persons of incomes under 150l. a-year were not to pay the tax. “Why I have heard of several cases of persons having 30l., 40l., or 50l. a-year in the funds, from whom the tax is deducted at the Bank in the first instance, and when they complain you tell them ‘Oh, they may recover it.’ Why, here is the case of a poor widow I heard of yesterday who lives at Boulogne, and who having had the tax deducted in this way, upon complaining was told that if she will come over and be examined before some board, her case will be taken into consideration. But she is required to appear before this

« ForrigeFortsett »