Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

perity which had lately taken place. He attributed the distress of the shipping-interest to the cessation of emigration; and called upon the House to consider whether by a sound system of emigration they could not do much towards relieving the wants of our people at home, and towards contributing to the strength and power of our colonial possessions.

Mr. Colquhoun also entered extensively into many grounds of argument already traversed.

Mr. F.T. Baring defended some of Lord Howick's positions which had been attacked. The motion itself was a perfectly Parliamentary proceeding, to refer the declaration in the Queen's Speech, that great distress was prevalent throughout the country, to the consideration of the House in Committee. He contended that no Member was precluded from coming before the House with a principle, though unprepared with plans and details; otherwise, all discussion might as well be abandoned at once. He gave a new turn to Sir James Graham's favourable statistics of mortality :

[ocr errors]

"In reference to this deeply interesting point, it was to be borne in mind, that the beneficence of the Great Lord of all, which had been so graciously manifested in an abundant harvest of the last year, was in reality the cause why amid our fearful distress, the mortality of the period in question had been numerically less than in former similar periods. The House could not but call to mind, that the four preceding years which had been cited by the right hon. Gentleman were years of high prices; while in the autumn of last year,

cy, were considerably lowered. This was a most important point for consideration; as it showed that, even where there was great distress-where there was terrible want of employment broken down, as we had been during the last year-yet the cheapness of provisions had contributed mainly to save the lives of the people."

A great admission had been made in Sir James Graham's declaration that principles of commercial freedom were principles of common sense; and that admission entitled him (Mr. Baring) to ask why, the distress of the country not being lessened, they should not be acted upon? Changes, indeed, are diffi cult; and if everything had been settled, he might have said, allow the measures of last year more than a temporary trial; but Sir Robert Peel had unsettled everything and settled nothing.

Mr. Goulburn insisted that the motion was for a vote of want of confidence in the Ministers; and as to Government's leaving the Cornlaw in a state of uncertainty, he would ask would an 8s. fixed duty settle it ?

On the fifth and last night of the debate, Sir Andrew L. Hay commenced the discussion. He said, that so far from regarding this motion as an attack on the Ministers, he should have supposed, if he had not known the state of parties, that the noble Mover was some Member of Government, proposing to effectuate the recommendations of Her Majesty's Speech. At all events it was no answer to that motion to say that it was brought forward for party purposes. The Minister ought not last year to have shaken

from Mr. Horner's last report, but from the report for October, which was, of course, inapplicable to the current month of February. Mr. Gibson however persevered in the assertion that the Ministers were underrating the distress. He quoted a letter lately published by Mr. Gladstone, a relative of the Vice President of the Board of Trade, purporting that the Americans of the vale of Mississippi, 5,000,000 of people, were willing to take England's manufactures, if England would take their corn. Why then the days of the Cornlaw were numbered, and until that law should cease, there would be no cessation of the Anti-Cornlaw League. This was a struggle by the landed interest for what they called preponderance, but the manufacturing interest would not bear to be treated as a secondary class. The landlords talked of vested interests, but they themselves had been the authors of the law which caused the vesting; they had misled the farmers into the outlay of capital on the land, and it was for them therefore to settle the account with those farmers.

The Anti-Corn-law League had been accused of inducing crime by the violence of their language. He denied, that their language had been violent, or that it had been the cause of the outbreak in the manufacturing districts. The manufacturers, the members of the League, were the very parties most interested to prevent those disturbances so destructive to their property. He rather believed that the first pretext for outbreak was given by Conservative masters in reducing the wages of their workmen, and by

Conservative Press. In evidence of this latter assertion, he quoted several passages from the Standard newspaper. Those who resisted the necessary relief were the causes of the evil the League but did their duty.

Lord F. Egerton observed that the reproach thrown out in this debate against the Ministers of having deranged every thing and settled nothing, came with a bad grace from the Members of the late Government. The supporters of this motion brought forward by an advocate of fixed duty would be the men who condemned all duty whatsoever. The quantum of the distress had uselessly occupied much of the last preceding speech; because when the distress was confessedly so great, and required the whole attention of Parliament, the question of a little more or a little less was immaterial. The allegation that the League had caused the outbreak, was not disproved by the consideration that their own property was endangered; history abounded with examples, not only of people cutting each other's throats, but of cutting their own. But when the evil actually burst upon them men were apt to change their minds; and those who before abhorred the notion of a military force became nervously anxious for a glimpse of a scarlet coat. remedy was asked for; he would propose one which he thought would do at least some slight good; he would propose the dissolution of the Anti-Corn-law League. He attributed the evils of the present time mainly to the accident that the developement of steam had fallen upon an age when all the relations of Europe were dis

A

England for a time a monopoly in the markets of the world, which, in these latter and more peaceful days, it was impossible that, by any struggle, she could maintain.

Mr. Cobden said, that his chief objection to the Motion was, that it did not include agricultural as well as manufacturing distress. The agricultural labourers were in a wretched state. They were no gainers by the Corn-law: nor were the farmers. With neither of these classes had the landlords any right to identify themselves. The landlord was no agriculturist; he might live all his days in London or in Paris. He was no more an agriculturist than a shipowner was a sailor. But the real agriculturists were beginning to get a glimmering of light upon this question. The Member for Dorsetshire, when the peasantry were in a wretched state, had attacked the League; but the League had carried back the war into that county, and had taken care that every one of its freeholders should be supplied with a packet containing about a dozen tracts, which would make them as well acquainted with the subject as the House itself. He protested against the notion that the League had been the movers of sedition and assassination. Next he would inquire why the present motion was to be resisted by the Government? When Sir R. Peel took the reins of Government, he took with them the responsibility of introducing the measures necessary for the country. The Ministers, some avowedly, others impliedly, were advocates of free trade. Why did not they carry it into effect? Oh, they adopted it only in the abstract. But this House had no

Length of time was pleaded. He should like to know whether that would be a defence to the claim of a just plaintiff in a court of law? It could not now be said, as at the end of last session, that the period was unsuitable. The year lay before them, and there was no pressure of legislative business, public or private. Had Government any other remedy? They had last year imposed a Corn-law unpalatable to all classes of mercantile men. That law had given no extension to regular trade; and it had ruined the speculators. The tariff had reduced the duty on 700 articles, and had omitted the only two which could have done anything for the people-corn and sugar. The reduction of the timber duty, good in itself, came uselessly in point of time; for there was no building in progress, either of factories or of shipping. Sir R. Peel had it in his power to carry the measures necessary for the people and if he had not that power as a minister. he would have it by resigning his office. Sir R. Peel should be held responsible individually. The electoral body would force him to do them justice.

Sir R. Peel, amidst immense cheering, took notice that Mr. Cobden had now again, as before at the Anti-Corn-law League, designated him, Sir R. Peel, as being individually responsible.

Mr.Cobden attempted to explain the word "individually," but the vociferous interruption of the House prevented his doing so.

Sir R. Peel resuming, declared that no responsibility which Mr. Cobden could fix upon him, or induce others to fix upon him, should deter him from doing his

from Mr. Horner's last report, but from the report for October, which was, of course, inapplicable to the current month of February. Mr. Gibson however persevered in the assertion that the Ministers were underrating the distress. He quoted a letter lately published by Mr. Gladstone, a relative of the Vice President of the Board of Trade, purporting that the Americans of the vale of Mississippi, 5,000,000 of people, were willing to take England's manufactures, if England would take their corn. Why then the days of the Cornlaw were numbered, and until that law should cease, there would be no cessation of the Anti-Cornlaw League. This was a struggle by the landed interest for what they called preponderance, but the manufacturing interest would not bear to be treated as a secondary class. The landlords talked of vested interests, but they themselves had been the authors of the law which caused the vesting; they had misled the farmers into the outlay of capital on the land, and it was for them therefore to settle the account with those farmers.

The Anti-Corn-law League had been accused of inducing crime by the violence of their language. He denied, that their language had been violent, or that it had been the cause of the outbreak in the manufacturing districts. The manufacturers, the members of the League, were the very parties most interested to prevent those disturbances so destructive to their property. He rather believed that the first pretext for outbreak was given by Conservative masters in reducing the wages of their workmen, and by

Conservative Press. In evidence of this latter assertion, he quoted several passages from the Standard newspaper. Those who resisted the necessary relief were the causes of the evil-the League but did their duty.

Lord F. Egerton observed that the reproach thrown out in this debate against the Ministers of having deranged every thing and settled nothing, came with a bad grace from the Members of the late Government. The supporters of this motion brought forward by an advocate of fixed duty would be the men who condemned all duty whatsoever. The quantum of the distress had uselessly occupied much of the last preceding speech; because when the distress was confessedly so great, and required the whole attention of Parliament, the question of a little more or a little less was immaterial. The allegation that the League had caused the outbreak, was not disproved by the consideration that their own property was endangered; history abounded with examples, not only of people cutting each other's throats, but of cutting their own. But when the evil actually burst upon them men were apt to change their minds; and those who before abhorred the notion of a military force became nervously anxious for a glimpse of a scarlet coat. remedy was asked for; he would propose one which he thought would do at least some slight good; he would propose the dissolution of the Anti-Corn-law League. He attributed the evils of the present time mainly to the accident that the developement of steam had fallen upon an age when all the relations of Europe were dis

A

England for a time a monopoly in the markets of the world, which, in these latter and more peaceful days, it was impossible that, by any struggle, she could maintain.

Mr. Cobden said, that his chief objection to the Motion was, that it did not include agricultural as well as manufacturing distress. The agricultural labourers were in a wretched state. They were no gainers by the Corn-law:

nor

were the farmers. With neither of these classes had the landlords any right to identify themselves. The landlord was no agriculturist; he might live all his days in London or in Paris. He was no more an agriculturist than a shipowner was a sailor. But the real agriculturists were beginning to get a glimmering of light upon this question. The Member for Dorsetshire, when the peasantry were in a wretched state, had attacked the League; but the League had carried back the war into that county, and had taken care that every one of its freeholders should be supplied with a packet containing about a dozen tracts, which would make them as well acquainted with the subject as the House itself. He protested against the notion that the League had been the movers of sedition and assassination. Next he would inquire why the present motion was to be resisted by the Government? When Sir R. Peel took the reins of Government, he took with them the responsibility of introducing the measures necessary for the country. The Ministers, some avowedly, others impliedly, were advocates of free trade. Why did not they carry it into effect? Oh, they adopted it only in the abstract. But this House had no

Length of time was pleaded. He should like to know whether that would be a defence to the claim of a just plaintiff in a court of law? It could not now be said, as at the end of last session, that the period was unsuitable. The year lay before them, and there was no pressure of legislative business, public or private. Had Government any other remedy? They had last year imposed a Corn-law unpalatable to all classes of mercantile men. That law had given no extension to regular trade; and it had ruined the speculators. The tariff had reduced the duty on 700 articles, and had omitted the only two which could have done anything for the people-corn and sugar. The reduction of the timber duty, good in itself, came uselessly in point of time; for there was no building in progress, either of factories or of shipping. Sir R. Peel had it in his power to carry the measures necessary for the people: and if he had not that power as a minister. he would have it by resigning his office. Sir R. Peel should be held responsible individually. The electoral body would force him to do them justice.

Sir R. Peel, amidst immense cheering, took notice that Mr. Cobden had now again, as before at the Anti-Corn-law League, designated him, Sir R. Peel, as being individually responsible.

Mr. Cobden attempted to explain the word "individually," but the vociferous interruption of the House prevented his doing so.

Sir R. Peel resuming, declared that no responsibility which Mr. Cobden could fix upon him, or induce others to fix upon him, should deter him from doing his

« ForrigeFortsett »