Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

acts so important as those adopted during the period of his administration had been carried out. He believed that if, when in office, he had brought forward the measure now proposed by Sir Robert Peel, it would have been opposed and, perhaps, defeated; but now he

had the pleasure of enabling him to carry it.

The House then divided, when there appeared for Mr. Labouchere's amendment, 164; against it, 245: majority against the amendment, 81.

CHAPTER VI.

Debates on the State of the Country and Public Distress-Prevailing topics of the Session-Mr. Wallace proposes a Series of Resolutions and Address to the Queen on the State of the Nation-Speeches of Sir James Graham, Dr. Bowring, Mr. M. Attwood, Lord John Russell, Sir Robert Peel, Mr. Ellice, Lord Palmerston, Lord Stanley, Mr. Roebuck, and other Members-The Debate is continued by Adjournment for three nights-On a Division the Resolutions are negatived by 174 to 49-The same Subject comes under Discussion a few nights afterwards on a Motion by Mr. Villiers for a Select Committee on the Corn-laws-Mr. Fielden seconds the Motion-It is opposed by Mr. P. Howard and Sir C. Napier-Sir Robert Peel complains of the Obstruction offered to Business by the Opposition-He vindicates the New Corn-law and Financial Measures, and states his Opinions respecting the Effects of Machinery on the Employment of the People, and his Prospects of the Improvement of Trade-Speeches of Lord John Russell, Mr. Cobden, and Lord Howick -Mr. Villiers' Motion is rejected by 231 to 117-Lord Brougham introduces the Subject of the National Distress in the House of Lords in moving for a Select Committee-He discusses at large the Principles of Commercial Policy-Speeches of Earl of Ripon, Earl Stanhope, Lord Kinnaird, Marquis of Clanricarde, Viscount Melbourne, and Earl of Radnor-Lord Brougham's Motion is rejected by 61 to 14-The_great Chartist Petition is presented in the House of Commons-Its vast Bulk and Number of Signatures-Procession of Petitioners and singular Spectacle at the Presentation-Debate on the Petition introduced by Mr. T. Duncombe who moves that the Petitioners be heard by Counsel at the Bar-Motion seconded by Mr. Leader, aud supported by Messrs. Roebuck, Hume, Wakley, Villiers, O'Connell, and Muntz-Opposed by Mr. Macaulay, Lord F. Egerton, Mr. Hawes, Mr. Oswald, Lord John Russell, and Sir Robert Peel-The Motion rejected by

287 to 49.

TH

HREE great measures, each involving matters of much complexity and importance, engaged a very large preponderance of the time and attention of the Legislature during the Session of

1842. These were the Corn-Importation Bill, the Income-tax Bill, and the Customs-duties Bill, or New Tariff. A reference to the Debates of Parliament during the entire Session will show how very

large a proportion of the discussions of both Houses related to one or other of these subjects. And, indeed, when the importance of each of these measures is considered, the extent of their bearings, and the vast mass of details which they all, but more especially the last-mentioned, presented for consideration, we shall be disposed to consider that this Session, as compared with those preceding, by no means deserves to be considered unproductive or deficient in practical results. The remaining works which were effected, with one or two exceptions which we are now about to particularise, were of secondary interest; and, as is commonly the case where no vital party principles are at issue, excited little discussion worth commemorating. The Session may, in fact, be described as having been almost exclusively devoted to the discussion of economical questions, and in various forms and shapes, whether directly in the course of debates upon the Government measures, or indirectly on other occasions, the subjects of commercial policy, national distress, taxation, the manufacturing system, the results of machinery, the influence of Corn-laws, were ever and anon recurring, and formed the standing topics of controversy from the commencement of the Session to its close. The condition of the country, now suffering under a remarkable depression and stagnation of trade, whereby large numbers were reduced to severe privations, afforded continual pretext for the introduction of these subjects, and as the causes which had produced these evils, and the remedies proper for their removal, formed the most prominent ground of difference between the two great

parties in the state; the spirit of political controversy within the House concurred with external circumstances, and the pressure from without, to make the condition and wants of the labouring classes, and the laws which affect the operations of industry, almost perpetually the battle-field between the Ministry and their opponents. It is needless to say, that in the repeated debates which occurred on these subjects, the same views and arguments were continually enforced and met by the same answers, but the positions maintained by either party in these controversies may be easily understood, by reverting to two or three only out of the many occasions on which the opposing principles of commercial and economical policy came in issue.

One of the most important and extended discussions of this nature arose upon a series of resolutions proposed by Mr. Wallace, as an amendment on going into Committee of Supply. The purport of them was to affirm the existence of distress, to declare that the alteration of the Corn-law and Tariff, coupled with the Income-tax, could not afford relief, and to propose an address to the Queen not to prorogue Parliament until inquiry should have been instituted into the causes of the distress, and until the Queen and the House should have been assured by the Ministers, "that effectual means were secured to provide sustenance for the unemployed and their destitute families, until their sufferings should be terminated by a demand for their industry, and wages for their labour. Mr. Wallace read extracts of letters of recent date from Glasgow, Paisley, Greenock, and Kilmar

nock, which described the misery of the unemployed in those places as continuing and increasing. The motion was seconded by Mr. Walker. It was supported by Dr. Bowring, who condemned expenditure in foreign wars while millions were starving at home; and by Mr. Aglionby, who admitted, however, that he did not think that prolonging the sitting of Parliament would alleviate the distress; he adduced reports of intense suffering from Carlisle and Cockermouth.

Sir James Graham deprecated desponding language, as tending to aggravate the miseries of which it professed to complain; and he derived confidence from the recollection that three bad harvests in succession have never been known, He had seen the distress arising for some time, and he feared that for six or seven years it could not be wholly obviated. Did he believe that the repeal of the Cornlaws would alleviate the distress, he would advocate that measure; but he solemnly declared his belief that it would not, but that it would displace and discourage agricultural industry, and condemn the agriculturists to a common common ruin with the manufacturers.

Mr. D'Israeli argued that the commercial difficulty was owing to general causes; and he attributed it mainly to the neglect of closing a commercial treaty with France, and to the war with China, which had disturbed our commerce with that country.

Mr. Hume imputed it to the restrictive policy adopted by the United States and Germany in retaliation for our Corn-laws; and on that theme he enlarged; adding reports of increasing distress from Forfar and Dundee.

Mr. Matthias Attwood ascribed it to Mr. Huskisson's policy and the reciprocity treaties, which, while they produced apparent advantages to particular interests in a country, disturbed and injured all others. He asked, how it was that Sir James Graham did not view the state of affairs with despondency, if Government had taken no measures for the relief of the country? If Parliament separated, and left the country in its present condition, he must be a bold politician who could meet it again without apprehension; and he should not feel satisfied with anything but a statement of the views of Government on the condition of the people, and full enquiry into the causes of the distress.

Lord John Russell could not approve of the hostile course towards the Government taken by Mr. Attwood, who had himself proposed no remedy; but he so far agreed with him in principle, as to think that the commercial difficulty of the country was the primary evil with which Ministers ought to have dealt; whereas they had dealt with the financial deficiency as the primary subject, and had treated the depression of trade as secondary in their measures. He reiterated the argument, that if Sir Robert Peel's principles were good with respect to cattle, seeds, and other articles, à fortiori they must be so with respect to the far more important articles of corn and flour. He illustrated the probable working of a change of the Corn-law, by what had taken place with respect to cattle: there had been a panic; that brought, down prices, which seemed to justify the panic; Sir Robert Peel still persevered with his measure;

the panic subsided, men recovered their senses, and once more the price of cattle is such as to be too high for the general prosperity. Lord John Russell did not ascribe all the evils to the Corn-law, any more, as Canning said, than you would ascribe a man's disease to the want of rhubarb, though that might be an appropriate remedy: but he thought that if corn had been introduced, even at 8s. duty, last year, it would have prevented much of the difficulty; and if any one would propose an alteration of the law, he would now support it. He could not, however, throw upon Government exclusively the whole responsibility of providing a remedy for the distress; nor could he support Mr. Wallace's motion for interrupting an ordinary Committee of Supply.

Sir Robert Peel recalled the discussion to the practical question before the House-the delay of the prorogation until after enquiry. He asked, how was the enquiry to be conducted?-at the Bar of the House, or before a Select Committee? And the prorogation was to be suspended until the Ministers could assure the House that means were secured for providing sustenance and employment! This was nothing else than the very proposal of Mr. Ferrand, for maintaining the sufferers out of the public funds, against which Mr. Wallace himself had voted. Sir Robert Peel next complained of the course taken by Mr. Attwood, who had at last suggested nothing. Mr. Attwood seemed to have no practical remedy in view, except, perhaps, either to degrade the coin, or to abolish the convertibility of paper into gold. Lord John Russell had blamed the Government for not treating the

financial difficulties of the nation more lightly now, the people's acquiescence in the Income-tax was a strong proof that they did not think lightly of those difficulties; nay, it had been reported, and on no slight authority, that the original intention of the late Ministers themselves had been to support that tax. He did not assume that the people's acquiescence was owing to any exorbitant confidence in this Government; he ascribed it to the prevalent conviction that the state of affairs imperatively required the equalization of the revenue with the expenditure. In some general remarks in vindication of the Government measures, (to which Sir Robert Peel charged Lord John Russell with giving but a lefthanded support,) he retorted the allusion to the reduction of the duty on cattle: the panic produced by that might be produced to a wider extent and with more grievous effect by alteration of the Corn-laws; and if that had done so little good as Lord John Russell described, perhaps the same result would follow with Corn-law repeal. Sir Robert Peel admitted the distress; but he mentioned the remarkable fact, that at this very time there was an increased quantity of cotton taken out for consumption-in the first six months of 1841 the quantity was 464,500 bales; up to the 24th June, 1842, 538,000 bales; and although mills had been closed, new mills were actually in course of erection. He feared that, in any case, the application of capital to manufactures and the improvements of machinery would throw out small capitalists with imperfect machinery, and from time to time deprive large numbers of people of

« AnteriorContinuar »