Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

CHAPTER III.

Corn-laws-Debate on Mr. Villiers' Amendment-General Character of the Discussion which occupied five nights-Speeches of Mr. Villiers, Mr. T. B. Macaulay, Mr. J. S. Wortley, Mr. Wakley, Mr. Wykeham Martin, Sir Robert Peel, and Mr. Cobden-Mr. B. Ferrand brings heavy Charges against certain Manufacturers — Discussion thereon-Reply of Mr. Villiers, whose Amendment is lost by 393 to 90-Public Meetings on the Corn-laws-Proceedings of Anti-Corn-law Societies-Letter of Lord Nugent on withdrawing from one of these Bodies-Sir Robert Peel is burnt in Effigy in various manufacturing Towns-Meetings of Agriculturists -Their general reception of the Measure-Proceedings of the Aylesbury Association, where the Duke of Buckingham presides— The House of Commons goes into Committee on the Resolutions on February 25th-Mr. Christopher proposes a new Scale of Duties as a Substitute for Sir Robert Peel's-An irregular Discussion on the Amendment terminates in its Rejection by 306 to 104-Mr. Wodehouse's Motion respecting Duties on Barley withdrawn after some Debate-Mr. Smith O'Brien advocates greater protection to Irish Oats-Various other Amendments proposed, all of which are rejected or withdrawn-On Motion for Second Reading of the Bill Lord Ebrington moves that it be read that Day Six MonthsSpeeches of Lord Howick, Mr. C. Buller, Sir Robert Peel, and other Members-The Second Reading carried by 284 to 176— Rapid Progress of the Bill through Committee-Divers Amendments defeated-Resolution proposed by Mr. Cobden on Third Reading rejected by large Majority-Bill passed in House of Commons on April 5th-In the House of Lords the Second Reading is moved by the Earl of Ripon-Earl Stanhope vigorously opposes it, and censures the Government-His speech on moving the rejection of the Bill-Speeches of the Earl of Hardwick, Duke of Buckingham, Earl of Winchelsea, Viscount Melbourne, and Lord Brougham, who moves another Amendment—Both Motions are rejected by great Majorities-The Bill is read a Second Time-In Committee Viscount Melbourne moves an Amendment in favour of a Fixed Duty-It is rejected after full Discussion by a majority of 68Three Resolutions condemnatory of all Duties on Foreign Corn are proposed by Lord Brougham-They are disaffirmed by 87 to 6Various other Amendments are moved without success, and the Bill is read a Third Time and passed.

HE House of Commons hav- pronounced in favour of the prin

Ting thus by a large majority ciple of a sliding-scale of corn

duties, it might have seemed equally illogical and superfluous afterwards to discuss a proposition, of which the affirmative had been involved in the preceding decision, viz., whether corn should be subjected to any duties at all. The motion to that effect, however, of which Mr. Villiers had previously given notice, he did not now think proper to withdraw, and after four nights of debate upon Lord John Russell's amendment, the whole subject was re opened, and five more evenings employed in a discussion of the conflicting arguments for protection or free-trade. It cannot be deemed surprising under these circumstances, that this second stage of a conflict de prived of all its interest by the anticipated certainty of its result, was marked by an unusual degree of flatness and repetition. It would be an useless task to exhibit even a condensed summary of the speeches addressed to the House, during the week thus occupied, by the host of Members who successively challenged the attention of the Chair. We shall endeavour, after giving a short sketch of the line of argument adopted by the mover of the amendment, to record the few striking or original passages which the debate produced, or such as derived importance from the situation or character of the individual speakers. Mr. Villiers thus opened his case: He said that for four centuries the proprietors of the soil had been attempting to legislate for the purpose of raising the value of their properties, and the result of all their efforts had been to prejudice those properties, and greatly to lower the owners in the estimation of the country. The great majority of the people had now made up their minds that the

now

Corn-laws should not continue; and they would no longer brook the protracted refusal of all change with which they had hitherto been met. And to what a monstrous anomaly in the condition of England had the law given birth! A territory unexcelled in the abun. dant resources of nature and accumulated wealth, yet labouring under such a weight of distress that Government had admitted it could not be exaggerated! Food was becoming scarcer, and the people were every hour sinking in the scale of human beings; yet the food which they demanded they could not have, because the owners of the soil had established barriers between our island and the two civilized continents between which it is placed, so that they should not aid us in our hopeless distress. The cause of the distress, however, was exposed, in spite of every effort to divert attention from the enquiry; and within the year two different Governments had been obliged to concede to the general expression of opinion: one had sacrificed office on that account; the other had found it proper to admit, what it previously denied, that the law must be changed. He objected, however, to both their projects; for there was no ground for the maintenance of the Corn-law; and he had not heard of any writer on ethics who justified the modification of wrong. Some, indeed, conscientiously held that a total change of the law would be prejudicial to agriculture; but he defied proof that the fear rested on any valid ground, and the highest authorities were opposed to it. Here Mr. Villiers quoted Lord Grenville, the London Merchants' Petition of 1820, the Select

Committee of 1821, the Committee of 1836 and the evidence given before it, the pamphlet of "A Cumberland Landowner," Mr. Whitmore's" Letter to the Agriculturists of Salop," Mr. Tooke, Mr. M'Culloch, the evidence of statesmen, landed proprietors, theoretical writers, and farmers. Of the peculiar burthens pleaded by the landed interest, the highwayrate alone was exclusively borne by them; and that was as much an investment as any other outlay to give value to their lands, and as justly borne by them as local rates by a town. In fact, nothing but vague generalities had been brought forward to sustain the plea. The competition among farmers for land showed that they could only obtain the current rate of profit on their capital; the monopoly, therefore, did not benefit them; and the paramount interest of labourers always lies in procuring cheap food. The forced maintenance of the Corn-laws was making all men in the country politicians, and driving the middle and working classes to think that they were mis-represented. He concluded by moving "that all duties payable on the importation of corn, meal, or flour, do now cease and determine."

After several speakers had expressed their opinions for or against the amendment, Mr. T. B. Macaulay declared his intention of voting on neither side, agreeing with Mr. Villiers in wishing a total repeal of duties, but objecting to an immediate withdrawal of protection. He would omit the word "now" from the resolution. He thought Sir Robert Peel was wrong in his fundamental principle. "His principle is, that the cheapness of the necessaries of life

is not uniformly or necessarily a benefit to the people. When you suppose that a man has but 40l. a year for the support of himself, his wife, and children, it appears monstrous to argue that an outlay of 30l. for corn is not a matter in which he is deeply interested. I am now only putting the prima facie case.

How is it met by the Government? Why, the right honourable Gentleman declares, against the universal sense of all ages and nations, that cheapness of food is not necessarily a benefit to a people. His argument, if I rightly understood it, was simply this-there are countries where food is cheap, and the people are not so well off as the people of England; and the countries which he particularly cited were Prussia and Belgium. If the right honourable Gentleman used any other argument on this head, it escaped my attention. Now, Sir, is that argument absolutely worth anything is it even a plausible argument? If, indeed, any person were so egregiously absurd as to argue that cheapness of food is the sole cause of national prosperity, and that trade and manufactures, and a long course of successful events have nothing to do with it, I could understand the exposure of the fallacy which pointed out other countries where the necessaries of life were extremely cheap but the condition of the people not proportionably benefited. But all we have argued is, that cheapness of food is a blessing to a nation, exactly in the same sense as health is a blessing to an individual. Of course, a man in excellent bodily health may, from family afflictions and pecuniary difficulties, be on the whole worse off than the invalid; but that

does not shake the truth of the principle, that health is good for man-that the healthy man would be better off than the valetudinarian, if his circumstances were flourishing-or that the misery of the man in health would be aggravated by having the additional affliction of ill health. The right honourable Baronet's argument goes to prove that there is no such thing as a blessing vouchsafed by Providence to man. Fertility of soil even cannot, with his views, be considered a blessing to a country. Suppose he had an opportunity of making the mountains and moors of Scotland as fertile as the richest part of the vale of Taunton, he would say such a power ought not to be exercised. If you are desirous, he would argue, of your land acquiring fertility, look to India: there there are three harvests in the year, and food costs little or nothing: does the Bengal labourer enjoy half the luxuries, half the comforts, half the necessaries of the labourer of England? Certainly not. But you cannot stop here; you must show that by making food as cheap in Scotland as in Bengal, the people would be subjected to continual dearth; or that, if you were to transfer the skill and industry which supply the comforts of the Scotch to Bengal, the misery of the people of the latter country would be the consequence. The right honourable Baronet's argument consists in leaving entirely out of the question the important considerations of good government, security of property, internal order, the immense mass of our machinery, the existence of civil and religious liberty, our insular situation, our great mines of iron in the vicinity of our

coal-mines; and, disregarding all these ingredients in a nation's prosperity, he sets up his declaration against the general sense of mankind in all ages and in all nations. Take one single point of difference-I shall not go through the others-between England and Prussia or Belgium. Reflect upon what we owe to our insular position and our maritime power. We never saw an enemy in this country; our fathers never saw one. It is not until we go back to '46, when some Highland clans marched to Derby and back again, that England was conscious of having a foreign enemy within her dominions. But take the case of such a country as Prussia: in the memory of men now living, fifty pitched battles have been fought within her territory, and in one province 13,000 houses have been laid in ashes. Is it to be wondered at, after such scenes, that the peasant of Prussia is not as well off as the peasant of England? or can the inferiority of his condition be converted into a proof that cheap bread is no blessing to a people? The right honourable Gentleman's induction is based on too narrow a ground. It is perfectly true that cheap corn and low wages go together in Prussia; but it is equally true, that on the banks of the Ohio food is cheaper than either in Prussia or Belgium, but wages are twice as high."

With respect to the question of independence of foreign supply, it might be logically proved to be impossible. "It is estimated that the people of this country consume annually 25,000,000 quarters of corn. It is quite certain, that even on an average year you must sow such a quantity of seed as will give you something more than

the average; and in abundant years you will produce a great deal more. It follows of necessity, from the very nature of the product and the change in the seasons, that you can never rely with certainty on bringing to market 25,000,000 of quarters; neither more nor less. If you want 25,000,000 of cotton stockings, you may order them, and machinery will supply you with neither more nor less; but if you want to have a certain fixed quantity yielded by the land, you cannot make any arrangements which will insure such an object. If corn is cheaper abroad than in England, you must export you surplus produce at the price which the corn of the surrounding countries brings in their own markets. Therefore, whatever you produce over a fixed quantity will be sold at such a loss as must prove ruinous to the English grower, and must ultimately induce him to withdraw his land from such cultivation; and experience confirms the justness of this speculation." Sir Robert Peel had admitted that we must be casually dependent on other countries; but Mr. Macaulay preferred constant to casual dependence, for constant dependence became mutual dependence. Such a country as this should be dependent on the whole world. As to war interrupting our supplies, a striking instance of the fallacy of that assumption was furnished in 1810, during the height of the Continental system, when Europe was against us, directed by a chief who sought to destroy us through our trade and commerce. In that year, 1810, there were 1,600,000 quarters of corn imported, onehalf of which came from France itself.

As for the Government scheme, it seemed to be without any definite purpose. "One object is, to prevent certain frauds in the averages; but is it clear that frauds are committed? No; the right honourable Baronet is in doubt upon the point, and says that if they are committed, he is sure the representations upon the subject are greatly exaggerated. The right honourable Baronet said, he would like to see the price of corn in this country at between 54s. and 58s.; but he gave no reason for fixing upon that price more than another; all his arguments upon that point were extremely vague. To be sure, it is a difficult thing for a statesman to say at what price any article ought to sell; but that is the reason why all wise statesmen refuse to state it; that is the reason why all wise statesmen leave the price to be settled between the buyer and the seller. Taking the right honourable Baronet's plan at his own valuation-taking it at his own statement-it is a measure which settles nothing; it is a measure which pleases nobody; it is a measure which nobody asks for, and which nobody thanks him for; it is a measure which will not extend trade; it is a measure which will not relieve distress."

Mr. J. S. Wortley vindicated Sir Robert Peel's arguments against the misrepresentation which, he said, Mr. Macaulay had given of them. He had never denied that cheap food was a blessing to the people. If the question were proposed abstractedly, " Is cheap food a blessing to the people?" it would admit but of one answer. But a general principle, however correct, must sometimes, in application, be qualified by particular circum

« AnteriorContinuar »