Tariff it must only lead to agitation for further changes. The Earl of Wicklow accepted the measure as leading to greater changes. At one time, Lord Ripon himself was anxious to maintain the price of wheat at 80s., and Lord Wicklow thought that by successive measures they might gradually discover to what extent reduction could go without injury to the agricultural interests. After referring to a few smaller points, he acknowledged that he was glad, for the sake of Ireland, that the measure was accompanied by a removal of the prohibition on the importation of live stock. Before the war, Ire land had been principally used for pasturage; but war prices had promoted corn-tillage; that had led to a denser population; and for Ireland now to return, with a redundant people, to pastoral em. ployments, must be a great evil. Lord Vivian thought, that after 180 years of legislation on corn, with thirty-eight acts of Parliament, and no satisfactory result, it would be as well now to try the effect of a free importation in settling a question which had deranged the currency, shaken credit, and disturbed the country. The Duke of Cleveland wished to explain the vote which he was about to give:-"He had contended for the maintenance of the existing law, not as believing it perfect, but because he thought if the ice were broken further alterations would lead to a total repeal. Now a Corn-law was proposed on the same principle as the present, but with a modification of the existing law. When first he was made acquainted with it, he was some. what startled at its extent; but on reflection he came to the conclusion, that, although it effected a considerable alteration, yet that the agriculture of the country would be able to compete with the difficulty as far as wheat was concerned. In several parts of the country, and particularly in the county of Durdam, there was a great deal of wheat grown on land which ought not to be made to produce wheat, and which might be brought into much better cultivation with oats; and when he heard of the alteration, and before he knew precisely what it was, he intended to have induced his tenantry to grow more oats and less wheat: but if there were so large an importation of oats as some expected, he had no hesitation in saying, that, coupled with the importation of foreign wheat, it would seriously injure the agricultural interest. He freely admitted, that after the great outcry on the subject of the Corn-laws, if the duties on wheat were to be altered at all, a less change could not be made than was proposed in this bill. Though he very much condemned the great reduction of the duty on barley and oats, yet he considered it on the whole to be consonant to his duty to vote for this bill; and certainly his anxious wish was that it should pass into a law. He should have been better pleased if Lord Ripon had said that the measure was a final measure; and he hoped that the Cornlaws would never experience any further alteration during his own life." The Earl of Ripon put in a few words as to the finality of the measure:-"All he could say for himself was this, that if he brought forward the measure, intending or wishing it not to be final, he would say so. He had never said that with respect to this measure. Не hoped that it would be final; he thought it would be a good thing if it should be so, and it would not be his fault if it were not." The Earl of Roseberry thought that it would have a very brief existence, and that even as a step towards further measures it would be a failure. A fixed duty appeared to him the only remedy for the existing evils. The Marquess of Salisbury advocated the Government plan. It was attacked by Lord Portman; who wondered at Lord Ripon's inconsistency in supporting it, since in 1821 and 1822 he sat as one of nineteen county Members upon a select committee, which reported in favour of a fixed duty. The measure would unsettle every bargain between landlord and tenant, without relieving the country from dependence on the speculator; and if it failed, it would be impossible to fall back on a fixed duty. The Earl of Winchelsea was prepared to contend that the bill would give to the agriculturists greater protection than they had ever had before-not because it would enhance prices, but because it would relieve the grower from the frauds practised upon the averages and the sudden alterations in the duties. He thought it a great improvegreat improve ment. Lord Monteagle, who also considered the bill an improvement, descanted at considerable length on the necessity of a foreign supply, and the comparative merits of freetrade in corn, a sliding-scale, and a fixed duty; giving the preference to the last. He wished that he could discuss the measure in a select committee; he defied the Government to produce a single witness to defend the sliding-scale -a single mercantile man-or to produce one from the eminent men all over the world who would not reprobate the sliding-scale as the greatest monster greatest monster in legislation which had ever been produced. In all the revisions of the tariffs, by some of the wisest and most experienced men, had the principle of a contra valorem scale ever been applied to any article but corn? He insisted that a fixed duty would be more easily maintained in time of dearth than a sliding duty. "Suppose a great exigency had arrived a time when prices were high, and food was dear, and when there would be a great clamour for the repeal of the fixed 8s. duty. The Government would deliberate whether they should or should not adhere to the duty. Were he answering for them, he should certainly say under such circumstances, adhere to the duty; for this reason, that if even the Government were to give way, and the fixed duty be removed, the consumer would get little or no benefit from it--it would all go to the owner of the grain. An instance occurred the other day illustrative of the operation of this. There was a great quantity of foreign grain lying in bond at Glasgow, or on the Clyde: there was great distress in the neighbourhood at the time, and the Government were called upon to allow the grain to go out of bond duty free; suppose they had, what would have followed? was it thought for a moment that the grain so let out would have sold for 20s. a quarter less than the other grain of the same quality then in the market? would the taking off the duty have lessened the price in that case? No; the only effect would have been to put so much money into the pocket of the proprietor of the He alluded to the effect of irre- statesman They could not much longer support with any safety a system which separates classes, and places the highest personages in the State in the position of making laws apparently for their own benefit, and against the interests and welfare of their fellow countrymen. Lord Brougham approved of Lord Melbourne's resolution, comparatively; for the preference of a fixed duty must depend greatly on the amount, nor could he in any case regard it as sound legislation. Taking it, however, at 8s., he thought it somewhat the better proposition of the two; but there was no difference between them in extending the markets for our products abroad, or increasing the growth of corn for this market. The latter trade must depend upon its profits, and the dealer could not tell whether he could afford to bring in his corn with the addition of 8s. duty, until he should know what the price is here. But was corn a fit subject for taxation at all? He declared it was not a fit subject for taxation at all, beby the poor and the rich; and it cause it was a poll-tax, paid alike fell most heavily on those whose It was also a poll-tax eminently resources were the most slender. uncertain in its operation; as it depended on the wind, and the weather, and the seasons, whether one farthing of the duty should be paid. The necessity of the treasury, however, could not depend for supply on the vicissitudes of the seasons. peated some of the recommendaThe Duke of Wellington reinsisted, in contradiction to Lord tions of the Ministerial plan; and Monteagle, that the price of corn had always been steady under the eagle had said, that the sliding. Corn-law of 1829. Lord Montto the Corn-law: "It might be scale was an absurdity only known might have good reason to think an absurdity; the noble Baron pardon, the principle of a slidingso; but, begging the noble Baron's the corn-trade of this country. scale had always been known in The Corn-law of 1794 contained pending on the state of prices in a graduated scale of duties, debeen the principle acted on, and this country. It had invariably was always applicable to any artity, quality, and value of which ticle that was produced, the quandepended on the state of the seasons in which it was produced." need not go back to the Greeks He said that Lord Melbourne and Romans in search of experience as to dependence on foreign nations; in our own time, we had seen the Emperor of Russia imavowedly to raise the price in this pose a duty on the export of corn, country; and only last year it had been forbidden. The supply of Britain depended on the tranquil lity of the countries lying on the banks of two or three streams that run into the Baltic. It remained to be proved that the Corn-laws produced drains of gold from the Bank in payment for sudden imports of grain. Those inconve niences were produced by other circumstances. Certainly, if large sums were required to be sent abroad at once for the payment of corn, the deficiency of bullion must be aggravated; but he believed it was found that corn, under ordinary circumstances, was constantly in the course of being imported, and that a demand for the introduction of a supply into the home market, arising from any failure in the harvest, did not require the transmission abroad of large sums of specie. Corn was brought into the market only by opening the doors of the public storehouses, and it was paid for by the money circulating in the interior of the country. It was true that the replacement of the corn so consumed would require the transmission of large sums; but that was done by degrees. Lord Lansdowne followed up Lord Melbourne's arguments, and ridiculed the successive attempts to amend the Corn-laws six times within a few years, and each time with confidence as to its being a final settlement; yet foreign corn was not excluded, and "remunerating price" was se no cured. Lord Fitzgerald followed, combating the doctrine of the mutual dependance of foreign countries; pointing to Russia, who sends us large exports and refuses to import our products in return; and then he enlarged on the advantages of the sliding-scale. On a division, Lord Melbourne's motion was negatived by 117 to 49: majority, 68. Lord Brougham then moved these resolutions : "1. That no duty ought to be imposed upon the importation of foreign corn, for the purpose of protecting the agriculturist, by taxing the introduction of food. "2. That no duty ought to be imposed upon the importation of foreign corn, for the purpose of regulating trade, by taxing the introduction of food. "3. That no duty ought to be imposed upon the importation of foreign corn, for the purpose of raising the revenue, by taxing the introduction of food." The resolutions were rejected by 87 to 6. Upon the House going into Committee, Earl Stanhope moved the omission of clauses 12 and 13, which related to the appointment of inspectors in the City of London; objecting to exclude London from the list of towns returning averages. The clauses, however, were affirmed without a division. Lord Beaumont moved to omit clause 17, under which dealers in corn were to make returns to the inspectors; proposing that the return should be made by the growers, and not by the dealers. The original clause was affirmed; other amendments moved by Earl Stanhope, Lord Beaumont, and Lord Mountcashel, were rejected in a manner equally unequivocal, and so the bill passed. CHAPTER IV. Financial Measures-Embarrassing Circumstances of the Country Sir Robert Peel's bold and comprehensive Plans of Reform-His Speech on introducing his Budget-Its Reception by the House Remarks of Lord John Russell-In the House of Lords Lord Brougham moves a String of Resolutions respecting the Income-taxThe Earl of Ripon moves the previous question, which is carriedDebate in the House of Commons on Finance-Speeches of Mr. F. T. Baring, Mr. Goulburn, Lord Howick, and Lord John Russell— Sir Robert Peel vindicates his Measures, and explains the Machinery of the Income Tax Bill-Reception of the Measure by the Opposition in the House of Commons-Notice given by Lord John RussellFirst Debate on the Subject-Objections against the Tax urged by different Members-Some of the Liberal Party support it-Speeches of Mr. Smith O'Brien and Mr. Roebuck-Sir Robert Peel defends his Measures against the Objections urged-Speech of Lord John Russell-Attempt to postpone the Decision of the House by Motions of Adjournment-They are negatived, but, ultimately, it is deferred till after the Easter Recess-The Subject resumed-State of Public Feeling respecting it- Mr. Blewitt moves an Amendment on Sir Robert Peel's Resolution, but afterwards withdraws it-The First Resolution carried without a Division-Debate on the Second Resolution-The Second and Third Resolutions carried-Lord John Russell moves an Amendment condemnatory of the proposed TaxSpeeches of Mr. Goulburn, Sir Robert Peel, Mr. Macaulay, Lord Stanley, Mr. Labouchere, Sir R. H. Inglis, Viscount Sandon, Mr. O'Connell, Mr. Hawes, Sir James Graham, Mr. F. Baring, Mr. Ferrand, and other Members-The Debate continued for Four Nights, after which the Amendment is rejected by 308 to 202-On the First Reading, Lord John Russell moves the Rejection of the Bill-Speeches of Sir Robert Peel, Mr. Raikes Currie, and Mr. Roebuck-The Amendment is negatived on a Division by 286 to 188-Progress of the Bill in Committee-Amendment of Mr. Ricardo for exempting Terminable Annuities is rejected-Discussion on Schedule D-Mr. Roebuck moves an Amendment to reduce the Amount payable on Profits of Trades and Professions-It is opposed by the Government, and rejected - Rapid Progress of the Committee with the Clauses of the Bill-Mr. F. Baring's Proposal to exempt Foreign Fundholders, and various other Amendments, are defeated by large Majorities, and the Bill passes through Committee |