Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

CHAPTER III.

The House of Commons goes into Committee on Sir Robert Peel's Resolutions on the 2nd of March-Mr. Villiers moves as an Amendment, That all Duties on Imported Corn should cease-Division of Parties on this Proposition-Speeches of Sir Robert Peel and Lord John Russell-The Amendment is lost by a Majority of 187-Debate on the Second Reading of the Corn Bill continued by adjournment for four nights-Mr. E. Yorke, seconded by Sir John Yarde Buller, moves an Amendment for the rejection of the Bill-Speech of Sir Robert Peel in answer to the Attacks made upon him-The Amendment is lost, and the Second Reading is carried by a Majority of 88 -Further Debates on the Corn Bill in the House of Commons-The Third Reading is moved on the 11th of May, by Sir James Graham, and is carried by 327 to 229, after an animated Debate-The Corn Bill is discussed in the House of Lords, on the Motion for a Second Reading, on the 25th of May-Speeches of the Earl of Ripon, the Duke of Richmond, Earl Fitzwilliam, the Duke of Cleveland, the Marquis of Londonderry, Lord Stanley, Lord Brougham, the Earl of Wilton, the Duke of Cambridge, the Marquis of Normanby, Earl Grey, Marquis of Lansdowne, the Earls of Dalhousie, Clarendon, Carnarvon, Haddington, Hardwicke, and the Duke of WellingtonOn a Division there appear for the Second Reading (including Proxies) 211; against it, 164; Majority, 47-Various Amendments are moved in Committee, by the Duke of Buckingham, the Earl of Wicklow, and Lord Ashburton, which, after much discussion, are rejected by considerable Majorities-The Duke of Richmond opposes the Third Reading by an Amendment, which is subsequently withdrawn, and the Bill is passed.

HE large space occupied, in

stages, until they became law.

preceding after

preliminary discussions on Sir Robert Peel's commercial policy renders it impossible, and at the same time unnecessary, to pursue with the same detail the numerous debates which succeeded during the progress of the Corn and Customs Acts, through their successive

sions continued for several weeks with little interruption, every inch of ground being pertinaciously contested by the opponents, and all the resistance being made to the Ministerial scheme which the forms and usages of Parliament allow. It is needless to say that debates

so continued soon ceased to possess the attraction of novelty; the subject, extensive as it is, became fairly exhausted by the industry and ingenuity with which every argument bearing upon it was enforced and reiterated by successive speakers. It is conceived that the speeches of which a summary has been given in the last chapter will indicate sufficiently the main positions taken up by the supporters and opponents in these debates, and that it will be sufficient, in tracing the further progress of the measures through the House of Commons, to limit our notice to a brief statement of results.

[ocr errors]

On the 2nd of March, on the House going into Committee, the first resolution being moved, Mr. Villiers proposed, as an amendment, That all duties on imported corn do now cease." He explained, that this amendment did not arise from any desire to impede the Ministerial measure, but from a conscientious belief that the full advantage of the measure might be extended at once, without danger or inconvenience. The opinions of leading agriculturists, farmers as well as landlords, showed that they had no apprehension of injury from immediate abolition, but that, on the contrary, they preferred it. Protectionist members in the House -Lord Worsley, Mr. William Miles, and others had asserted, that immediate abolition would be better than a postponement for three years. Lord John Russell was of the same opinion. Mr. Villiers thought that Sir Robert Peel himself must prefer immediate abolition, as he had proposed what was tantamount to it, the opening of the ports in November. He also claimed the support of the Duke of Rich

mond, on the ground of his expressed preference. The probability of a deficient harvest next year was urged.

Considerable difference of opinion was expressed by members favourable to free trade as to the policy of supporting the amendment or the original resolution. Mr. Ward and Mr. Cobden declared themselves in favour of the amendment, but Mr. Hume, Mr. T. Duncombe, and Mr. Wakley, avowed their intention of supporting the Government, whose measure had gone as far or farther than they had anticipated.

Sir Robert Peel said: If the case of Ireland were the sole question to be considered, he thought the immediate suspension of all duties would be the preferable course. But there were other considerations; and the Government had considered that the whole question could be better dealt with in the way they had proposed, than by the course prescribed by the amendment. Sir Robert proceeded to show that, by the adoption of his measure, certain descriptions of corn and other food would be admitted duty-free, and all other kinds at a greatly reduced rate. With respect to the amenement, he said

[blocks in formation]

measures. I cannot help thinking, if we had come forward in the first instance with a proposal for the total repeal, the measure would have encountered such a degree of opposition, that we must have abandoned all hope of success."

Sir Robert was of opinion, that if the question were settled, wheat in the home market would instantly rise in price; and he did not think that the slightest apprehension need exist of this country being inundated, under any circumstances, with foreign corn.

Mr. Bright had threatened the House with continued agitation if the repeal were not immediate: Sir Robert Peel was sorry to hear it. He thought, however, that such an agitation was unreasonable; he did not think the agricultural party would make an attempt to disturb a settlement when once made. [This statement of opinion was received in silence.] But not only did he think the threatened agitation unreasonable, he thought, also, it would not be successful. "I think a great number of persons would withdraw from the ranks of the Anti-Corn-Law League; that a great number of men would say that our proposal was not an unfair one, considering the differences of opinion which exist, considering the prospect there is of the duty expiring in three years, and that every day we are advancing towards a total repeal of the duty, which, after the proposed reduction, would be much lower than at present."

Lord John Russell said he would have voted for the amendment were he not apprehensive that the success of the measure would be endangered if the amendment were car ried.

Sir Robert Peel had made a

most important statement, to the effect that, in his opinion, if he had brought forward a project of immediate repeal he would have failed in his endeavour to settle

the question. "Looking," conti

nued Lord John," at the comparative advantages of the two courses, I, for my own part, say, that I will not incur the responsibility of assenting to the motion of the honourable member for Wolverhampton. It is far better, in my opinion, to promote the measure of the First Minister of the Crown; and I believe, if the House carry it by as great a majority as voted for the Committee, that the Upper House will accept it more readily as a measure of that Minister."

"I

Sir Robert Peel had expressed his regret, the other night, that Lord John Russell had not undertaken a Ministry founded on the immediate abolition of the Corn Laws. was surprised to hear that statement, said Lord John, "for, though I believe the right honourable gentleman would have given me every support to any measure I might bring forward which he conceived to be for the public good, yet I think he must have heard, since that time, objections and statements strong enough, and numerous enough, to have convinced him that those who would have followed him and supported me in office, on such a proposition, would have been a very small number indeed, as compared with the hundred and twelve members who have now voted with the right honourable gentleman. I must fairly say, that I do not believe there would have been more than forty, or perhaps fifty, members to have voted with

me.

[ocr errors]

After other speeches, Mr. Villiers

replied, and the House divided, be difficult to render it a palatable

when there appeared

[blocks in formation]

Upon the bringing up of the Report, a few nights afterwards, some further discussion arose. Upon the resolution which referred to maize, rice, and buck-wheat, Mr. Miles made some observations. He had expected that Sir Robert Peel, to make it more palatable, would have introduced into the resolution a few words limiting the free importation of Indian corn, buck-wheat, and rice, to three months. No absolute necessity for the change had been shown; but, had the abolition of duties been merely temporary, the Protectionists would have shown, by the readiness of their assent, that they had no wish to prevent the introduction of food for the Irish people. Should the Bill, however, pass, the abolition would be permanent, and he hoped the agriculturists would well consider what they were about. Maize, in point of nutriment, came next to wheat, and a bushel of it was equal to a bushel and threefourths of barley, or to three bushels of oats. No doubt, therefore, it would be used largely where barley and oats were now consumed; and he was informed that maize could be introduced into the port of Liverpool at only 20s. a quarter, duty included. England could not compete with America in the production of this article, the climate was too cold. No doubt could exist that its introduction, duty-free, would displace, to a great extent, barley and oats; for it would not

substitute, especially with a small admixture of wheat. It would thus come into competition chiefly as human food, and, to a certain extent, would doubtless supersede even wheat. Mr. Miles added, that it was not his intention to divide the House; and he hoped the friends with whom he acted would adopt the same course; thus displaying as great an anxiety as those on the free-trade benches to afford relief to the Irish people.

A desultory discussion ensued, in which the members on the side of protection generally expressed concurrence with the views of Mr. Miles. Some of the Irish members declared their anticipation of permanent benefit to Ireland from the substitution of a more substantial and nutritious food for po

tatoes.

[ocr errors]

The Corn Bill, founded upon the resolutions just referred to, stood for a Second Reading on the 20th of March. The debate was continued by adjournment for four nights. Mr. E. Yorke began, by moving as an amendment, That the Bill be read a second time on that day six months." He said, if gentlemen around him felt as he did, they would not be deterred from using every form that the House allowed, and adopting every rule that the usages of Parliament suggested, to defeat the measure. He spoke of the Ministerial scheme as a breach of faith, calculated to diminish the value of property, and reduce the profits of farmers and the wages of labourers. With the view of showing the feeling which existed among the agricultural labourers, he mentioned that he had received a communication from a poor but intelligent man, who said

that in the neighbourhood from which he wrote, there was "not a village in which the people were not ready to assert, by brute force if necessary, their right to taste of the fruits of their own labour;" and he added, that " every village in the vicinity was ripe for outrage at the first reduction of wages.

[ocr errors]

Sir John Yarde Buller seconded the amendment, which was supported by Sir R. H. Inglis, Lord Pollington, the Earl of March, Mr. Shaw, Mr. Finch, Lord Rendlesham, Lord George Bentinck, and other members. On the other side, speeches were delivered by Mr. Fox Maule, Sir John Hanmer, Lord Ebrington, Mr. F. Baring, Mr. Goulburn, Mr. C. Buller, Sir James Graham, and Lord Palmerston. Sir Robert Peel, at the conclusion of the debate, entered into a vindication of his own conduct and measures from the attacks which had been made upon them by some of the preceding speakers, remarking that, had he occupied the position of a private member of the House, he would have allowed the accusations to pass unnoticed. He entered into a defence of his proceedings, bringing to recollection most of the facts already known in connection with the ministerial explanations. He adverted to what he said on Mr. Villiers's motion of 1845, and commented on at the time, to show that he had then arrived at the conviction, that the Corn Laws could not be defended on the old grounds in consequence of this speech, the Protection Society passed resolutions expressive of distrust in the Government. He

replied to a charge made by Mr. Bankes, of having acted an unconstitutional part in venturing to advise Her Majesty as to a succes

sor.

He refuted the more important objections to the ministerial measure. He showed the necessity of adopting means to improve the physical condition of the population: the first step ought to be that which the Government had taken. Looking at the measure as a whole, he was convinced that it would not be injurious to the agricultural interest, and that it would be conducive to the interest of the community generally. He noticed the taunts of his dependence on opposition support.

"An honourable gentleman asks me how long do I calculate upon their support? I will be perfectly frank and explicit on this, as on every other subject. I have no right to place any confidence in the support of honourable gentlemen opposite-I have none whatever. I feel and acknowledge every proper obligation to them as a public man, for the support which they have given to this measure, and for studiously avoiding every thing calculated to create embarrassment to its progress; but then our differences remain the same. I have

no right to claim their support, or their protection; nor shall I seek it, by departing in the slightest degree from that course which my public duty may urge me to adopt. If this measure pass, our temporary connection is at an end;, and I have not the slightest right to expect support or forbearance from them. Still less have I, after the declarations that have been made, a right to expect forbearance or support from this side of the House.

He concluded his speech in these words:

"I am not surprised to hear honourable members predict to me that my tenure of power is short.

« AnteriorContinuar »