Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Let these measures pass into a law. Suspend your indignation until then; and then it will be perfectly open to you to determine what measure you will adopt for the purpose of terminating my political life. I shall still pursue steadily that course which my conscience tells me I should take, let and you those opposite pursue what course you think right. I only hope you will permit these measures to be passed into a law. I do assure you that I deplore the loss of your confidence, if I have unfortunately lost it I deplore it more than I do the loss of political power. The accusations which you have preferred against me are on this account harmless, that I feel they are undeserved. Every man has within his own bosom and conscience the scales with which are determined by their real weight whether his acts are deserving of reproach or of approbation; and if I could feel, if I could believe, that I had been moved by corrupt motives or unworthy impulses, one-tenth part of the accusations you have levelled against me must have been fatal to my existence and my peace. You may think I have taken too great precautions against Irish famine : you are mistaken. Events will prove that these precautions are not unnecessary. But even if it were not so, the motive was to rescue a whole population from the calamity of possible famine and disease; and I shall, under these circumstances, be easy under such an accusation. I am not saying whether this measure will do it or not; I am merely speaking of the motive. I am only observing upon the weight such an accusation will have even if the precaution is superfluous. With the information we have had, even if the precautions

were superfluous, I can say with Mr. Burke, under similar circumstances, under every accident, in pain and in sickness, in depression and distress, I shall call to mind this accusation and be comforted. I shall never regard the reproaches that may be heaped on me, if the events prove that these precautions have been superfluous. Sir, the month of July will have established the conviction that these measures of precaution were not superfluous; and I am speaking now, not of the temporary, but of the permanent ones we have adopted. Sir, when I do fall, I shall have the satisfaction of reflecting that I shall not have fallen because I have shown subserviency to any party. I shall not fall because I have preferred the interests of party to the general interests of the community. I shall carry with me the satisfaction of reflecting, that during the course of my official career my object has been to mitigate monopoly, to increase the demand for industry, to remove the restrictions upon commerce, to equalize the burden of the taxes, and to ameliorate the condition of those who pay them."

[blocks in formation]

answered at some length by Sir Robert Peel, who was followed by Lord John Russell, Mr. G. Bankes, and Mr. Disraeli, the two latter gentlemen speaking with much severity of the measure and the parties who had proposed it. After two divisions occasioned by motions from the opponents of the Bill, the order of the day was carried, and on the next evening the House went into Committee. Upon the clause applying to the reduction of the duty on oats, Lord George Bentinck moved the omission of the word "oats," assigning the peculiar circumstances of Ireland as his reason. The annual importation of oats from Ireland

had amounted in the last and for

Lord

mer years to 2,500,000l. in value; and, supposing that the free importation of oats from abroad should but lower the price of oats to the extent of 10 per cent, that would affect Ireland in a very grievous degree, and the loss to the Irish producer, with respect to the single article of oats, would amount to 250,000l. a year. George proceeded to comment on some points in Sir Robert Peel's speech of the previous evening, and expressed himself with increased animosity on the position assumed by the Government. It was most humiliating in a great statesman like Sir Robert Peel to come down and acknowledge that the whole course of his life had been a series of errors. Lord George also reasserted his opinions about Irish distress, and the steps which Ministers ought to have taken to meet the partial evil which existed.

Sir H. V. Barron said, that the people of Ireland would not thank Lord George Bentinck, either for the proposition which he had made

or for the manner in which he had made it. He argued strongly in favour of the measure.

[ocr errors]

The Chancellor of the Exchequer rose to put Lord George Bentinck right upon an important point. He thought the noble lord could hardly be aware of the effect of leaving out the word "oats' from the clause. The real effect of that motion would be, that after the 1st of February, 1849, oats, instead of paying a 1s. duty, as proposed by the Bill, would be admitted without paying any duty at all.

It was provided by the Bill, that after that date, the duties should be 1s. upon all wheat, barley, bear or bigg, oats, rye, peas, and beans, for every quarter. In lieu, however, of that duty, the noble lord proposed nothing; therefore the effect of the motion would be, that the duty on oats would be lost altogether, and that oats would be admitted without paying any duty. He felt it his duty to state what would be the real effect of the alteration, if carried, in order that the time of the House might not be wasted in a fruitless discussion.

The Attorney-General having confirmed Mr. Goulburn's construction, the amendment, after some further discussion, was withdrawn, and the other clauses were agreed to without a division.

On the bringing up of the Report on the 8th of May, another discussion took place. Sir Charles Burrell again moved as an amendment, that the Report be brought up on that day six months. He repeated the assertion, that the distress of Ireland had been extremely exaggerated. This view was supported by Colonel Verner and Mr. George Bankes. The latter asserted that the fear of famine was already at an end, and he

called on Lord Lincoln (the Secretary for Ireland) to deny it if he could.

Lord Lincoln admitted, that he was responsible for all the statements which had been made by Sir Robert Peel and Sir James Graham, on the subject of the scarcity in Ireland. He asserted that they were in all respects correct; and that the distress, so far from being on the decline, had not yet reached its height. He appealed to Mr. Stafford O'Brien himself, who had gone to Ireland sceptical on the subject of the distress, but who had not been a day upon his estate before he wrote a letter to him representing in the strongest manner the existence of severe distress and destitution, and stating that, unless aid were promptly administered, it would be difficult to maintain the peace. The pressure was not so great in some parts of the north of Ireland as in the south-west, and generally in the south portions of the island: the reason of this, with respect to the north, was that the people in those parts of the country were not so generally dependent on the potato for food as in other parts. As showing the increasing demands made on the Government for aid, he quoted two letters, which he had that morning received, one from the island of Valentia, and the other from the county of Cavan, representing that the supply of potatoes, both for consumption and seed, was completely exhausted.

Mr. Stafford O'Brien testified to the existence of much distress in the counties of Limerick and Clare. Lord George Bentinck taunted Lord Lincoln with the loss of his seat for Nottinghamshire, where he had recently been defeated in a

his

contest with Mr. Hillyard, upon accepting the office of Irish Secretary.

The debate, after this, assumed a personal character: it eventually terminated by the Report being agreed to without a division.

The House arrived at the last stage of the Bill on the 11th of May, when Sir James Graham moved, that it be read a third time.

The Marquis of Granby thereupon moved as an amendment, that it be read a third time on that day six months. The amendment was seconded by Mr. Milnes Gaskell, who had recently held the office of a Lord of the Treasury, but had resigned it upon the change of ministerial policy. Mr. Sheridan, Mr. Cayley, Mr. Plumtre, Sir John Walsh, Mr. Newdegate, Mr. Hudson, the Marquis of Worcester, Mr. Disraeli, Lord George Bentinck, and several other members, supported the opposition with arguments similar to those before employed; Sir James Graham, Mr. Sherman Crawford, Mr. Charles Wood, Mr. Villiers, Lord John Russell, and Sir Robert Peel, were the principal speakers on the other side.

At length, after three nights' debate, the third reading was carried in a full House, at four o'clock in the morning of the 16th May, by the following division:

For the third reading
For the Marquis of Granby's
amendment

327

229

Majority for third reading 98

The principal debate on the Corn Bill, in the House of Lords, took place upon the question of the second reading of the measure, on the 25th of May.

The Earl of Ripon introduced to be so intimately connected with the motion. Having undertaken the commercial and agricultural into discharge this duty voluntarily, terests of the country, that it ought he should not apologize to their to be permanently maintained, the lordships for bringing forward a question was reduced to one of measure which he had always consi- time. After a detailed history of dered as by far the most important, the various measures restrictive of as regarded the social condition of the importation of foreign grain, the country, that had ever called showing that if the system of profor the attention of that House. tection was so essential to, and so The question, however, was as interwoven with, all the interests difficult as it was important. His of the country, it had been a most lordship proceeded to state the unstable system, and that, meanmotives which had influenced him while, agricultural improvements on former occasions with reference had been going on, and were still to it the principles upon which going on, he said it must, therehe had supported the Corn Law, fore, be admitted, that the repeal and what were not the principles of the Corn Law was a question of he had recognized. When he in- time; and, if so, the principle was troduced the Corn Bill of 1815, he gone. Then came the fact of the did it with reluctance, and he told rapid increase of the population, Lord Liverpool, who had desired which had a tendency to press him to introduce that measure, upon the limits of subsistence, if that he had a great objection on one augmented in a geometrical principle to any Corn Law what- and the other in only an arithmeever. He had never supported any tical ratio. Another question was, Corn Law, on the grounds assigned that of Ireland. Those who thought by many others, he did not ac- that a temporary suspension of the knowledge that any ground for a Corn Law would have met that Corn Law was to be found in rents, evil gave up the important prinmortgages, and settlements; nor ciple that the law contained a did he consider it part of a great power of self-adaptation to circumsystem of protection to national in- stances; and, if once suspended, dustry-a doctrine which the legis- such a law could not be reverted lature had never avowed, but, cn the contrary, many of its acts were directly adverse to the proposition. His lordship adduced, amongst other examples, the case of wool, on which no import duty had been imposed till 1819, and then for the purpose of revenue. The only ground upon which he had recognized the expediency of a Corn Law, was a sincere conviction that, without such a law, this country would be, or might be, more dependent than it ought in prudence to be upon foreign countries. Unless a Corn Law was considered

to.

A great objection urged against a repeal of the Corn Law was, that it would throw land out of cultivation; he had never been able to ascertain what was the land which would thereby relapse into waste; he had found in his experience that no such apprehension was entertained. In conclusion, his lordship declared he felt no shame at being a party to this measure, and at bringing it before the House. He knew it was inconsistent with what he had formerly done, and it might be with sentiments he had expressed; but he was in

fluenced by no bad motives; he acted under a solemn conviction, founded upon deliberate reflection, that this measure was not calculated to injure any of the interests of the country, but would do good to

them all.

The Duke of Richmond moved that the Bill be read a second time this day six months, feeling it to be a measure likely to inflict a deadly blow upon British agriculture and the national greatness. Lord Ripon had not told their lordships what, in his opinion, would be the average price of corn if this measure should pass; but surely Ministers had not dared to bring in such a measure without estimates. Lord Ripon had given their lordships a history of the various measures regulating the importation of corn, except that of 1842, which was the measure they were about to repeal; and of this he had not said one syllable. The noble duke then amused their lordships by reading extracts from the speeches of Lord Ripon in 1815 (when Mr. Robinson) and in 1842, dwelling on the discrepancies between them and the speech of the earl to-night. Lord Ripon had admitted that improvements had been made in agriculture for years past, and the money expended on land, upon the faith of an Act of Parliament, was now about to be confiscated. The noble duke then proceeded to show the benefits which the labourers had derived from the system of protection, as exhibited by the vast accumulations in savings-banks. The present measure was called for by the cotton manufacturers, who looked to a permanent reduction in wages therefrom. The object, the avowed object, of the advocates of this measure out of doors was

to crush the aristocracy; and, unless their lordships maintained the good opinion of the middle classes of the country-which they could not do if they abandoned their former opinions-they would be powerless indeed. This measure was only the first of a series of attacks that would shake the foundation of the Throne, cripple the Church, endanger the institutions of the country, and plunge a happy and contented people into misery, confusion, and anarchy.

Earl Fitzwilliam supported the Bill, and believed it would be passed by a great majority; nevertheless, it was not a measure he should have proposed; a great revenue had been wasted by it, for which a substitute must be found. He did not think that the measure would be injurious to the landed interest, and therefore they were not entitled to demand compensation; but he had expected there would have been a diminution, if not a repeal, of the malt tax, which was not only oppressive, but unequal. He objected to the retention of a rag of protection for three years; the landed interest desired to have a settlement of the question at once. Though he disapproved the Bill, he must vote for it, as he had no alternative except that of rejecting the measure for another year. propounding a measure of this magnitude, was it right or decent for the Ministers to propose it in a manner which drove their Lordships, as it were, into a corner ? The least amendment of the Bill, being a money Bill, would sacrifice it. fice it. Adopting all the Duke of Richmond's opinions upon the conduct of Ministers, he must still oppose his amendment.

In

The Duke of Cleveland opposed

« AnteriorContinuar »