Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

ber; taken to pieces, to be set up again in America. He had heard that instructions had been sent out to British Commanders to avoid American frigates. The war was over; and now was a proper time for enquiry.

Lord Melville said the demands for men in the late war, had rendered it impossible to pick men for every service. It was not the custom of the British navy to pick men: it was a bad practice. American ships could, on the coast of America, recruit when they chose: but to overload ships sent from England, would be absurd. What the Americans called frigates, were not such, because they called them frigates: they were a different class of ships: we might oppose them by a class of vessels of the same size (such were in progress) but they would not be frigates. We had a great number of small vessels out: more had been desired by our Admirals, for protection of trade. He was sorry to admit that there were, in our navy, ships built in an inferior manner;-it had been so for a century. The French, and even the Russian and Danish shipwrights, were more capable of uniting theory with practice in building, than the English were. Education was wanting: not natural talent. Government was intent on bestowing this advantage.-Papers granted to the Earl of Darnley.

Lord Grenville moved for statements of the effective force of the British troops abroad. We had subsidized troops from every nation; but now while at peace, we had great forces abroad: why? what were they about? what a prodigious expense! it was wholly unprecedented. We stood in need of respite from our expenses. How long was this to last? He wished to bring the peace establishment to the lowest level. At the close of the American war the peace establishment had been not five millions and a half; now, he had heard it said, that an assembly of Gentlemen had consented to its being nineteen millions! He was aware of the necessity of garrisoning two or three towns, which we had taken; but nothing like that; it would change the Constitution of England.

| Lambton, who denied that it was a personal attack on Lord Castlereagh, now on the Continent.

For the motion 66. Against it 115.

CORN LAWE.

Feb. 22.-The Corn Laws were further discussed: for the Speaker's leaving the chair 197; against it 6.

Mr. Robinson's first three resolutions passed, without objection.

Mr. Baring, in a very long speech, opposed the fourth resolution. The average price of wheat in France and Flanders, was about 40s, allowing 5s. for transport, with 20s. for protection to the agricultural interest, the whole was 65s. At present, twelve millions and a half were paid by the country for protection to the landed interest: adding the corn consumed in driuk, it was eighteen millions. The number of productive acres in this country was 60,000,000: would gentlemen give up ten shillings an acre of their rents from this? that was really the question at issue. Why should inferior lands be brought into cultivation? In 1764 the price of corn was 11. 7s. 4d. in 1769 under new laws, it had risen to 21. 3s. 2d. to 1804 it had gradually risen to 3. 4s. Notwithstanding importation our own agriculture had continued improving. It was necessary to impress on the Committee, that if they now raised the price of labour, they did an injury to the country, which it would not be easy to retrace. While the farmer was paid for improvements the consumer was suffering. The calculation of 80s. proceeded on the supposition that all expenses were to continue as they now are. The poor rates are now one of the constituent rewards of labour among the poor. Every one now knows the alteration in the stile of living among the farmers: no longer ale and beer, but wine and brandy: the daughters too instead of milking cows, strummed the harpsichord. He proposed to limit the time of operation of the resolution, which he moved accordingly.

Mr. Preston was not surprized to find the citizens of London clamorous, against paying 30 per cent. more than other towns. At Exeter meat was 5d, or 6d. the pound : why was it 10d. in London? The way to make bread cheap was to support the farmer.

Lord Liverpool affirmed, that the presence of a powerful English force had already prevented serious difficulties on the Continent. The time was not come when Sir F. Flood adverted to a meeting that we might reduce our whole establishment. had lately been held at Wexford, consistHe agreed that it was proper the House ing of laymen, spirituals, and other agrishould have the fullest information.--Mo-culturists: they all agreed that Parliament was in duty bound to encourage agricultion carried.

House of Commons.

A long debate on alledged breaches of British faith with Genoa. Motion by Mr.

ture.

Lord Binning desired to call to the recollection of the house the numbers that

was urged that distress was occasioned by the apprehension of corn not being too cheap.

Mr. Rose explained. Lord Binning explained, and stated, that he had never expressed any thing that could encourage hostility to France. Mr. Ponsonby also explained, and considered it most injudicious to hurry on so important a question. On the motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the discussion was adjourned.

Feb. 23. The question on the Cora Laws was resumed, and several gentlemen engaged in the discussion: among others,

depended on agriculture; the farmer, the case as to the harvest in Ireland or elselabourer, the shopkeeper, a vast propor-where, he had lived to see the day when it tion of the community. From what contiguous country were we to be supplied? from France? which country had a population of about $5 millions, and a debt of 70 millious; while Great Britian had a population of twelve millions, and taxes 60 millions yearly. The people of France, therefore, were taxed about one pound each: the people of this country about five pounds each. How then could prices be equal? Tradespeople had also indulged themselves as much as the farmers: he was not sorry for it. A farm of a hundred acres might pay in taxes (including the tenant's property tax) 187. 1s. 4d. while the poor rates alone amounted to 334.19s.2d. Suppose the tenant's property tax were 2s. 6d. per acre; as the average crop was three quarters to the acre, at least, the reduction of the property would diminish the price only ten pence per quarter, while the parochial taxes were 28. 10d, per quarter. He believed it was perfectly true, that the improvements in our agri-lation of England, 4,500,000 were conculture enabled this country to support its nected with agriculture: in Ireland four late conflict. It was not possible to restore millions out of six. to the farmers what they had lately lost; Ireland afforded England a supply she The agriculture of but to prevent further losses was possible. could not get elsewhere. In 1808, 1809, We now saw soils cultivated to the ut- 1810, Englaud imported 1,800,000 quar. most-black moors yielding to the plough, ters of wheat from Ireland: in 1812, 1813, and giving crops, not of wheat, but of oats 1814, the quantity rose to 2,170,000. The and rye. He could not think of depend-linen trade of Ireland employed only one jeg on France :-because-should she be-million. come our enemy it would then be in her power, by with-holding her supply of corn, to starve us into subjection. The amount of home trade was infinitely more important than that of export trade; and it ought to be first thought of.

Mr. Rose could not agree with Mr. Baring that this country paid eighteen millions premium to the landholders; nor that 5s. a quarter would pay for bringing corn from France; nor that France would always be an exporting country. He decidedly objected to dependance on any foreign country. He thought that the evidence justified fixing the fair protecting price between 72 and 70s. He highly approved of the system of warehousing corn.

Sir. J. Newport, observed that the mass of taxation was an insuperable bar to any great fall in the price of corn. The agricultural interests of Ireland could only be cousulted by rendering ourselves independent of foreign countries: distinction of classes was unjust: all were bound toge, ther, for the public good. Of the popu

The four millions of agricul

turists drew their clothing and furniture from England. The measure proposed would aid the real strength of the country.

Mr. F. Lewis observed that the importation as to its quantity, was not the whole by which the market was affected: a small quantity imported was felt the prices had fallen much more, lately, than the mere importation could justify. Great variations existed in different parts of this kingdom: grain from the north had to bear all the charges of shipping &c. which must be added to the price, in the London' market. He thought the mode of taking the averages was incorrect. He preferred 76 to 80s.

Mr. Calcraft thought the reason why so Mr. Ponsonby supported the resolutions. small an importation had produced so conMr. Whitbread thought the measure siderable an effect, was, because the French nugatory, at present. He vindicated the corn this year was better than our own. brewers from the charge of extravagant Providence had given that country an profits. He did not think, landlords, in abundant harvest: not so, here. Barley general, had demanded extravagant rents. had sunk in price, because Government After a great variety of observations no longer bought. He thought Governand remarks on the subject of the Cornment had no right to interfere. He wanted Trade, interspersed with many anecdotes to see the effect of peace. and allusions, Mr. Whitbread concluded by observing, that whatever had been the

Mr. Grant was certain that the effect of the resolutions would be steady prices,

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small]

In 1670, under Charles II. acts were passed for protecting agriculture. The price of corn, began, now to decline; and in 1764, nearly a century after passing these acts it had fallen to 11. 17s. Sd. From this period, 1764, when the old system was overturned, from being an exporting country, we became an importing country; dependent on foreign parts for supply; while the price kept regularly rising in our own markets. We should consider the effect of restricted importation on other things! for instance, iron. We had now a greater quantity of iron in our own country, than when we depended on foreign supply. He would willingly produce a somewhat smaller stock of manufactures, for a larger supply of grain. The protecting duties on manufactures were, on an average, about 60 per cent. ad valorem. Woollen goods per cent. ad valorem, 1001. cotton ditto, 851. 10s.; glass, 1141.; brass and copper, 591. 7s. earthenware, 791.; dressed leather, 1421.; silver plate, 801.; gilt ditto, 1001. He would not enumerate lesser articles.

instead of 80s.-Mr. Baring moved, as an
amendment, that it be fixed at 72s.
On a division,
for 80s.

-728.

Majority. 144.

209

65

In the further prosecution of the Corn Bill, Sir James Shaw presented a petition from the Livery of London.-He affirmed that the ensuing averages would be higher during peace, than they had been during the last ten years of war.

Alderman Atkins said, that when the general average was 80s. the price of fine wheat in the London market would be from 100s to 105s.

Mr. F. Lewis observed, that six and three quarters bushels of wheat were equal to a sack of flour: so that, at 80s. the quartern loaf would be no more than one shilling.

Sir J. Shaw said, that from 1804 to 1813, the average of wheat in London was 88s. 8d. of flour 81s. 24d. of the quartern loaf 1s. 24d. Several gentlemen suspected, that there was either imposition, or error, in the management of the London market. Why should bread in London be 25 per cent. higher than in the rest of the kingdom?—

Mr. Barclay said the landholders came forward to demand of the country a compensation for the capital they had employed in improving their own estates;-so might the manufacturers demand compensation Mr. Horner thought that, if the manu- for capital employed in machinery and mafactures of the country were protected, at terials lying useless by them;-but they such high rates, it did not follow that the did not.. The landholders rents had been productions of the earth should be equally doubled and trebled, while the middling protected by rise of price. The pressure classes of the community had been struggling on the agriculturists he thought was tem--let peace bring plenty with it. and demanded only temporary porary, Mr. Grattan said the question was, whemeasures. Agricultural speculations had ther the farmer of this country could conbeen too extensive during the war. They tend with foreigners in our own market, had yielded immense profits; though un- or whether he should be undersold there? profitable at this moment. The transition It appeared from the late supplies at the was indeed, violent. He was not afraid of corn market, that 800,000 quarters was importation: the quantity could not be imported, while only 300,000 quarters were sufficient to hurt us. He doubted much of home supply. Shall this country, then, whether France was in a high state of be put out of tillage? if so, the manufacagricultural improvement, he thought her turer will be at the mercy of foreigners. exports were only casual. These regula- Are we certain that foreigners will always tions would raise the price of our manufac-furnish a supply? We had the power of tures abroad; was that desirable, considering the competition we might have to struggle with? should our artizans fly to other countries? the payment of part of the labourer's wages out of the poor's rate was most mischievous. The finances of the country, also, would be much injured.

At length, Sir M. W. Ridley moved the substitution of 76s. as the protecting price

our own supply in our own hands; why not keep it? If we took away from Ireland the growth of corn, how could she raise four million of taxes? how could she continue her assistance?

Sir R. Peele said, if manufactures were to be discontinued, what would become of the corn trade? Was the price of land less now than twenty years ago?— it had increased 15 or 20 per cent. When the

sea was open to us exclusively, we could nied that our manufactures were likely to force a trade abroad: now it was open to be under-sold in France; on the contrary, rival natious-and we depended on the the quantity of British goods in that councheapness of our commodities; but this try was very great. He thought the drain could only be maintained by protecting the of cash from this country, would be stopproduce of the earth against unwise reso-ped by stopping the importation of corn. lutions, and enabling the manufacturer to obtain bread at a moderate price.

Mr. C. Yorke recalled to the recollection of the Committee, that the power of the Romans was destroyed by this wish of having bread cheap. They were furnished gratuitously with corn, first by their demagogues, then by their emperors; the protection of the husbandmen was neglected, till in the time of Nero, this great people, who had conquered the world, was reduced to desire nothing more than panem et circenses. To his knowledge there were farmers within 25 miles of the metropolis, who could not sell their corn at all. The miller would not buy a grain of it, while he could get foreign corn. If London were fed with foreign corn, it might be cheaper for a few years, but in the end agriculture would perish. A short crop abroad, a war with France, would reduce London to famine. He never was more strongly convinced of the propriety of any measure.

Mr. Phillips could not see how cheapness of bread could overturn the liberties of England. Corn was already raised in price: why raise it higher? The circumstances of the country were extraordinary: ought we to fix the superiority of our rivals in manufacture, France, Belgium and Holland? Our extensive exports were the best security to the landholders for their estate, preserving their value. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had relieved agriculture from some taxes; but had laid additional taxes on manufacture. He had been assured by an eminent spinner who had gone over to France to inspect their machinery, that on the whole, the French machinery was superior. All our recent improvements were introduced there. We were, indeed, better in the finer sorts.

He knew that importation of corn enough to supply this country would require more ships than all the navy of Britain. The population of the kingdom was increased by manufactures, and the wealth acquired by manufactures, naturally sought security in land. Mr. Marryat wished to remind the House, that by measures similar to what are now proposed, at the beginning of the French revolution, manufactures had been driven out of France; so that, in a short time, land sunk in value from 25 and 30 to 5 and 6 years' purchase, He admitted that some protection was necessary; but this was too high. Mr. Fitzgerald de

On a division, Ayes, 285. Noes, 33. On a second division, on a motion of adjournment, Noes, 212. Ayes, 42. On a third division, on the question of the Report being read, Ayes, 193. Noes, 29.

Militia kept embodied.

Sir S. Romilly recalled the attention of the House to the number of soldiery kept under arms, in the midst of peace. The militia occasioned a very severe sacrifice to the lower orders. It was also contrary to law, to continue these forces: it was contrary to the constitution. The King never had power to call for the military services of his subjects, except in case of actual invasion and rebellion. Vide the Act of Edward III. Also 42d of his present Majesty. When all causes of calling out the Militia ceased, they ought to be disbanded. He had seen the opinions of the Law Officers of the Crown on this subject; but, he could not accept them for the law of the land. But, how had the Ministers acted? They had first taken their measures, and then asked for advice. These Lawyers too, had made up their opinions in less than twenty-four hours,-and that, on a question of the first importance. After a long investigation Sir Samuel moved that "keeping the Militia embodied during a state of peace and internal tranquillity, is contrary to 42d of Geo. III."

Mr. Bragge Bathurst contended, that while the war with America was not at an end, this country could not be said to be at peace. The Militia Act did not enable the Crown to call the Militia together without cause, but the question of dis-embodying that force was left open by Parliament, when passing that law. Ministers, however, were not acting without the sanction of Parliament, for Parliament had actually voted the money for keeping these troops embodied.

The measure, therefore, had been sanctioned by the Legislature. The Militia was, in fact, kept up, to enable the Crown to send the regular troops out of the country, for purposes beneficial to the national interests. The hardship on the men was trifling: nine in ten were substi tutes: he had heard no complaints from

them.

The Attorney General said, the observations made rendered it absolutely necessary for him to defend the opinion he had given. He could have wished that Go

vernment had taken the opinion of others: | and Spitalfields; Reading, signed by 3,000

but had Sir Samuel himself been applied to professionally, he no doubt would have given the same advice as had been given. It was not likely that he, the Attorney General, would give advice without consideration-and to his friends, too. The opinion given by himself, and his learned friend, the Solicitor General, went on the ground of the responsibility of Ministers: on the exercise of a sound discretion.

Sir A. Pigott said, he never should look for a question of law in the practice of Ministers: they had always one bug bear or other, to render law of no avail. There was no danger of invasion; why then keep up the Militia? because the Ministers thought proper to keep up a large force on the Continent: was this to last for ever? What bound the Ministers to disembody the Militia, at all?-the law. When the necessity for calling them out ceased, they ought as an armed body to cease with it.

persons; Parish of St. Clement Danes, &c. Sir W. Curtis brought up a petition against the Cora Bill from the bankers, merchants, and other inhabitants of the city of London, signed by more than 40,000 persons. The meeting where it had been voted was most orderly; it did not arise from party motives. At this meeting there were Whigs and Tories, and Dissenters of all sorts, all unanimous and anxious to defend the interests of their fellow-citizens. He trusted the petition would have its due weight with the House.

Mr. Lambton said, he never could vote for any measure, against which the sense of the people had been so generally and so unequivocally expressed, and should, therefore move, that the Bill be read a second time this day six months.

Mr. J. Smith thonght the distresses of the farmers had arisen from the dispensation of Providence, in the blight of last year; rather than from importation of foreign corn. The subject was not only one of very great importance, but of considerable difficulty, and among the points not yet sufficiently understood, were those of the mode of taking the average price, and the increase of the population of the country. The House, in his opinion, ought to take more time to deliberate upon it. He should therefore, second the motion.

The Solicitor General declared that, when called on to give an opinion as a lawyer, he would give it freely, He would hold no place that required the contrary. No Act required the Crown to disband the Militia the moment peace was signed. That order must be discretional. In the Local Militia Act, the law said, they should be disbanded six weeks after the termination of the war: this was imperative: but no such provision appeared in Mr. Lambert spoke against the amendthe General Militia Act; the inferencement, and said, it was not the high price was clear, that no such obligation was in- of provisions, but the want of work, which tended. The Militia was, in fact, in the distressed the peasantry in the country, at course of being disbanded; and a great this moment. The consequence of the part of it was already separated---the whole large majorities had been, to convince the would follow, as soon as circumstances people that the Bill would pass. What had admitted. been the consequence of that conviction? Why, the markets, even in London, had been low and dull.

Lord Milton, Sir Mark Wood, and other gentlemen spoke. Some regiments stationed in Ireland, were said to have complained. The Derbyshire Militia had, very respectfully, desired to know the cause why they were kept embodied they appeared satisfied with the answer. It had reached almost to its own county for the purpose of being dis-embodied, when counter orders arrived. The House divided. For the motion, 76---Against it, 179.

Mar. 3.---Petitions against any alteration in the Corn Laws were presented from the Ward of Bilingsgate, signed by 1800 persons; Clerkenwell, Tiverton, Rochdale, Trade House of Glasgow, Coventry, signed by 9,000 persons; parish of Christchurch, signed by 3,000 persons; Woolwich, Ward of Bishopsgate, signed by 3,000 persons; County of Ayr, Parishes of St. Mary, Whitechapel; St. Catharine;

Lord Milton agreed with those who looked upon the present question as a choice of evils, and would vote for that which, to him, appeared the lightest. He was most favourable to the principles of a free trade, but felt it necessary to look to any peculiar situation in which the country, or any class of the population may be placed, and which may require some modification of these principles. He was however, of opinion, that the measure before the House should not be permanent. By being temporary, it would, in his opinion, be greatly improved. In his judg ment, the price of 80s. was preferable to any other proposed. Present relief was all that he conceived the House was called upon to give.

Mr. Whitbread said the petitions of the

« AnteriorContinua »