Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

ence in their domestic finances. Did the noble lord seriously mean to be understood that the sum of 1000l. would make all the difference between practical allegiance and open rebellion in Scotland? He had every respect for commissioners and their reports; but he could not help remarking, that if their suggestions were held conclusive and mandatory-if they were to be erected into judges in supreme, without appeal-it would throw the whole organization and administration of the country into irremediable confusion.

Mr Tierney made an animated speech against ministers, and endeavoured to ridicule the shifts to which they had recourse in opposing all economical reform. If a proposition were brought forward for some general financial reform, then the cry of the other side was, that the whole fabric of the state was about to be overset ; and if a particular practical retrenchment were suggested, the cry was, "What a fuss you are making about nothing-what a noise about one or two thousand pounds!" In fact, if ministers were credited, they were the only proper judges of what public money should be spent, and who ought to spend it. It was impossible for them to be economical -they were obliged to call in the aid of patronage and influence for their support-they existed upon it-it was the foundation of all their hopes, and they could not lose even the fifth part of a fifth Baron of the Exchequer, without some risk to their stability. The establishment was the strong-hold behind which ministers entrenched themselves. If any body spoke of removing the third Secretary of State, or of abolishing the Secretary at War, the cry was the same-" it breaks in upon the establishment:" it was soon very easy to call the establishment the constitution, and then woe to the

man who lifted his unhallowed hand against it! The noble lord had certainly made a very dexterous speech

it possessed all his wonted circuitous ingenuity, and the result must have satisfied the House, that if his health had recently suffered, his intellects and abilities were as great as ever. The Lord Advocate had come down to the House like a true Scotchman, that was, like an honest man, and had maintained that nothing could induce him to think the appointment of a fifth Baron wrong-five was the true, orthodox, infallible number in Scotland; and that no change was wanted, and no inquiry to produce one. But what was the conduct of the noble lord? First, he makes the appointment-then he justifies itand, thirdy, he requires a committee to ascertain whether it was right or wrong. But, looking at the whole of the circumstances, he would askcould any man say that this was not a plain, downright, unequivocal job? The fact was, ministers dared not refuse the appointment of Sir Patrick Murray he did not intend by any means to disparage the qualifications of that gentleman, but the ministers were afraid to refuse his appointment. They well knew that if they had done so, they would have lost some votes in that House. The present ChiefBaron of Scotland (Sir S. Shepherd) had lately been an ornament to that House. He went down, not fully acquainted with the practice of the Scottish courts—a stranger amongst them-and it might have been said, "Don't you think we ought to have five Barons instead of four?" to which he, in his good nature, would say, "In the name of God, let us have five" and then the Scotchmen cried out, "Five for ever!" Considering how favourite a number five appeared to be in Scotland, and what infinite mischiefs might result from re

ducing it to four, It was somewhat odd that the Lord Advocate should have consulted the opinions of only four heads of courts. With still greater singularity he had actually appealed from the magic and mysterious five to dangerous and neglected four, and now set up the opinion of four judges against the decision of five commissioners! In short, Mr T. contended, that the present appointment was a manifest abuse; and that if the House were entrapped by Lord Castlereagh's

proposition into rejecting the present motion, they would put an end to all hope of economy and retrenchment.

After a few words from Mr W. Dundas on the ministerial side, the House divided, when the motion was negatived, but by a majority so small, as plainly shewed a strong sense unfavourable to the appointment. Of 366 members present, 177 voted for the motion, and 189 against it, making a majority only of 12.

CHAPTER V.

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS.

Mr Holme Sumner's Motion relative to Agricultural Distress.-Lord Lansdowne's Motion relative to Foreign Trade.-Other Debates on this Subject. -Motion for Disfranchising Grampound.-The Alien Bill.—Mr Brougham on the Education of the Poor.-Welsh Judicature.

THE subject which, beyond perhaps any other, occupied the attention of Parliament during this early period of the session, was the very serious distress in which the agricultural interest was involved. The great depression consequent upon the low prices of 1814 and 1815 had been sensibly mitigated by the rise which ensued after the scanty crops of 1816 and 1817. The plentiful produce of 1818, however, caused a rapid fall, and though that of 1819 was much inferior, yet the ample stock on hand caused the depression of prices still to continue, when there was no superabundant quantity to compensate for it. A general cry of distress rose among the landlords and farmers in the different quarters of the kingdom, and petitions to Parliament for relief were poured in. There is a sort of impression throughout this country, as if parliament were omnipotent-as if its empire extended over the mar

kets, the seasons, and over nature itself. It did not appear very conceivable that a power which could make war and peace on earth, and could sway the destinies of twenty millions of men, should not be able to regulate the price of a peck of oatmeal, or a pound of butter. It was some time, indeed, ere Parliament itself became fully aware of its own impotence, or could believe that all its ponderous machinery of committees, examinations, and reports, had no action whatever on the movements of the economical machine. By welcoming and acting upon the applications made to it, this assembly encouraged the false expectations which the nation had been led to cherish from its interference. Buoyed up by these, the farmers now came, and demanded that Parliament should procure for them a price for their grain, such as would pay the expense of cultivation. The fact, however, was, that Parliament

had already done all which legislative enactment could do. In excluding foreign grain when wheat was under 80s. a quarter, it secured to the farmer all the monopoly which the nation would possibly submit to. Under the experienced failure of this provision, however, the views of the agriculturists had taken a different turn. The general call was now for a high permanent duty, to be levied equally, whatever the price of grain might be. Prohibition had failed, and permanent duty being something different, had at least no positive experience against it. It does not seem to possess any other recommendation. A complete prohibition, so long as it operated, was certainly a more powerful instrument than any duty could be; and when the price rose to a great height, it was easy to foresee, that no nation whatever, least of all this nation, would long bear a high duty on its import. These considerations notwithstanding, it was understood that the heads of the agricultural interest were determined to make a push for the adoption of this new system. They did not, however, advance to support it with open front, but judged it prudent to make their approach by the slow and circuitous process of a committee.

During the early part of the session, several desultory conversations took place at the presentation of the successive crowds of petitions; but it was not till the 3d of May that the subject was regularly, and on a great scale, brought before the house. Mr Western was the individual under whose auspices it was understood to be peculiarly brought forward; but as he then laboured under indisposition, Mr Holme Sumner, a highly respectable landed proprietor, and a moderate supporter of ministers, undertook the task of introducing it. He began with denying any feelings

hostile to the merchant or the manufacturer, or any wish to obtain a monopoly for the agriculturist. He only argued, that the House having in 1815 taken the petitions of the agriculturists into consideration, resolved that some protection should be afforded them; and the committee appointed to inquire into the subject reported, that, unless a remunerating price of 80s. per quarter of wheat were secured to the farmer, it would be impossible for him to go on. Now, the prayer of the petitions at present before the House, with the language of which honourable members were sufficiently acquainted, was, that the petitioners should have such a remunerating price as would enable them to carry on their trade: they did not ask more at present than the House had formerly acknowledged that they were entitled to; but they shewed that the provision which had been made for their protection in 1815 was totally inadequate to the purpose for which it had been intended. Nobody, he maintained, could be more loyal than the agriculturists, and no complaints could be more free from any taint of discontent at the burdens which had been brought upon them by the late arduous struggle. They were grateful for the security of liberty and property which they enjoyed in consequence of it. It was obvious, however, that agriculture was in a state of rapid decline since 1814, and that it was falling off more rapidly than ever. honourable gentleman, whose opinions on the subject of political economy had great weight, had said, that if it could be shewn that the agriculturists bore a greater proportion of any public burdens, such as poorrates, than other classes of the community bore, Parliament should afford them assistance. Now, could the honourable gentleman doubt that there were burdens on the agriculturists

An

from which other classes were exempted? What would the honourable gentleman say to the weight of the whole church establishment, which was borne exclusively by the landed interest to the whole county expense, to the whole expense of all the highways in the kingdom, except that of the turnpikes? It was impossible that the agriculturists of a country so situated could, without the assistance of some restrictive measures, compete with foreign markets, when corn from the Black Sea could be brought into our ports at half the price at which our own farmers could afford to sell it. Some persons might say, "since grain can be procured from foreign countries at half the price, why grow any here ?" If this principle were admitted, it was clear that the agriculturist must withdraw his capital; and the consequence would be, that Great Britain must be rendered wholly dependent on foreign productions: one of the most beautiful countries in the world would thus be converted into a perfect desert, and thrown into a state of dependence on foreign imports for the necessaries of life. The agriculturists pledged themselves to prove, that the bill of 1815 had left them nearly as unprotected as if it had never passed. In striking the average, a system of fraud and falsehood had been practised, by which the interests of the agriculturists had suffered most materially; for, since the year 1815, the English grower had not received an average price of 72s. The honourable gentleman declined mentioning any specific measure; at the same time, he gave it to be understood, that the success of the present application would be followed up by a request to adopt some such measure for their

relief.

Mr Gooch, in seconding the motion of Mr Sumner, went over very nearly the same ground.

Mr Robinson, the member of administration under whose superintendance the concerns of trade, and particularly of the corn trade, were peculiarly placed, rose to express the sentiments of himself and his colleagues. Among the various subjects to which the attention of Parliament was directed, none required to be treated with more reserve and caution, and, he would add, with less frequency, than the question which his honourable friend had this night submitted to the House. The discussion of all topics connected with the subsistence of the people gave rise to so much apprehension, that in all countries the agitation of these subjects was thought to involve great danger. He regretted, therefore, to find the question of the corn-laws introduced at present. When it was mentioned last session, ministers had unequivocally declared their disapprobation of any change in the existing law. Admitting that there certainly existed distress, he yet conceived it to have been a good deal exaggerated. He did not see the usual symptoms of general agricultural distress; he did not see tenants leaving their farms; he did not see individuals taking them on speculation as they became vacant; he did not see the poor-rates increasing. The depression appeared to him to arise simply in consequence of the change from a state of war, the circumstances of which had afforded encouragement to the cultivation of inferior lands, such as could be rendered productive only at an expense which prices in time of peace could no longer pay. The law of 1815 was said to be ineffectual, because it did not produce to the farmer a constant price of 80s. for his corn. It was said at the time, by some honourable gentlemen, that if the bill were brought in, then 80s. would be the minimum; but he had contended, on the con

« AnteriorContinua »