Obrázky na stránke
PDF
ePub

"total repeal" of all duties and restrictions, which we have been making for the last twenty-five years; for, on April 3rd, 1810, the present Premier thus addressed the House of Commons:

“The principle of total repeal I fully understand. It is certainly a magnificent scheme for introducing, in our intercourse with foreign nations, that principle which ought to regulate the intercourse of this great empire within its own boundaries. I doubt the POSSIBILITY of applying this principle to the external commerce of this country, in a state of society so artificial, with relations so complicated, and with such enormous interests at stake, which have grown up under another principle [the protective principle of the English Constitution], however defective it might be-namely, the principle of protection in certain cases."

Sir Robert Peel then went on to show how injurious the Free Trade principle would prove to our maritime, manufacturing, and colonial systems, and exhibited the beneficial results of the "defective" system of "protection" in words which the most ardent admirer of that "defective" [Constitutional] scheme may well be proud to quote. On the showing of Sir Robert himself, prosperity unequalled had been the effect of the old-fashioned, constitutional, but much abused system of, our "bigotted and ignorant grey-bearded forefathers." When will the Free Traders be able thus to exhibit the good and solid fruits of their so much vaunted schemes?

Read, and I implore you to remember the following passages, (which I quote from the lips of Sir Robert Peel,) as you trace the Tariff and financial measures of their author, the present Prime Minister of the Queen :—

"As I have said before," continues Sir Robert, " theoretically and in the abstract, this magnificent plan [Free Trade] may be correct; but when, on the other hand, I look to the practice, to the great interests which have grown up under another system-when I find that whatever theoretical objections may apply to that system, still great and complicate interests HAVE grown up under it, which probably cannot be disturbed without IMMENSE PERIL—when I, besides, bear in mind that defective as that system, in principle, may be, yet under it this country, considering its population, HAS acquired the greatest colonial empire, the greatest Indian empire, the greatest influence which any country EVER possessed-when I consider, also, that under this system-I will not say in consequence of it, for that may be denied by honourable gentlemen opposite, but simultaneously with it, we present this spectacle to the world—a country limited in extent and population, yet carrying on greater commercial and manufacturing enterprise than any other country EVER exhibited—when I consider all these things, I will not go the length of the Prime Minister, who said, that he who entertained the notion of upsetting THAT SYSTEM, was the maddest man that ever revelled in the visions of insanity;' but this I will say, that I will not consent to put to HAZARD those ENORMOUS interests, for the purpose of substituting an untried principle for one which MAY BE theoretically defective, but under which, PRACTICALLY, OUR POWER AND GREATNESS HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED; fearing that the EMBARRASSMENT, the CONFUSION, and DISTRESS, which may THEREFROM arise, would greatly countervail and outweigh any advantage which can be anticipated from establishing, at the expense of what IS practically good, that which MAY BE theore-lically correct."

[ocr errors]

Thus did Sir Robert Peel, only two years ago, single out the main principle of the British Constitution, and maintain with truth, that under the practice of that principle, (however " defective" some persons may suppose it to be in theory,) Great Britain has carried her commercial and manufacturing enterprises. to greater extent, and has thus acquired greater dominion throughout the world generally, than had been acquired by any nation that had ever before flourished in the world!

The principle under which all this prosperity had been acquired, was, as Sir Robert explained, that of the constitutional, regulating, and protective principle of trade.

It is true, that, at the same time that the Premier made this memorable declaration, and also expressed his resolution not to abandon the ancient constitutional policy, he, nevertheless, partially succumbed to the bold and reckless assertors of the opposite principle, or that of Free Trade. So fallible is man!

He seemed unable to meet his opponents front to front in an argument on the theory of the two principles-he thought that theirs was "a magnificent plan," which "might be correct," and he suspected, notwithstanding its excellent practical effects, that the constitutional principle " might be defective;" but notwithstanding these suspicions, which were founded on his want of capacity to meet the question by argument, when he saw the practical results of the "defective" system, and contemplated the probable national evils which the substitution of the "magnificent plan" might occasion, he believed himself to be firmly resolved still" to walk in the light of the Constitution," and not to be willing to wander in the dark, mysterious, though "magnificent," mazes of false Philosophy; for he pledged himself to Parliament, (I repeat his words, because at this moment they are doubly important,) Sir Robert Peel, two years ago, pledged himself to Parliament in the following words:

"I WILL NOT CONSENT TO PUT TO HAZARD ENORMOUS INTERESTS, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBSTITUTING AN UNTRIED PRINCIPLE FOR ONE WHICH MAY BE THEORETICALLY DEFECTIVE, BUT UNDER WHICH PRACTICALLY OUR POWER AND GREATNESS HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED; FEARING THAT THE EMBARRASSMENT, THE CONFUSION, AND DISTRESS, WHICH MAY THEREFROM ARISE, WILL GREATLY COUNTERVAIL AND OUTWEIGH ANY ADVANTAGE WHICH MAY BE ANTICIPATED FROM ESTABLIShing, at the exXPENSE OF WHAT IS PRACTICALLY GOOD, THAT WHICH MAY BE THEORETICALLY CORRECT."

Thus did Her Majesty's present Prime Minister assert the superiority of practice over theory; and although he was dazzled by the "magnificence" of the theoretical devices of the new-fangled Free Traders, he preferred for his guide the sober, though "defective" practice, of our ancestors. Strange that he should afterwards again yield to the seductions of the Free Trade heresy !

I will not, at present, detain you to argue about that "magnificent" scheme, which may be theoretically correct, and which, in practice, is likely to produce embarrassment, confusion, and distress, or trouble you with an argument to windicate that "defective" principle, under the operation of which we have presented to the world a spectacle of prosperity greater than any other country ever exhibited! I must, however, remark how strange it is that the system for which I contend-the" defective" system of constitutional protection, regulation, and restraint-should have such encomiums passed upon it by one who, on another occasion, declared the principles of Free Trade to be irrefragable! It is for Sir Robert, net myself, to undertake to reconcile that inconsistency.

I shall soon see if, still more recently, another change has or has not come over the mind of the Premier; and if the Constitution is any longer supposed by him to afford light for his path, or is considered as a beacon to warn him off from her principles. If he has again changed his views on this subject, I will

calmly listen to his reasons, and if he has discovered that theory is better than practice, when he has convinced me of my errors, but not till then, I will follow him.

If he has now resolved "to put to hazard enormous and complicated interests," and "the power and greatness of the empire," by adopting the "magnificent," bat, on his own showing, "immensely perilous," plan of Free Trade, it will be my business to investigate by what train of comparison and reasoning, and with what caution, he has arrived at a conclusion so opposite to that which he reached two years ago.

With this resolution, I will proceed to the examination of Sir Robert Peel's Tariff, and endeavour to discover towards which the Premier is steering us, Free Trade and "immense peril," or Protection with "power and greatness."

Sir Robert Peel, in continuation of the developemeut of his Tariff, proceeded to propose a tax on the exportation of coals. These are his words:

"There is another point to which I wish to call the attention of the House. At present there is a duty imposed by law of 4s. per ton on coal exported in foreign ships. At the time that duty was imposed, it was, of course, intended to be levied; but no duty being imposed upon coal exported in British ships, the operation of the reciprocity treaties has exempted coal exported in foreign vessels from the payment of duty. I must say I cannot conceive any more legitimate object for the imposition of duty than coal exported to foreign countries. I speak of a reasonable and just duty, and I say, that an article of our production like coal-an article necessary to the production of manufactures, and by the exportation of which we increase the competition of foreign manufactures with our own—if, I say, we can raise a reasonable amount of duty upon this article when exported to foreign countries, it is a perfectly legitimate source of revenue."

"I do not propose to increase the duty; I will not attempt to prohibit the exportation of coal; but I propose that the duty which was originally intended to be levied on coal exported in foreign ships, namely, 4s. per ton, shall be levied upon coal exported, whether in British or foreign vessels. By imposing the same duty on British as on foreign ships, we deprive foreigners, under the openation of the reciprocity acts, of all grounds of complaint."

It appears, then, that "the reeiprocity treaties" (Free Trade treatics) have hitherto prevented our receiving the duty "intended to be levied on coal exported in foreign ships.". Would that that were the only damage done to us by by those "treaties!" But they have also ruined hundreds of our ship-ownersthey have almost destroyed our "carrying trade," having made foreigners our "carriers," instead of permitting us to "carry" for ourselves-they have brought the shipping of the whole world into competition with our own, and have reduced the price of freight so low, that one part of our mercantile navy is afloat. at a loss, whilst the remainder is idly rotting in our docks. Those "reciprocity treaties" are robbing our sailors, by encouraging their rivals and competitors.

As on everything else, so with our marine, Free Trade operates as a destroyer, and tends to remove us from that powerful, pre-eminent position, in which we had been placed by the constitutional system of protection.

Sir Robert Peel's tax upon the exportation of coal is, however, a step in the right direction, being in opposition to the principle of Free Trade—as such, I cordially approve of it. I wish that the Premier had gone further. In my opinion, coal is an article, the exportation of which, for reasons of state policy, if for no other, ought to be prohibited. Why, I ask, should we strengthen foreign navies,

by sending them, at any price, coal for their Steamers? Or why should we be instrumental in "increasing the competition of foreign manufactures with our own?" When these questions are answered, it will be time enough to proceed further in the argument. Surely the sum of 200,000l. a year, which is all that Sir Robert expects to receive by the exportation of coal, cannot be supposed to be an equivalent for so much national wrong! "But," do you reply, "coal is as wealth absolutely created-dug out of the bowels of the earth; and consequently, we should be unwise to refuse a foreign customer." Call it not "national wealth," until it is come-at-able by the natives! If every cottage in England were supplied with coals, that argument would be worth an answer. A wisc Minister, who wished to encourage the coal trade, would endeavour to find out the way to place the native labourers in such circumstances as to enable them to become good customers for coal, and not decrease their security and wages by strengthening foreign navies, and "increasing the competition of foreign manufactures with our own!" Wisdom would teach the statesman first to seek and obtain a home demand for every comfort, not to strive to extend our foreign commerce, and leave our own people unable to procure such a necessary article as coal.

The great secret, Sir, is, to learn how to improve the circumstances and condition of our own labourers and artisans, and make them customers. This can only be effected by encouraging and protecting domestic enterprise and industry-it can never be accomplished by the "CHAEAPENING" and expansive system of Free Trade.

No truth is more self-evident than that which I have just asserted, inasmuch as, without controversy, every labourer creates MORE than he consumes; so that the inevitable effect of "low prices" upon the class of the industrious must be INCREASING POVERTY.

If our labourers, artisans, and agriculturists were properly remunerated for their industry, which, under a wise system of regulation, they could not fail to be-if the women and infants were emancipated from their horribly disgusting slavery in the coal-pits, and the men who are employed therein were protected. from excessive and overwhelming toil, by a Time-bill, for six hours a day, we should have no need to seek customers for our coals in foreign countries, for then coal getting would be profitable, because the home demand would absorb the supply it would no longer be disgusting, because it would be divested of all its horrors and cruelties.

While on this subject, I cannot avoid expressing my grief, on perceiving, by the Parliamentary Reports, that Earl Fitzwilliam has again been digracing himself, by upholding his Philosophy in the House of Lords, and endeavouring to stifle the universal burst of execration against the Satanic practices in our coal-mines! He says, that the agricultural labourers are used as badly as the women and infants in our mines. If it be so, England's crime is multiplied! But how can the Noble (!) Earl answer to his countrymen? He might have been ignorant of the cruelties inflicted in our coal-pits-of those in our fields he must have been cognizant; and yet, till now, he has been dumb respecting them!

How loudly did he rail against "the bloody tyrants in our colonies!" For

[ocr errors]

many years,

"the horrible cruelties of our colonial slave masters" were the theme of his indignant orations! In his youth, they served him as steppingstones to his senatorial seat; when all the while, if his present charge against the British agriculturists be true, he was cognizant of cruelties at home, (more barbarous and savage than those in the West Indies,) respecting which he then was silent!

Hypocrisy so flagrant was not known before! What pity, that an English Noble (!) should have worn the mask so long! As a man, I am bound to respect Earl Fitzwilliam-I grieve, that Philosophy has ironed his heart!

It is, however, gratifying to know that Earl Fitzwilliam stands the unrivalled. and unenvied apologist of the enormities of the Mines! Amongst the people, the press, and the nobles, he alone has been found striving to check the indignation consequent upon the publication of the First Report of the Children's Employment Commissioners! The virtues of his sire are dimmed by the Philosophy of the

son!

Excuse this digression hereafter I shall have much to say on that most interesting and most important subject-the Coal-mines of Britain-those "dark places of the earth, which are full of the habitations of cruelty."

I have now traced Sir Robert Peel's new scheme through that part of it which relates to his new Taxes. The annual receipt anticipated from them all is 4,381,000l. The Premier proceeds ::

"From this sum I have to deduct the present estimated deficiency of income as compared with expenditure, for which I must provide by an actual vote of the House. That deficiency amounts to 2,570,000l., after providing for which, I shall have a surplus of 1,811,000/.; but then the House will bear in mind that the deficiency arises upon the votes of the year, and that I have to add to that the excess of expenditure on account of the China expedition, which I cannot estimate at less than 800,000. Then, again, whatever measures the position of the affairs in India may require us to adopt during the present year, must also be deducted from the surplus: but, for the present, subject to the additional deductions when they occur, I calculate upon a surplus of 1,811,000., after defraying the excess of expenditure on account of the actual votes.'

"

Having thus exhibited the expected state of the revenue as consequent upon his new financial measures, Sir Robert proceeded to develope his commercial policy. It is due to the Premier that his own introductory remarks should precede the statement of his scheme. I will neither add to nor subtract from them, he shall speak for himself. If these, his own words, are not consistent with others which I have quoted from the same lips, I cannot help it. Sir Robert said— . ·

"And now having that excess of revenue, in what manner shall we deal with it? I propose to apply it in the manner which I think will be most conducive to the public interests, and most in consonance with public feeling and opinion—namely, by making great improvement in the commercial tariff of the country, and in addition, by making a considerable abatement of the duties at present levied upon some of the great articles of consumption. I look to the tariff, and I find that it comprises no less than twelve hundred different articles, subject to various rates of duty. During that interval which I have been blamed for taking, I can assure the House that each individual article of the tariff has been subjected to the careful consideration of myself and my colleagues. We have endeavoured to determine, as well as we could in the case of each article, the proportion which the duty bears to the average price of the article, for the purpose of determining to what extent it may be desirable to make a reduction of duty. The measure which we shall

« PredošláPokračovať »