SETTLEMENT OF THE CORN-LAW QUESTION.
The house of commons resolved itself into committee on Tuesday, the 3rd of February, to consider that portion of the speech from the throne referring to the commercial policy of the government. Sir Robert Peel commenced his speech by bespeaking the patient indulgence of the house. He was about to act, he said, on the assumption adopted in the queen’s speech, that the repeal of prohibitory duties, and the relaxation of protective duties is in itself a wise policy. He was about to act on the presumption, that during the last three years, notwithstanding the relaxation of heavy taxes, there had been increased revenue, increased demand for labour, increased commerce, increased comfort, contentment, and peace in the country. Passing on to the explanation of his views and designs, the right honourable baronet said, that within the last three years, the tariff, that is, the whole scheme of customs’ duties, had been submitted to the review of parliament; and the general principle of the changes then effected was, to remit the duty on raw materials, and to subject foreign manufactures to a duty of twenty per cent. Notwithstanding the fears of a falling revenue, those remissions were carried further: in 1844, the duty on wool was altogether reduced; in 1845, the duty on cotton-wool. Almost the only articles of the nature of raw material still subjected to duty were timber and tallow; and he now proposed to reduce these. Tallow, which was chiefly imported from Russia, had a duty on it of 3s. 2d. per hundred weight; he proposed, mainly with a view to our own interests, and partly to induce Russia to follow our liberal policy, to reduce it to Is. 6d. With respect to timber, he could not yet state particulars, as the details needed careful adjustment. The course which government would probably take would be a gradual reduction of the existing amount of duty, where it should rest a certain time lower than at present: the reduction being so apportioned, if possible, as to prevent any derangement of internal trade by inducing parties to withhold the supply of timber, in the hope of realising a large amount of duty; and yet at the same time, as the importation of timber from the Baltic partook in some respect of a monopoly, care would be taken that the reduction of duty should be an advantage, not so much to the producer as to the consumer. Having given the manufacturer the advantage of a free command, without any impost, of the raw materials which enter into his fabrics, he should call upon the manufacturers of the three great articles which entered into consumption as the clothing of the great body of the community, to give a proof of the sincerity of their convictions as to the impolicy of protective duties, by consenting to relax the protection on their manufactures. These three great articles were linen, woollen, and cotton manufactures; and he asked the manufacturers of these at once to set the example to others, by relaxing, voluntarily and cheerfully, the protection they enjoyed. It should not be said, that he considered only the “great interests,” and injured the minor interests. As the case now stood, the great articles of the cotton manufacture, such as calicos, prints, &c., were subject to a duty of 10 per cent, on importation; while cottons made up, as cotton stockings, &c., were subject to a duty of 20 per cent. With respect to the former articles, he proposed that they should be duty free; and that the duty of 20 per cent, on the manufactured articles of cotton in a more advanced state should be reduced to 10 per cent. He proposed also to call on the manufacturers of linen and woollen to relinquish protection on the coarser manufactures used in the clothing of the great body of the people. There would be some loss to the revenue; but he believed that the importation of some articles competing with the production of our manufacturers would stimulate their skill; and, with the capital and enterprise of this country, he did not doubt but they would beat foreign manufactures. At present woollen goods which were made up were subject to a duty of 20 per cent.: he proposed they should be reduced to 10 per cent. Flax was a raw material, he continued, imported free of duty: the duty will be taken off the coarser manufactures; on the finest and made up kinds it would be reduced one half. Silk enjoyed apparently a protection of 30 per cent., practically ranging indeed to 78, or even 145 per cent, on some made up articles, such as net and bonnets, or turbans: but a false reliance was placed on that protection. It was a delusion: many houses in London and Paris undertook to introduce silken goods into this country at half the duty. The revenue and the trade were robbed by the smuggler; and the manufacturer was deluded by an unreal protection. With respect to silks, he proposed, therefore, to adopt a new principle. The general rule would be, enumerating each article of silk manufacture, to levy a duty of so much per pound, giving an option to the custom-house officers of levying for every £100 value of silk, a duty of 15 per cent. Sir Robert Peel went on to explain the reduction of duties on paper-hangings, carriages, metal manufactures, soap, &c., most of which articles are noticed in a subsequent page. By the measure of 1842, he continued, the tariff was greatly simplified. There were one thousand articles still on the list, five hundred of which were free of duty: he proposed that many other articles should be relieved from duty. Brandy and foreign spirits were to be reduced from 22s. 10d. per gallon to 15s. With respect to sugar, he could not enter into details; and he feared his proposition would not satisfy all parties. He would still exclude slave-labour sugar; but on free-labour sugar, the differential duties would be reduced from lis. 8d. for clayed sugar, to 8s.; for Muscovado, from 9s. 4d. to 5s. 10d. He next came to the articles connected with agriculture; first taking those not immediately used as food for the people. On leek and onion seed, he said, the duty was 20s. per cwt.: he proposed to reduce it to 5s. With reference to maize, or Indian corn, he proposed that the duty upon it should hereafter and immediately be nominal. By removing this duty he did not conceive that he was depriving agriculture of any protection. Maize was generally used in the United States, and partly for human food: and he believed that, though it was disregarded in this country, on parts of the Continent it was made into excellent food. His object in providing for its free importation was the better feeding of cattle, which would be an advantage rather than a detriment to the agriculturist. Buck-wheat was to be subject to the same rule: maize and buck-wheat, and the flour of these corns, were to be admitted duty free. “Rice feed,” as a substitute for the expensive article of linseed-cake was also to be introduced, for the better feeding of cattle, duty free. He now came to the food of man. He feared that his proposal would not satisfy both sides—those who insisted on protection, and those who insisted on its total abolition. He could assure both that his desire was, without any favour or undue partiality, to suggest that which he believed to be just, and calculated to terminate that conflict, the continuance of which all must regret. He considered that it was for the public advantage, at least, to lay the foundation of a final settlement of this question; but he was not about to propose the immediate repeal upon grain. But first he explained his course with reference to other articles. Butter, the duty of which was 20s. per cwt., hops £4 10s., and cured fish 2s., were each to be reduced one half. On those articles which constituted meat as distinguished from grain, namely, fresh or salted beef, salt or fresh pork, potatoes, vegetables of all sorts, and un-enumerated articles of the kind, he proposed a total repeal. The duties on live animals also would be abolished. Some urged him to make a distinction in the importation of lean or fatted cattle, as it was unfair to levy an equal amount on both kinds: his proposal to admit materials for fattening cattle would meet that objection. He hoped that these advantages would be considered as somewhat a compensation for any immediate loss that might be felt by the introduction free of the other animals. He asked those connected with agriculture, while he was proposing these reductions, to bear in mind that he had already proposed the removal of protection from some of the great articles of manufacture connected with clothing in this country. He directed their attention not merely to the protection connected with the land, but asked them to remember that he had called on the manufacturers to set the first example of the relinquishment of protection. They would bear in mind that their farm servants and domestics would be able to command a cheaper supply of clothing; and they would, therefore, be disposed to follow the example of those whom he had called upon to make the first example of relinquishment. Sir Robert continued:—“I will now state, with the permission of the house, the proposal which I mean to make on the subject of grain. I propose that, from the passing of the act, some articles shall be admitted duty free. On the one hand, I do not propose the immediate repeal of the corn-laws; but in the hope of a final arrangement, of preventing undue apprehensions, and giving time for the adjustment of agriculture to the new state of circumstances, though I propose a temporary continuance of protection, I propose it on the distinct understanding, that, after the lapse of a certain time, foreign grain shall be imported into this country duty free. I am deeply convinced that any intermediate proposal would be of no avail. It would have been entirely out of my power to explain or to suggest any modification of the existing corn-law with a guarantee that it should be continued. The choice is either between the maintenance intact of the existing amount of protection in every particular, or laying the foundation for an ultimate settlement by means of ultimate freedom. I propose, therefore, a considerable reduction in the existing amount of duties; and I propose that the continuance of the duty so reduced shall be for a period of three years; that it shall then continue till that period of the year in which I believe there will be least inconvenience in the termination of that protection. I propose that on and after the 1st of February, 1849, oats, barley, and wheat shall be subject only to that nominal rate of duty which I have proposed to apply to maize and buck-wheat. But what shall be the intermediate state of the law during the continuance of these three years?” Sir Robert Peel then explained the duties on wheat, oats, and barley, which will be found in a subsequent page; after which, he stated that the arrangement of them would be accompanied by other provisions, calculated, if not to give compensation, at least to advance the interests of the agriculturists. “Take,” he said, “some of the burdens on land, and see whether they are not capable of alleviation, not by their transfer to others, but by introducing reforms into their administration. Take that admitted grievance, the highway-rates. As railways advance, the parish highways will become of increased importance. There are 16,000 local authorities that have charge of these highways. There is a nominal surveyor to each parish—a surveyor who knows nothing about rates. Such a division of authority makes lax expenditure and bad management. An existing act of parliament authorizes the union of parishes for the management of highways; but the act is permissory—the union must be voluntary; and in very few cases has advantage been taken of the statute. I propose to make what is now voluntary, compulsory. Taking the scale of the poor-law, there will be 600 district authorities, instead of 16,000.” Further aid would be given to agriculture in loans of public money for improvement of estates, to persons applying for assistance; the public to be secured against ultimate loss. The loans were to be made by the exchequer-bill commissioners, and the administration of the measure entrusted to the newly-appointed inclosure-commissioners; the preliminary expenses to be borne by the applicant for aid. An annual repayment by instalments was to be secured as a rent-charge, having priority over other charges; but the commissioners would have the discretion left to them of allowing objections made by parties already having a charge on the land. This alteration, Sir Robert said, he believed would lay the foundation for great agricultural improvement throughout the country. He further proposed to relieve the counties of the whole expense of prisoners, and place it upon the consolidated fund: the charges of that fund to be subject to periodical review in the house. The estimated cost of that change was £64,900. In England half the expense of the prosecutions, in Scotland all, is paid by the treasury: he proposed to make the treasury pay the whole in England and in Ireland. The relief would not be great; but it would be of importance, as giving greater control over prosecutions: the estimated expense in England was £100,000; in Ireland, £17,000. At present part of the police force in Ireland was borne by the land: he proposed to impose the whole expense on the state. He proposed, also, that government should bear a share in the cost of medical relief under the new poor-law act; half to be defrayed by government, half by local authorities—the estimated cost was £100,000 for England, and £15,000 for Scotland. Aid also would be given in providing education in workhouses; the unions to appoint, and government to pay the schoolmasters. The expense of this would be £30,000. Finally, government proposed to pay the poor-law auditors in England and Ireland, which would cost £15,000. Sir Robert concluded by thanking the house for the patience with which they had listened to his financial exposition.
A long and desultory conversation followed this explanation of the ministerial measure of free trade; several members avowing their determined hostility, and others promising unlimited support. At the suggestion of Sir Robert Peel, Monday, the 9th of February, was fixed for the day on which the discussion should commence. In order to enable the reader to understand rightly the reductions and alterations proposed in the tariff, it is necessary to glance at the resolutions proposed by Sir Robert Peel in committee of the whole house on the customs and corn act. The first resolution related to the importation of corn, grain, meal, or flour, setting forth the duties to paid until the 1st day of February, 1849, when the duties were wholly to cease. Thus, on wheat, when under 48s. per quarter, 10s. duty was to paid; and this duty was to be lowered Is. on the rise of wheat up to 53s., when there was to be a duty paid of 4s. for every quarter. Barley, oats, rye, peas, and beans, wheat-meal and flour, barley-meal, oat-meal, rye-meal, pea-meal, and bean-meal were by tire same resolution, taxed in equal proportion, until the 1st day of February, 1849, when these duties were likewise to cease and determine; or, at least, to pay only a nominal duty of 1s. per quarter on wheat, let the price be what it might, and the other corn in proportion to its value. By the second resolution, in lieu of duties of customs then chargeable on certain articles, reduced duties were, from the passing of the bill, to be exacted. These articles consisted of what might be termed the necessaries and luxuries of life; and the duties were reduced on some to the amount of one hundred per cent. The articles enumerated in the resolution were agates, or cornelians; ale and beer; almonds; amber (manufactures of); arrowroot; band-string twist; bailey, pearled; bast-ropes; twines, and strands; beads: coral; crystal; jet; beer or mum; blacking; brass manufactures; brass (powder of); brocade of gold or silver; bronze (manufactures of); bronze-powder; buck-wheat: butter; buttons; candles; canes; carriages of all sorts; casks; cassiva-powder; catlings; cheese; china or porcelain; cider; citron; clocks; copper manufactures; copper or brass wire; cotton; crayons; crystal (cut and manufactured); cucumbers; fish; gauze of thread; hair, manufactures of hair or goats’ wool, &c.; hams; harp-strings; hats or bonnets of straw, silk, beaver, felt, &c.; hops; iron and steel, wrought; japanned or lacquered ware; lace, made by the hand, &c.; latten-wire; lead (manufactures of); leather (manufactures of)—calashes, boots, and shoes, of all sorts; linen, or linen and cotton, viz., cambrics, lawns, damasks, &c.; maize, or Indian corn; musical instruments; mustard-flower; paper, painted or stained paper, &c.; pencils, lead and slate; perfumery; perry; pewter; pomatum; pots of stone; puddings and sausages; rice; sago; seeds, garden, &c.; silk (manufactures of), &c.; silk-worm gut; skins (articles manufactured of); soap, hard and soft; spa-ware; spirits, viz., brandy, geneva, and other foreign spirits, &c.; steel manufactures; tallow; tapioca; tin; tobacco; tongues; turnery; twine; varnish; wafers; washing-balls; wax (sealing); whipcord; wire; woollen manufactures. If any of the articles here enumerated was the production of a British possession, they were to be admitted at a reduced duty. Thus, while the woollen goods of foreign countries were to pay £10 for every £100 value, those of British possessions were only to pay £5. By a third resolution the duties of customs, chargeable upon certain goods, wares, and merchandise imported into the United Kingdom, were to cease and determine. These goods, wares, and merchandise were—living animals: viz., asses, goats, kids, oxen, and bulls; cows, calves, horses, mares, geldings, colts, foals, mules, sheep, lambs, swine, and hogs, and sucking-pigs; bacon; beef (fresh and salted); bottles of earth and stone; casts of busts, statues, or figures; caviare; cranberries; cotton manufactures, not being articles wholly or in part made up, not otherwise charged with duty; enamel; gelatine; glue; hay; hides, tawed, curried, or in any way dressed, not otherwise enumerated; ink for printers; inkle (wrought); lamp-black; linen, manufactures of linen, or of linen mixed with cotton, or with wool, not particularly enumerated, or otherwise charged with duty, not being articles wholly or in part made up; magna-grocia ware; manuscripts; maps, and charts; matresses; meat, (salted or fresh), not otherwise described; medals; palmetto-thatch manufactures; parchment; pens; plantains; potatoes; pork, fresh and salted; silk, thrown or dyed, viz., silk, single or tram, organzine, or crape-silk; thread, not otherwise enumerated or described; woollens, viz., manufactures of wool, not being goats’ wool, or of wool mixed with cotton, not particularly enumerated or described, not otherwise charged with duty, not being articles wholly or in part made up; vegetables, all, not otherwise enumerated or described; and vellum.
Sir Robert Peel announced the intentions of government with respect to the reductions in the timber duties on Tuesday, the 10th of February. He was anxious to make the statement at the earliest opportunity, on account of the importance of the subject, and as the American mail was on the eve of sailing from Liverpool. “We propose,” he said, “to make ultimately a reduction in the differential duty on foreign timber, so that the duty shall remain after the reduction at 15s., instead of the present amount. I think on hewn timber the duty is now 25s.; we propose to reduce it 15s. But, with the view of insuring to the consumer as great a benefit as possible, the Baltic timber-trade partaking now very much of the nature of a monopoly, in consequence of the very great demand for it, we do not propose that the reduction shall be immediate. We propose that from the 5th of April, 1847, the period of the year we think most suitable for making a reduction of duty, the duty on hewn timber shall be reduced by 5s.; and on the 5th of April, 1848, by another 5s. With respect to sawn timber maintaining the same proportions, the reduction of duty ought to be 6s. on the 5th of April, 1847, and another 6s. on the 5th of April, 1848. With respect to the smaller description, such as lath-wood, spars, and oars, the reduction will be proportionate.”
Such were the great measures of free-trade brought forward by the government. By the people they were not met with any national demonstration, or by any well-pronounced declaration. The signs of the prevalent opinion, however, were well seen in various quarters, particular as well as general, official as well as popular. Meetings were held in various parts of the country, but success was very partial; and if there was no enthusiastic and unqualified manifestation of the abolition of the corn-laws on the part of “the country,” the opposition to it proved, to be disjointed and petty in the extreme. In parliament the Conservatives put forth all their remaining strength to check the onward progress of free-trade. On the 10th of February, the day fixed for the resumption of the discussion, a “monster debate” commenced, which, as will be seen, continued for some weeks. It was brought on by Mr. P. Miles, who, on the motion that the house resolve itself into a committee, moved that it should do so on that day six months. The measure was further opposed by Lord Norrys, Sirs W. Heathcote and J. Walsh, and Mr. W. S. Lascelles: Lord Sandon and Mr. Cochrane, both of whom were Conservatives, supported it. Lord John Russell proceeded to discuss the mode in which Sir Robert Peel had treated the question. With the principles of the measure he agreed; but he advocated immediate abolition of the corn-laws, and hoped that Sir Robert Peel would reconsider that part of his plan. His lordship concluded by drawing a contrast between the disinterested support which the Whigs were now giving to the free-trade measures of a Tory government, and the factious opposition which the Tories gave to the same measure when proposed by a Whig government. He thought that if the free-trade measures of the Whig government had been allowed to pass when originally proposed, much of the sufferings of 1842 would have been avoided; and that if Sir Robert Peel had then been true to himself, he would have escaped, much of the invective now heaped upon him. After a few words from Sir Robert Inglis and Captain Fitzmaurice in support of the amendment, and from Mr. S. Herbert in favour of the measure, he having “changed his opinion on the subject,” on the motion of Mr. S. O’Brien, the debate was adjourned. The debate continued by adjournment up to February 28th, before any division or amendment took place: the opposition wishing to stop it on the very threshold. On the last night of the debate the house was addressed by Mr. Cobden, who complained that extraneous matter had been introduced into the discussion to a greater extent than had ever been introduced previously into any corn-law debate. The two main topics, he said, on which it had turned, were the conduct of ministers and the propriety of an appeal to the country. The people of England believed that the discussion on the first topic was a quarrel got up for no other purpose than to evade the real question, and to conceal from public observation that there was no justification for the corn-laws. He assured their opponents that the more they covered ministers with obloquy, the more sympathy they would obtain from the country. In point of fact they were making ministers popular: if Sir Robert Peel were to visit the manufacturing districts, his march through them would, be one continued triumph. Even Sir James Graham, who had rendered, himself unpopular by certain measures, by his magnificent contribution to free trade, and still more by the nightly attacks which had been made upon him during this debate, had become an object of popular sympathy in Manchester and Liverpool. As to the wish of the protectionists to appeal to the country, nobody knew better than they did, that they had no chance of obtaining a majority at the next election. Three months ago he had said that the advocates of a free trade had no chance of obtaining that majority; but now that the protectionists were a broken party, and had lost all the talent and intelligence which formerly directed their tactics, the case was altered, and it was they who had now no chance of success in an appeal to the constituency. Speaking of the intelligence of the people on this subject, Mr. Cobden remarked:—“I will tell you what my thoughts were, as T sat at home patiently reading these debates. As I read speech after speech, and saw the fallacies which I had knocked on the head seven years ago reappearing afresh, my thought was, What fun these debates will afford the men in fustian jackets! All these fallacies are perfectly transparent to these men; and they would laugh at you for putting them forward. Dependence on foreigners! Who in the world could have supposed that that long-buried ghost would come again to light! Drain of gold! Wages rising and falling with the price of bread! Throwing land out of cultivation, and bringing corn here at 25s. a quarter! You forget that the great mass of the people now take a very different view of these questions from what you do. Seven years ago they gave in to your reiterated assertions that wages rise and fall with the price of bread. You had a very fair clap-trap against us, as we happened to be master manufacturers, in saying that we wanted to reduce wages. But the right honourable baronet at the head of the government, and the right honourable baronet, the home-secretary, are not suspected by the English people of having such motives on these questions. The English people have no disinclination to refer to high authorities on these matters. They assume that men high in office have access to accurate information; and they generally suppose that those men have no sinister motive for deceiving the great body of the people on a question like the present. You see I do not underrate the importance of your leaders having declared in favour of free trade. On the contrary, I avow that that has caused the greatest possible accession to the ranks of the free traders. Well then, the working classes, not believing that wages rise and fall with the price of bread, when you tell them that they are to have corn at 25s. per quarter, instead of being frightened, are rubbing their hands with the greatest satisfaction. They are not frightened at the visions which you present to their eyes of a big loaf, seeing they expect to get more money, and bread at half the price. And then the danger of having your land thrown out of cultivation! Why, what would the men in smock-frocks in the south of England say to that? They would say, ‘We shall get our land for potato-ground at 1/2 d. a lug, instead of paying 3d. or 4d. for it.’ These fallacies have all been disposed of; and if you lived more in the world, more in contact with public opinion, and less within that charmed circle which you think the world, but which is anything but the world—if you gave way less to the excitement of clubs, less to the buoyancy which arises from talking to each other as to the effect of some smart speech in which the minister has been assailed, you would see that it is mere child’s play to attempt to balk the intelligence of the country on this great question, and you would not have talked as you have talked for the last eleven days.” Mr. Cobden proceeded to discuss the effect of the march of free trade on farmers; proving to demonstration that they were not alarmed by it, and that they were at the very time the discussion was going forward, and with a certainty of the repeal of the corn-laws in prospect, taking farms at a higher rent, and engaging to drain lands at great cost. Speaking of public opinion on protection, he said:—“What is this boasted protection? The country has come to regard it as they regard witchcraft—as a mere sound and a delusion. They no more regard your precautions against free-trade than they regard the horse-shoes that are nailed over stables to keep the witches from the horses. They do not believe in protection; they have no fear of free-trade; and they are laughing to scorn all the arguments by which you are trying to frighten them. How can protection, think you, add to the wealth of a country? Can you by legislation add one farthing to the wealth of a country? You may by legislation, in one evening, destroy the fruits and accumulations of a century of labour: but I defy you to show me how, by the legislation of this house, you can add one farthing to the wealth of this country? That springs from the industry and intelligence of the people of this country.” In conclusion, Mr. Cobden called upon the protectionists cheerfully to make concessions for the good of the community. The debate was closed by Lord George Bentinck, who condemned the proposition of government as vicious in principle, and likely to be deeply injurious, not only to agriculturists, but to all the great interests of the country, On a division, the amendment was negatived by a majority of three hundred and seven against two hundred and forty.
This great fact was now apparent to all men. The Conservatives, however, did not yet give up the struggle, though they fought as men in despair. Having failed in defeating the measure in the whole, they sought to defeat it in its details. On the house resolving itself into committee on the customs’ acts, amendment after amendment was moved by them; and when these were all negatived, they commenced another struggle to defeat the second reading. A division on the second reading took place on the 28th of March, which was carried by a majority of three hundred and two against two hundred and fourteen. Nor yet was the battle won. As if exhausted by the struggle, both parties rested awhile from the strife; but it recommenced on the 5th of May, on a motion that the house resolve itself into a committee of the whole house on the corn-importation bill. This was opposed by Lord George Bentinck, who was considered as the champion of protection; he moved that the speaker do leave the chair that day three months. No division took place on his lordship’s amendment, and the house resolved into committee on the corn-law importation act. Amendments were moved on some of its clauses, but they were all either negatived or withdrawn; and by the 9th of May the report was brought up. Sir G. Burrell moved that the report should be received that day six months; but after a long discussion, which was more distinguished for personal attacks than for sober argument, the amendment was withdrawn, and the bill was ordered to be printed, and to be read a third time on the 12th. The third reading was on that day moved by Sir James Graham, and the final struggle in the house of commons on this great subject commenced. The Marquis of Granby moved that the bill be read a third time that day six months; and in doing so, he did not believe the measure would pass the legislature; but if it did, he hoped their anticipations of evil would prove inaccurate, and that the anticipations of Sir Robert Peel, however vague, would be verified. The debate on the third reading continued by adjournment up to the 16th of May, its opponents putting forth all their strength to defeat it—arguing and pleading for the corn-laws as though the very existence of England depended on their continuance.
On a division, the third reading was carried by a majority of three hundred and twenty-seven against two hundred and twenty-nine, and the bill was then read a third time, and passed amidst loud cheering.
The report of the customs’ duties bill was brought up in the commons on Monday the 18th of May, and though strenuously opposed by Lord George Bentinck, and others of his party, was agreed to without a division; and on the morrow it was read a third time without either discussion or division, and passed.
On the 18th the corn-importation bill was introduced into the lords by the Duke of Wellington, who moved its first reading. The Duke of Richmond said that he could not permit the bill to be read even a first time without entering his protest against it. The first reading was carried without a division, the Duke of Richmond being the only peer who expressed dissent. The Duke of Wellington gave notice that he would move the second reading of the bill on Monday the 25th. This motion was introduced, however, on that day by the Earl of Ripon. The Duke of Richmond moved that the bill be read a second time that day six months; feeling it to be a measure likely to inflict a deadly blow upon British agriculture and the national greatness. The debate continued by adjournment up to Thursday the 28th of May, most of the peers being anxious to deliver their sentiments on this great subject. Lord Ashburton justified the principles of protection. The system of protection, he said, was founded upon three grounds: it was necessary in order to secure industry; it secured us against dependence on foreign countries for food; and there were peculiar burdens upon the land, for which landowners were entitled to compensation. The debate was closed by the Duke of Wellington, who justified the measure in an emphatic speech, and warned their lordships, that if they rejected it, it would only be to have another brought before them. On a division, the second reading was carried by a majority of two hundred and eleven against one hundred and sixty-four.
The customs’ duties bill was read a first time, after the stern opposition of the Duke of Richmond, in the house of lords, on the 20th of May. The second reading was moved by the Earl of Dalhousie on the 4th of June; in doing which is lordship stated generally the ground on which it was based. The noble lord went through the detail of the several articles of the tariff on which reductions were proposed, and concluded by repudiating the notion that the measure was one of pure free trade, and therefore did not go far enough: it was no free-trade measure at all; but one for the removal of prohibitive, and the gradual repeal of protective duties. The Duke of Richmond said, that after the decision to which their lordships had come on the corn-importation bill, he felt it was little use to trouble them with any remarks; and therefore he should content himself with moving that the bill be read a second time that day six months. After a few words from the Earl of Wicklow and Lord Ashburton against the bill, and from Earl Grey and Lord Monteagle in its support, the bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed on Monday week. Before proceeding with the tariff, however, their lordships went into committee on the corn-importation bill. The first night of the committee’s sitting was Friday, June 12th; and the opponents of the measure brought forward so many amendments, that the several clauses were not gone through till the 19th. On that day, after all the amendments had been negatived, it was arranged that the report should be brought up on the 22nd; that afterwards the tariff bill should be proceeded with, as far as possible, and continued on the following day; and that on the 25th the corn-bill should be read a third time. In accordance with this agreement the report of the corn-bill was brought up on the following Monday, and the house went into committee upon the tariff-bill. Several amendments were proposed and negatived, and at length the opponents of the measure gave up the contest. On the following day the bill was reported without amendments, and ordered to be read a third time on Thursday with the corn-importation bill. Upon the motion for the third reading of these bills several noble lords, in opposition, urged their previous arguments, and entered their solemn protests against them; but all opposition was futile: they passed their final stage triumphantly, and on the morrow, Friday, the 26th, the royal assent was given to them by commission, and they became laws.
Thus triumphed Sir Robert Peel. Yet with his triumph as a patriot came his downfall as a minister. Simultaneous with these great and twin measures, the corn-bill and the customs-bill, he had brought in a protection life-bill for Ireland. The premier, in bringing in this bill, was aware that the Whigs, who had supported him in his great free-trade measures, would be to a man adverse to any coercive measure for that country; and his only hope of success was that those of his recent colleagues whom he had so grievously offended by striking the final blow at their darling measure, the corn-laws, would forget their resentment, and act according to their conscience, in a matter which, under ordinary circumstances, and according to their usual policy, would have obtained their hearty support. That hope was vain. They, his former stanch adherents, considered that government had forfeited all claim to their confidence, and therefore declined “to supply them with unconstitutional powers.” The protection life-bill was thrown out by the commons—the Tories uniting with the Whigs, that they might crush a man whom they had idolized—by a majority of seventy-three, although it was urged by stern necessity, and enforced with the whole weight of a triumphant cabinet. On the day after the triumph of the corn-bill and the customs-bill, the premier went down to Osborne-house to tender the resignation of his ministry, in his retirement he carried with him the sympathy and admiration of the great body of the people. All felt that he had not only benefited England by these great measures, but all the world. Nor must the name of Cobden be forgotten in this achievement. The retiring premier, indeed, nobly attributed the whole triumph to that long-tried champion of free-trade. But the names of Peel and Cobden will ever be associated in the annals of the country, as the names of those who struck the final blow at laws which enriched the few at the cost of the whole population.