nople for those papers already asked for, respecting the instructions given to our officers with regard to the retreat of the Egyptian troops? He found the subject alluded to in the papers, page 268, on the table, in a letter from General Mitchell to Captain Stuart. Sir Robert Peel had already told the gallant Officer that he had ordered every inquiry to be made at the Foreign-office respecting those papers, and he found that they had not been received there. If on further inquiry these papers should be forthcoming, he would use his own dis. cretion as to giving them. : Sir C. Napier would the right hon. Baronet produce to the House a copy of the instructions given to Sir R. Stopford, Sir Robert Peel observed that it would be only necessary to send to Greenwich for them. He, however, must decline doing so at present. Sir C. Napier regarded the directions sent to Constantinople to be the most important of the two. the 1st day of January, 1839, to the 31st of July, 1841, specifying those in which the late Lord President of the Court of Session presided, and those in which any other, or what judge presided." A discussion arose on this motion, in the course of which it would be in the recollection of the House, strong allusions were made to him, and not made in the most delicate manner; that he had made statements which were not founded in fact. This seemed to be the impression which had been raised by this statement. He naturally felt uneasy under these circumstances; he might at the time have stated that the refusal to grant the papers called for was the act of her Majesty's Government, and they had refused to give them without consulting him in the least degree. As for the documents themselves, he was desirous that they should be produced, as there could be no difficulty in obtaining the information contained in them in another manner and without the slightest hesitation. He wished to give every publicity to the facts. Indeed, nothing could be so foolish as to attempt secrecy with obtained from the attorney's clerks. His attendance in that place rendered it impossible for him to speak at the time ot the discussion from his own personal information; and he felt that it would be better to remain perfectly silent, than to make what might appear to be a qualified statement, when he had so strong a conviction that what he had formerly asserted was true, and not to attempt to remove the slur cast on him, until he could clearly convince the House. He had, therefore, written immediately after the debate to the Lord Justice Clerk; and his lordship, on receiving the letter, had taken to his councils the Solicitor-general of Scotland. He would read to the house that part of the reply which appeared to him to bear most immediately upon the question: LORD PRESIDENT HOPE.] Sir W. Rae hoped that the House would ex-respect to a document which might be tend its indulgence to him for a very few minutes, while he entered into an explanation with respect to a circumstance which occurred the other evening. The House would recollect that in the course of the debate which took place last week, a statement was made by a right hon. Gentleman, lately Under Secretary of State, with respect to the late Lord President of the Court of Session, to the effect, that that learned judge had not performed any essential part of the most important duty in the jury court during the last two years. He did not hesitate to rise and say, that he thought that this statement was erroneous, and without foundation, and also he said, that he did not think the erroneous statement was intentionally made by the right hon. Gentleman. He went further, and said, the late Lord President, down to a very late period of his holding his high office, regularly and uniformly discharged the duties. appertaining to it. On the following day a motion was made by the same right hon. Gentleman to the effect, that, "An humble address be presented to her Majesty, that she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before the House a return of the number of jury cases in the first division of the Court of Session, from "You are perfectly correct as to all the statements you made as to my father. He presided in all the jury trials, after the court rose in July last, in his division; was in court on one case till nearly nine at night, and out next morning at ten for the next trial, not one whit tired. It so happens that, after taxing our memories, neither the Solicitor-general nor I can recollect more than three jury causes in all Edinburgh in which any one has sat for my father since November, 1830, when jury trials devolved under your act upon him." Such was the statement he had received CORN-LAWS-MINISTERIAL PLANADJOURNED PROCEEDINGS (SECOND DAY).] On the motion of Sir R. Peel the Order of the day for the adjourned debate was read. from such high authority as the Lord Lord had voted against the production of Justice Clerk of Scotland, and having these returns. made this statement he would not say more. He would not say one word of unkindness to the right hon. Gentleman, who, he regretted, was absent from the House from indisposition; but he must observe that the right hon. Gentleman seemed so urgent in the observations he had made, that he (the Lord Advocate) was determined to take measures to ascertain how the facts with reference to the matter really were, and he thought it right to lay those statements before the House. Mr. Wakley observed, that the other night the discussion arose on the motion for returns, which would, if produced, have set the question at rest, but the motion was opposed by the Colleagues of the learned Lord; who, therefore, was not justified in blaming his side of the House. If the motion had not been opposed there could have been no imputation on the character of the learned Lord, and it was also probable that it would appear that no blame was imputable to the late Lord President. However, the statements made by the Lord Advocate were, as far as he (Mr. Wakley) was concerned, perfectly satisfactory. Mr. Roebuck said, he would take all the blame to himself with reference to the observations which were called indelicate by the learned Lord opposite. He objected to the refusal of the motion upon constitutional grounds, for he thought justice should be above suspicion, and if the motion was refused, he felt that suspicion would rest not only upon the Lord President, but upon the learned Lord. The explanation then made should have been made before. Sir William Clay might as well commence what he had to state to the House, by at once confessing his inability to reply to the speech of the hon. Member for Knaresborough; even had he the ability he should not have the inclination to do so. He would not willingly do any thing which could damp the ardour of that hon. Gentleman, any thing which should check him in his career, and thereby deprive the House of the amusement that career was sure to afford, or the party to which he (Sir William Clay) had the honour to belong, of the advantage of the hon. Gentleman's hostility. He turned with satisfaction to the speech of the right hon. Board of Trade,-a speech which needed Gentleman, the Vice-President of the not the contrast afforded by that to which he had just alluded, to enable all who heard it, justly to appreciate the talent, courtesy, Clay) thought the conclusions at which and moderation it displayed. He (Sir W. the right hon. Gentleman arrived unfounded, he trusted to prove to the House that they were so; but that was most assuredly to be attributed to the untenable nature of the position he had to maintain, and not the attempt. Before replying, however, to any defect of ability in him who made to the right hon. Gentleman, he would refer for a moment to the speech of the right hon. Baronet, on introducing the motion, the amendment to which they were now discussing. That speech, unlike all others, he had ever heard from the right Mr. Horsman said, that his right hon. hon. Baronet, was more remarkable for its Friend, who was absent, had made a state- omissions than for what it contained, affordment which he was justified in the eyes ing far less matter for reflection, by what of the public in having made. It was, was, than by what was not, to be found therefore, with the view of ascertaining in it. Those omissions indeed were so rethe facts of the case, and to do justice to markable in a carefully digested speech by all parties, that his right hon. Friend, in a the first Minister of the Crown,-introspirit which he thought that the House ductory of a motion of such moment, and would appreciate, moved for these returns. under very grave and anxious circumThe learned Lord now stated, that he stances, that it was impossible, looking at wished that these returns had been the great abilities of the right hon. Bagranted; if such was his impression at ronet, his eminent skill as a debater, and the time, he (Mr. Horsman) was surprised his well known prudence, not to feel that the learned Lord did not express satisfied that the points he had abstained himself to that effect, and he was still from defending, were incapable of defence. more surprised when he found the learned ❘ The currency for instance. The right hon. 450 Baronet could not be ignorant that there our chief is not going to do business in the was an all but universal opinion among hasty unworkmanlike style of the late men the men best acquainted with that subject, he will bring forward no crude undiwhether theoretically or practically, among gested measures-see the pains he takes to the best informed commercial men, the procure information-he is not content profoundest thinkers, and the ablest writers, with all the blue books we have already on that the existing Corn-laws, did injuriously corn-he has sent his own agent to collect affect the. currency,-did mainly tend to facts and to furnish unanswerable data for produce those fluctuations in its amount,- a new Corn-law." The House and the those alternations of expansion and contrac- public were on tiptoe with expectation; tion, which we had of late years so fre- Mr. Meek's report is laid on the Tablequently witnessed; and which, by their of course the right hon. Gentleman refers consequences, spread bankruptcy and ruin to its details as the basis of his calculation through the land. The right hon. Baronet of the protecting duty, it would be necould not but be aware of the prevalence of cessary or wise to place on corn-not in a this opinion; he was bound either to show, single sentence does he allude to it, and that it was false, or that his. proposed mo- from the right hon. Gentleman's speech, dification of the Corn-laws would remedy the world would never have been aware of the evil. He did neither: indeed, he (Sir the pains he had taken to procure informaW. Clay) believed, that in a speech of tion, or even that such a personas Mr. Meek three hours duration he did not even was in existence. Seriously, there was but once mention the subject. Again, it one mode of accounting for this omission, was charged against the Corn-laws, that namely, that Mr. Meek's report took away they went far to prevent all sound and every shadow of justification for the scale wholesome commercial relation between of protection which the right hon. Gentle this and other countries, that they rendered man proposed to give to the agricultural dangerous and uncertain, and greatly re- interest, by showing beyond the possibility duced in amount the trade between this of doubt, that the British agriculturist, if country and the corn growing countries of his energies were not cramped and his Europe which would otherwise be our best capital misdirected by the effects of monocustomers, whilst with America they pre- poly, could successfully compete probably vented a trade in corn altogether, that without, but certainly with, a moderate they thus converted customers into rivals, fixed duty, with the foreign grower of corn. friends into enemies. The impression to He now turned to the speech of the right this effect was universal among the ma- hon. the Vice President of the Board of nufacturing and commercial classes; proof Trade. That right hon. Gentleman boldly of its truth was understood to have been faced the difficulties which the right hon. recently brought under the notice of the Member for Tamworth had shrunk from right hon. Gentleman. Did he allude to meeting-but he (Sir W. Clay) doubted it in his speech? Did he attempt to show whether the discretion of the right hon. that the change he proposed would be Baronet was not better advised than the sufficient to relieve our trading intercourse valour of the right hon. the Vice-Presiwith other countries from the embarrass- dent. The right hon. Gentleman had ments created by the present laws? No, assumed throughout his speech, that the he was silent; and his silence, where he question was between the sliding-scale and beyond all doubt, would so gladly have a fixed duty of 8s., the question raised by spoken, could he have afforded consolation the noble Lord's amendment might ceror held out hope, spoke volumes, and tainly be said to be between a fixed duty was of itself sufficiently significant. But and a sliding-scale, but the noble Lord perhaps the most remarkable of the gave no authority in his speech for saying right hon. Baronet's omissions, was his what was the fixed duty he had in view. omission of all notice of Mr. Meek's re- He indicated the principles on which it port, a gentleman expressly sent out by should be calculated but did not name the himself to obtain "information concerning rate. He said it ought to cover the exthe cost and supply of agricultural pro- clusive burthens borne by the agricultuduce in several parts of northern Europe." ral interest, if any such there were. Rumours of this mission had got abroad he (Sir W. Clay) was quite sure, that any prior to the assembling of Parliament. such calculation would not result in a The adherents of the right hon. Gentle-duty of 8s. When in 1837, he moved the man out of doors had said, "Ah; you see repeal of the Corn-laws, he had looked VOL. LX. {T} Third Now very carefully into this subject, and being really anxious to find a justification of the duty of 5s. the quarter on wheat, which for the sake of conciliation (being no great believer himself in the necessity of any duty for the protection of agriculture), he meant to propose, he could not (and that was prior to the Tithe Commutation Act) make out any exclusive burthens borne by the landed interest to nearly the extent of 5s. per quarter. The noble Lord, had stated another ground for the imposition of a protecting duty, namely, the danger which might attend too sudden a change affecting so large a mass of capital, and so great an amount of labour. This ground for protection was less capable of exact estimation, he (Sir W. Clay) did not rate it highly, he had no means of knowing at what rate it was estimated by the noble Lord, nor knowing whether he still thought that 8s. would be a fair amount of duty. He meant only to remind the right hon. Gentleman and the House, that a rate which his noble Friend and his colleagues might properly and fairly have proposed as a compromise between contending interests last year, did not of necessity preclude them to all future time, from taking a new view of the amount of protection it would be just and wise to give to the landed interest. He was however, content to meet the right hon. Gentleman on his own ground, and to argue this question as between an 8s. duty and a sliding scale. There was one feature in the right hon. Gentleman's speech, which he thought must have struck other Gentlemen as forcibly as himself, namely, that whilst he carefully disclaimed all similarity of principle between the proposed and the existing Corn-laws, the arguments used by him, as well indeed as by the right hon. Baronet, completely proved an identity of principle between the two. The reasoning of both being so completely a defence of the existing laws, that he should think it must often have occurred to their agricultural supporters why, if those laws were so good and they asked for no change any change should be attempted. Fluctuation of price for instance. The right hon. Gentleman argued, not that the new laws would not cause fluctuation, but that the existing laws had no such tendency that was a bold proposition. The Corn laws not only produced fluctuation of price by the irregular and capricious mode in which they permitted the introduction of foreign corn, but by tempting the farmer by the expectation of high prices to sow a greater breadth of any particular grain than he otherwise would, and the increased breadth of growth coinciding with favourable seasons, produced, a depression of price, to be succeeded, of course, from an inevitable re-action, by a corresponding advance. The right hon. Gentleman would find abundant proof of this fact in the evidence given before the Committee of 1836. He would only trouble the House with the evidence of one witness:-Thomas Bowyer, farmer and maltster, of Buckden, Huntingdonshire, says, "There has been a great increase in the produce of wheat in our neighbourhood; but even now, from the relative prices of wheat and barley, one-seventh less wheat sown this year and considerably more barley. From 1833 to 1836, little but wheat grown on strong clay soils, farmers have thus gone into an extreme of wheat growing because it paid them best in former years. The old system, many years ago, was, as many acres of barley as of wheat; now we sow three acres of wheat to one of barley, on the clay soils. The number of acres lately sown with wheat bears no proportion to what it was twenty years ago, it was then, perhaps, as three to five. Speaking of wheat and barley within the last three years, there have been three acres of wheat to one of barley." The right hon. Gentleman to show that the Corn-laws were not, by limiting the supply of corn from foreign countries, the cause of fluctuation in price, referred to the prices of rye in successive periods in Prussia, in which greater fluctuations of price had occurred, than in wheat during similar periods here. This appeared to him (Sir W. Clay), a most unfortunate reference. The right hon. Gentleman said the prices of rye in Prussia were not affected by foreign demand; in respect of rye, Prussia was a country depending on itself for its supply of grain; the price of rye was regulated solely by supply and demand within the country, and see, said the right hon. Gentleman, how great has been the fluctuations-why that was his case! The opponents of the Corn-laws contended, that exactly in proportion as they extended the circle from which they drew their supplies of grain, would they diminish the chance of inequality in that supply. The annual produce of one field would be less regular than of a whole farm-of a farm than a county-of a county than a kingdom-of a kingdom than the world, and if by a free-trade without or with a moderate fixed duty, facture; on the other, manufacturers in they enabled themselves to obtain the produce of every variety of soil and climate, they reduced in a very high degree the chances of inequality of supply, and consequently, of fluctuation, in price. He had next to advert to the gallant attempt, that attempt from which the right hon. Baronet had shrunk,-to show that the Corn-laws had not that injurious effect on the currency which had been at tributed to them, and that the change to a fixed duty would not tend to make the currency more secure. His argument was this. If you had an open trade, and every year, instead of consuming 20,000,000 quarters of home grown wheat, consumed 18,000,000 of home grown and 2,000,000 of foreign, you would still be subject to the effect of years of short growth, such as the last four, and would want an additional 2 millions of quarters per annum,and the payment for this extra quantity must as now be in gold, and would equally, as at present, derange your currency. The fallacy into which the right hon. Gentleman had fallen, arose from his not having observed the vast difference between creating or only extending a market for our manufactures. At present we were in the former predicament. After a long interval perhaps, during which the Corn-laws have suspended all trade in corn, a sudden deficiency compels us to ransack the world for supplies, to avert famine. We go to some corn growing district,-Egypt,Odessa, the fertile valley of the Mississipi, -for instance, but we find there, peither a knowledge of our goods, nor consequent desire to possess them, nor dealers in them, nor the machinery necessary for Bring to us that grain which you can distributing them,-all which things are raise more cheaply than us, and we will absolutely essential to constitute a market, give you in return the articles of use or and we have consequently no means of enjoyment we can produce more cheaply paying for the corn we want, but in the than yourselves. At all times, you shall precious metals, the general medium of receive a cordial welcome, our ports shall interchange. But suppose the case re- be open to your ships, and you shall not be versed, suppose in western America, for entrapt into loss, by variations in our instance, a steady trade in corn with this fiscal regulations which you cannot forecountry to the amount of a million of see, and of which no prudence would quarters, and that, under such circum- suffice to avert from you the ruinous stances, we wanted an increased sup- effect." Could the Government of the ply. In the first place there would right hon. Baronet use such language? be far longer time for preparation-for No. They dare not, for very shame collecting and shipping the increased sup- propose to foreign nations to give us ply under a system of free-trade than at in exchange for our goods the very present. In the next, the merchants in article we most want and they can best America would, on the one hand, find produce. It will still be the fate of customers among their neighbours per- the people of England under the new as fectly ready if they had more means to in-under the existing law, to know that there crease their use of the articles of our manu-exists plenty of which they may not par. 66 |