Hide Articles List

15 articles on this Page






HOUSE OF COMMONS.—FRIDAY, JULY 6' Mr-Herries gave notice that on the first motion for going into committee of supply on ways and means, he would call attention to the present condition of the revenue, and to the expediency of increasing the revenue by a fixed duty on the importation of foreign corn. Lord J. Russell replied that the part taken by the Emperor of Russia in assisting Austria to put down the insurrection in Hungary was no violati( n of the treaty of Vienna. He (Lord J. Russell) did not believe the current rumour about a con- templated division of territory between the two emperors. On the motion made by Lord John Russell for postponing the consideration of the measure on the Marriages (Scotland) Bill, to Monday, at twelve o'clock. Mr. F. Mackenzie objected to such an arrangement, and moved as an amendment, that the report be considered that day three months. The house divided, and there appeared- For Lord John Russell's motion. 136 Against it 60 Majority against the amendment——76 After a lengthened conversation the bill was fixed for Mon- day, at noon. STATE OF THE NATION. The adjourned debate on Mr. Disraeli's motion—'That the house resolve itself into a committee of the whole house to take into consideration the state of the nation—was re- sumed by Mr. Slaney, who opposed the motion. lie could not attri- bute to the operation of free trade the present suffering of the people. He thought that the potatoe blight and the distur. bances of Europe were sufficient to account for the general distress. Mr. G. A. Hamilton reviewed the state and prospects of Ireland, and contended that the policy of the Government had greatly increased the dillicuItics by which the restoration of that country to prosperity and a sound social system was surrounded. He asserted that the interests of Ireland had been sacrificed to the English manufacturers. Mr. llume defended the conduct of the Government towards Ireland. He explained the reasons that induced him not to mo-e the amendment of which he had given notice. Had he done so he would have embarrassed the fair discussion of the free trade policy, and prevented the sifting of facts bearing on the results of that policy. He admitted that the great in crease of pauperism was most alarming, but he denied that free trade was the cause of it. In fact, we were labouring under a delusion when we fancied we haulree trade. He wished we had. He assigned to the operation of excessive and unequal taxation the poverty of the country, and he insisted that nei- ther the present rents could be paid to the landlords nor the present taxes paid to the Government. The Earl of March congratula-ed Mr. Hume on having made a protection speech instead of moving an atiti-protective amendment. The noble lord proceeded to dissect the allega- tions and arguments made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to show that the right hon. gentleman's information was erroneous, and the argument founded on them comequcntlv of no avail. The noble 'onl described the distress nnder which the agriculturists are suffering. Sir R. Peel said he would not enter into the questions of a purely political consideration laised by the motion, because i? would be impossible to deal with the foreign policy, the Irish policy, the colonial policy of the Government in asingie speech. The main point put in issue by the motion .vas whe- ther the Government should or should not be displaced tor the purpose of subverting the commercial policy they had adopted. He could not consent to a motion that IVould displace the Government for this purpose, because, he cordially approved of the economic principles they supported. Smce their acces- sion to office he had felt it his duty. considering the difficulties thit surrounded them at home and abroad, to give a general support to their measures he felt that a Government so cir cumstauced should not be impaired by a factious or captious opposition. The right honourable gentleman proceeded to examine the grounds on which Mr. Disraeli had impeached the commercial policy of the Government, and then inquired whether a different niincipieof economic policy could contri bute to the welfare and prosperity of the country. He took Mr. Disraeli's admission that in 1846 Europe was tranquil, the Government respected, the exports large beyond prece- dent, and the country prosperous; and he argued that, as the new commercial policy had then been pursued tor some years, it could not be maintained that that new commercial policy was productive of general distiess The right honourable baronet entered into an elaborate defence of his tariff, contending that experience proved that we could fight hostile tariffs with free imports, and denying that because there was a diminution in the declared value of our exports, therefore it was to be inferred that the labouring classes received less in wages. He quoted letters from chippenham, Nottingham, and Dundee, to establish that the manufacturing operatives were now obtaining better wages, and were much better off than for many years. He questioned the accuracy of the poor-law returns depended on by Mr. Disraeli, and insisted that the arguments drawn from these.Teturns wera-erroneous. Having examined Mr. Disraeli's argument, the right hon. gentleman declared that, in his opinion, the impeachment ot the com. mercial policy of the last five years had utterly failed, Then, as to a return to the principle of protection, he held it to be impossible. If the new commercial policy were an error, it was an error that was likely to be perpetuated. He maintained that the principle of protection was vicious, and he boldly as- serted that our true po!icy was to combat hostile tariff's with free imports. The doctrine of buying in the cheapest and selling in the dearest market he repeat d and justified. The right hon gentleman concluded bv imploring the house not to listen to the proposal of a paltry fixed duty on corn, which he understood, from the notice given by Mr. Herries, would be made—he besought them to reject any such proposal, and not to barter the glorious heritage of a most sagacious and timely po'icy for the smallest and most worthless bargain ever made since the time of him who sold his birthright for a mess of pottage. The Marquis ofGranby urged that the admission of general prosperity in 1846, before the repeal ot the corn laws, could not be taken as an admission of the benefits of free trade. Lord J. Russell rested on the arguments used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for a delence of the general policy of the Government, and the speech made by Sir R. Peel for a defence of their commercial policy. His lordship quoted returns later then those relied on by Mr. Disraeli, to prove that the state of the country in regard to pauperism had improved since last year Still he admitted that the agricul- tural distress was very severe but he denied that it was in consequence of the introduction of free trade. He had no hesitation in avowing that, true as was the principle of free trade, it would have been wiser to reduce the duty gradually, and to have begun by a fixed duty. But that proposition was made, and rejected with disdain. It was a curious feature that he who had once proposed an 8s. fixed duty on foreign sugar, should find those who ha 1 refused these arrangements propose themselves, in 1848, 10s. duty on sugar, and in 1849 a moderate fixed duty on foreign corn. The noble lord con- cluded his speech by describing the peculiar difficulties that his Administration had to encounter, and cited the way in which they acted with respect to the Bank Charter Act, with respect to Ireland, and with respect to foreign countries, as proofs that they had not flinched from meeting those difficul- ties energetically, whatever defects might have been in their mode of doing so. He did not ask the House, by their vote on that occasion, to declare that they had confidence in the Government, but he did ask them not to declare that to tie conduct and and policy of the Government the distress of the country was attributable. Mr. Muntz made a few remarks descriptive of the low con- dition of the operatives in Birmingham. Mr. Disraeli replied, in an able speech, in which he grap- pled with arguments advanced by the Chancellor of the Ex- chequer and Sir R. Peel, and administered to the last gent!- man several well-aimed and severe stripes for his newborn zeal in supporting a systematic attempt to depress the na- tive industry of the country. The House divided at three o'clock— For Mr. Disraeli's motion 156 Against it 296 Majority against the motion 140 The other orders of the day were shortly disposed 01, and the House adjourned. MONDAY. The Lord Advocate moved that the Marriages (Scotland) Bill, as amended, he read a third time. The House divided, and the numbers were.- f or the amendment 68 Against it 7,'J Majority against —5 1 he debate was adjourned till Thursday. The House then went intu Committee of the whole House on Railways and Distressed Unions (Ireland). The Chancellor of the Exchequ r moved in Committee an advance out of the Consolidated Fund of £ 500,000,, as a loan for the purpose of completing the raihvay from Dublin to Galway. This line was already constructed from Dublin to Mullingar, and was in process of coustructiun from Mullingar to Athlone. The rate of interest which he proposed to take for ifie advanee_was 34 per -_nt, for ten years, after which period the loan would be repaid in in staImentsof.eiOO.OOOperannum. The security which he proposed to taxe for this advance would comprehend the whole line from Dublin to Galway. Mr. Goulburn thought that, considering the present state of the national Revenue, this was an unpropitious time to inaugurate a system of advances. He also thought it in- judicious to make the proposed advance at a rate of interest at which no existing railway, either in England or Ireland, could procure money. Mr. Roebuck opposed the advance on the ground that Hie ultimate security was the already over taxed industry of England .-The motion was agreed to. The Chancellor of the Exchequer then moved for a fur- ther advance of £ 150,000. for the relief of the distressed unions in Ireland, on the security of the rate-in-aid.—Also agreed to. M • TUESDAY. hpf r" ^nes engaged to lay a bill, affecting juvenile criminals, °re the house, this session. F" Osborne moved for a committee of the whole house, to Ireland' Presen^ s*ate °f *he temporalities of the Church of Seve moti°n was negatived by 170 against 103. stage a H wcre t""011"!11 in > certain bills were advanced a nf ttif. t^le ot^er orders and motions having been disposed U3e a<yournedat half-past one o'clock. TW IW »• WEDNESDAY. V°n Parliament Bill was negatived, on a govern- The W?Bt Jt- a majority Of 75. rpcniw .^hibition Bill was advanced a stage, the house haTh,gCoun,v V° *° int0 committee upon it. b i-prtiin a™ &tjS an<^ Expenditure Bill v,-as read a second ,hlfrm^!ndment« haV^g been agreed to. ■n A nhfpinp i^Por^ed progress on the Protection to Women Bill, and obtained leave to sit again on Wednesday next. I THURSDAY. Several petitions were presented in favour of the Ballot. The lio^se went into comrnittee upon the Merchant Seamen and Pilot s i intended by its promoter, Mr. Labou- chere, for the w<?lf'l™°f our maritime department. The hon. member was left speaking on the question.

Monmouthshire Midsummer Sessions.

[No title]







[No title]