POSTSCRIPT.
SATURDAY NIGHT.
The House of. Commons got through a good deal of useful business last night, in Committee on the Customs and Corn-importation Acts; the graver work being diversified by some bitter sportiveness.
Mr. WILLIAM OWEN STANLEY began the matter of bnsiness, with a speech in favour of tranquilly settling the corn question; which he thought could best be done by establishing a "moderate fixed duty ": accordingly, he proposed a scale of fixed duties, 5s. per quarter upon wheat, and upon flour and other grain in proportion. Colonel WOOD (Brecon) deprecated delay in the final settlement of the question. Having in the course of thirty years voted for all the acts to regulate the importation of corn, he had arrived at the conclusion that such laws ought to be entirely and imme- diately repealed ; and thinking the Government measure most likely to effect the desired object, he should resist every proposal to'alter it. A curious scene followed. Mr. STAFFORD O'BRIEN defended the Protectionist Mem- bers from the charge of making vexatious delays, by showing that though they could have clogged the Notice-book with notices not one had ema- nated from their party; and then, declaring that he should vote neither on the resolutions nor on any of the amendments, he left the House, followed by a considerable number of his party. The Protectionists who remained did not exhibit perfect accordance of feeling. Lord GEORGE BENTINCH reiterated the demand for an " appeal to the country " against an adjust- ment brought about by treachery and fraud; Sir Joust Thum., astounded at the change in that " Nestor of Protection " Colonel Wood, proclaimed that he would stand by Protection as he would stand by the Crown; while Lord WORSLEY and Mr. CURTEIS, anticipating no practical advantage from the amendment, advised Mr. Stanley to withdraw it. Lord JOHN RUSSELL and others spoke; but we are only taking a rapid glance at the cardinal points in the long and rambling discussion. Mr. Stanley's amend- ment was negatived without a division.
Mr. MONORTON MILNER seeking a middle course between the extreme parties who severally cried " No compromise" and " No surrender," but having little hope that he could obtain much attention, moved an amendment which would have made the scale of duties proposed by Sir Robert Peel permanent. He wished not to surrender" the revenue derivable from foreign corn to foreigners. This amendment was scarcely discussed; though several irrelevant topics were handled. Mr. MILES could agree in none of the amendments; Mr. Actasirs thought that this one might have done six nfonths ago; but now he advised, Mr. Milnes to withdraw it;—which was deme.
Mr. PHILIP HOWARD made a long speech in favour of an amendment to continue Sir Robert Peel's new scale of duties until 1851; and concluded by declining to press his project.
The original resolution, for altering the duties on wheat as proposed by Government, now came before the House; and was sharply discussed, much as the entire plan has been, though with all the rapid and irregular cross- fire of discussion in Committee. But episodes again predominated.
`Lord GEonoi BE:NU:NCR catechized Ministers. What price did Sir Robert Peel expect wheat to bear after the passing of the bill; and what effect would that price have upon the tithe-payer and tithe-owner? Also, he called upon Sir James Graham and Mr. Sidney Herbert to reconcile their former and present opinions. [The "great man" is cruel, as he demands impossibilities. When men are converted from one opinion to its opposite, the opinions are still opposite, and no art or labour'can reconcile them. Nor is such reconcilement necessary to justify a conversion either in policy or honesty. But Lord George, it seems, has yet to learn such hornbook principles !] Sir ROBERT PEEL declined to give any guarantee as to the price which wheat would produce under his mea- sure, seeing that all the prophecies as to the price of corn made at the passing of each respective Corn-law had been regularly falsified by the event. Mr. DisnAam urged Sir Robert to answer the question; using taunts as a spur: and Lord Gronou BEITTINCE observed that Sir Robert had not been afraid to answer a similar question in 1842. Sir ROBERT PEEL—" It is because of my courage in 1842 that I hesitate now." Subsequently he expressed a belief that the exclusion of foreign corn at times has tended to make prices lower than they would otherwise have been—as in 1835, when the average price was 89s.
Mr. Cobden's turn came next. Mr. FINCH asked him what would be the effect of the measure? Mr. VILLIERS gave the answer, in the shape of a parable. A mendicant asked for charity and obtained it. He was asked what he would have done had he failed to obtain it? " Why," said he, "I should have been obliged to work." So, if protection were withdrawn, Mr. Finch would be bound to look after his own property, and to work harder; and he would become a richer and a- happier man. Mr. Enema observed, that the agriculturists worked harder lately than even the Anti-Corn-law League. 'Colonel Si1TITORP took up the catechizing--or meant to do so. He wanted to know if there was any chance that the Secretary, Attorney, and Solicitor-General for Ireland would obtain seats: but, dilating on his own straightforward conduct during twenty years' " residence " in that House, and the absence of servility in his whole family from the time of Queen Anne, he forgot to put his question. Sir ROBERT PEEL pointed out the omission, amidst great laughter; and pro- ceeded to state, that Lord Canning_ had accepted office as Chief Commissioner of Woods and Forests. If Colonel Sbthorp, would accept the Stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds, Lord Lincoln should oppose him at the poll. Colonel SHE/- THORP could not accept the office, because it must be bestowed by Ministers. Sr Robert would one day regret his insult to the citizens of Lincoln. (Much laughter.) Mr. Disaasm insisted that the Colonel had raised a great constitu- tional question; and reminded Sir Robert of his having stated, when Sir George Murray lost a seat in the House some jeers ago, that that gentleman had ceased to sit in the Cabinet Council. Sir ROBERT PEEL had forgotten the circum- stance: Mr. Gladstone continues to sit in the Council at the Cabinet meetings.
Ultimately, the resolution passed; as well as the remainder on the Corn- duties; though not without a little more opposition; the resolutions to be reported on Monday.
A new writ was issued for Stafford, in the room of the Honourable Cap- tain Carnegie, appointed. a Lord of the Treasury.
The House of Lords were occupied with the Protection of Life (Ireland) Bill. The Earl of ST. GERMANS mentioned several amendments which the Government proposed to introduce— They were principally these: to give the bill a retrospective effect, by enabling the Lord-Lieutenant to charge on a district already proclaimed under the existing law the expenses of the supernumerary police now employed there; to'subject tea and coffee-shops to the visits of the police; to enact that all offences under the act should be tried at assizes of oyer and terminer or general goal delivery. He assigned reasons for objecting to the proposition of Lord Brougham for changing the venue; recommending that that provision should be introduced into a general measure. [To this Lord BROUGHAM assented.] Earl GREY strongly objected to the clause which authorized the inflic- tion of fifteen years' transportation for being found out of doors during the prescribed hours; and moved that one year's imprisonment, with or without hard labour, be the maximum punishment. It was stated in reply, that seven years' transportation was the period now proposed; and that there was nothing to prevent the infliction of a fine of a few shillings or a short imprisonment at the discretion of the Court, in place of the larger punish- ment. In reference to the offence of being found out of doors, it was agreed to add the words " under suspicious circumstances!' On a division, Earl Grey's amendment was rejected, by a majority of 38 to 7. Lord Sr. GERMANS agreed to limit the duration of the bill to the 1st of October 1849, instead of " five years and to the end of the then next session of Parliament." The other clauses were agreed to; and the bill was re- ported.
Previous page
