A REVIEW OF THE LAST SESSION.
There is perhaps no body of men confederated in her Majesty’s dominions who are less properly the subjects of envy than the members of the present Cabinet. A session, begun under circumstances of unexampled commercial pressure, continued amidst insurrection abroad and turbulence at home, and ending with an Irish rebellion, ought surely to have exhibited some specimens of extraordinary and judicious legislation. Slovenliness in high places, at no time decorous, is most undecent, dangerous, and unendurable, at a period when the whole world is drunk with the revolutionary elixir. France, that old irreclaimable bacchante, is staggering to and fro, madly bellicose, and threatening incendiarism in her cups. Germany, once thought too stolid to be roused, is hiccuping for national unity, and on the fair way of contributing largely to the overthrow of the equilibrium of power in Europe. The Irish symptoms have by no means surprised us. The insurrection there is the inevitable fruit of the measures and policy against which, for the last twenty years, we have entered our strong and unflinching protest. The shameful truckling of the Whigs to O’Connell and his scandalous followers; the unconstitutional fostering of the Roman Catholic Church; and the conciliation system, which, while it did gross injustice to the people of England and Scotland, contributed to confirm the spirit of improvidence and pauperism among the Irish, without in any way securing their gratitude,—have resulted in a rebellion, imbecile, indeed, and almost ludicrous in its issue, but not, on that account, less afflicting to the supporters of order and the crown.
More than once, too, we have been threatened at home by manifestations of the insurrectionary spirit. In so densely populated a country as this, it is impossible that commercial distress and slackness can exist for any length of time, without trying sorely the patience and the fortitude of the working classes. Such distress undoubtedly did prevail, towards the close of last year, in a most alarming degree; and throughout the whole spring there was a vast want of employment in the manufacturing districts. The completion of some of the great lines of railway, and in others the partial abandonment or suspension of the works, caused by the extreme tightness of the money market, also threw a great deal of unemployed labour on the public; and this evil was increased by the heterogeneous character of the masses. Irish immigration has increased to such an extent, that not only in all the towns of Britain, but almost in every village, especially on the western coast, there exists a Hibernian colony; unreclaimed by civilisation—uneducated as the brutes that perish—knowing nothing of religion, save as an idolatrous form, and professing rebellion as a principle. This class have always formed a nucleus for disaffection, and, but for the extreme reluctance of the native labourers to fraternise with those children of Esau, the results might ere now have been more serious than we altogether care to contemplate. As it was, the British demagogue was always sure of finding a ready partisan, confederate, and coadjutor in the western Celt; and we need hardly say that the Chartist leaders availed themselves to the full of that sympathy. We shall presently see how far this state of matters received the attention of the men in power.
In this critical position we were entitled to expect that the government would have shown itself fully adequate to the crisis—that the causes of distress, which lie at the root of turbulence and disaffection, would be probed with a firm and prudent hand—that every possible relief and assistance would be given to the home market—and that, above all, nothing should be done which might tend, in the remotest degree, to endanger the integrity of the empire. The welfare of Great Britain is a terrible trust in times like these, and the responsibility of those who have professed themselves ready to govern, and who, in fact, have rather claimed the government than received it, is proportionally great.
Let us then take a candid and impartial review of the proceedings which have characterised this session of Parliament, extending over a period more fertile in insurrection than any which the world has known. Let us examine how Lord John Russell and his colleagues have acquitted themselves in the discharge of their important functions. We shall be sparing neither of praise nor blame: glad, indeed, if we can find an opportunity of being lavish of the former, or, in case of neglect, of stumbling upon an honest excuse.
Our readers cannot have forgotten the circumstances under which this last session of Parliament commenced. The commercial world has not, for very many years, felt any thing like a corresponding crisis; and the change is most remarkable, when we reflect that the depression followed immediately upon a period of almost unexampled prosperity. Our opinion is still unchanged, as to the causes which led to this. We pointed out, in former articles, long before the pressure began, what must be the inevitable result of a wholesale departure from our older system, of the adoption of the free-trading economical views, and of the arbitrary contraction of the currency, as devised by Sir Robert Peel. Every word we then said has been verified to the letter; and, as we expected, the very contingencies which we suggested as likely to operate in producing this unfavourable state of matters, and which actually did subsequently occur, have been paraded, by the free-traders and extreme bullionists, as the causes of the whole disaster. It is of great importance that the public should understand this subject clearly; and, therefore, without repeating what we have elaborately attempted to demonstrate before, let us merely remark that the tendency of free trade, and of fettered currency combined, was to prostrate the whole commercial world, on the first occurrence of a bad season and a scarcity of food, by stimulating the exportation of gold, and at the same time by withdrawing its representative. In fact, Sir Robert Peel constructed his machinery so, that the result, in the event which we have instanced, could be calculated on with mathematical certainty. The realised wealth of Britain was rendered of no avail in this emergency, for the counters which represented it were amissing, and nothing else would be received in exchange. Hence arose that total prostration of credit, and consequent lack of employment, which was so lamentably felt towards the close of the year 1847.
So intolerable was the pressure that, after much delay and repeated refusals to interfere, the Whig ministers were compelled to bestir themselves, and to suspend the operation of the Banking Act, in order to save the country from actual convulsion. Parliament was summoned about the middle of November, more, perhaps, for the sake of obtaining a bill of indemnity for the suspension—a measure which, after all, did not lead to any infringement of the Act—than with the view of boldly facing the increasing difficulties of the country. Notwithstanding annual disappointment, every one waited for the speech from the throne with the most intense anxiety, trusting that at such a time some comforting glimpses for the future, some earnest ministerial schemes would be announced, likely to retrieve the commercial world from its embarrassment. These expectations were destined to receive an immediate check. The financial prose of the author of “Don Carlos” was as vague and unsatisfactory as his halting tragic verse. There was, of course, a decent show of regret for public calamity, but no vestige of an intention to interpose any remedial measure. In point of finance, the only intelligible topic contained in the speech was ominous of the repeal of the Navigation Laws. Sanitary improvements, the great Whig hobby, which they are constantly thrusting forward beneath the public nose, were also recommended. Ireland, then testifying the humane and Christian disposition of its inhabitants, by a series of the most cold-blooded and revolting murders, was recommended to the benevolence of the state. A treaty with the Republic of the Equator, touching the suppression of the slave-trade, was announced; and the Whigs looked forward “with confidence to the maintenance of the general peace of Europe.” A more paltry programme was never yet submitted to the public eye.
The ministerial move in November, and the suspension of the Banking Act, for however short a period, was in truth a remarkable circumstance. If the suspension was right, it must necessarily imply that Sir Robert Peel was utterly wrong in framing the measure as he did. We know that the Act is useless for control in times of prosperity, and that it pinches us by becoming operative under adverse seasons; and it was precisely when the pinch was felt that the Whigs were forced to suspend it. True—a great deal of the mischief had by that time been accomplished. Men, every whit as respectable as the late Premier, had been driven into the Gazette for the sheer want of temporary accommodation, and property sank in value as rapidly as the mercury before a storm. But the true nature of the Act had been felt and condemned by the public; and in no one instance do we ever recollect to have witnessed a greater unanimity of opinion, hostile to its endurance and principle, than prevailed, at least beyond the walls of the House of Commons. If the public were wrong in this impression, then it followed as a matter of course that the ministry were highly blameable for the suspension; that Peel’s machine, being a sound and salutary one, should have been left to do its work, and to crush down as many victims as it could possibly entangle in its wheels. But in truth, very few could be found to support such a proposition. If credit is to be altogether annihilated in this country, whether by Banking Acts like this, framed and forced upon us contrary to the experience and in face of the remonstrance of the mercantile classes, or by anarchy and mob rule, as has been the case in France, we must prepare to bid an everlasting farewell to our greatness. Credit, it is in vain to deny, has made the British nation. Credit may, like every thing else, be pushed too far; but even over-trading is a far less calamity than a restrictive system, which in a day can destroy the accumulated profits of years, for the first carries with it its own antidote and cure. Peel’s banking legislation, we do not hesitate to say, has been productive of more harm to this country in three years, than has ever occurred from any known cause within the same period of time; and the obstinacy with which he has clung to his delusion, the sophistry which he has invariably employed to shift the responsibility from his shoulders, and the manœuvring style of his defence, may be consistent with the character of the man, but are not worthy of the dignity of a British statesman.
In suspending the operation of the Banking Act, the Whigs tacitly admitted that, in their opinion, whether lately adopted or not, there was something fundamentally injurious and wrong with the measure. The subject was a very serious one. You may bungle sanitary bills, pass coercive laws, or tamper with the jurisprudence of the country, without doing more than a limited amount of evil. But the subject of the currency is so intimately and vitally connected with our whole commercial greatness, that it must be handled with the utmost precaution. A leak in a ship is not more dangerous than a flaw in a monetary statute; and, when once discovered, not a moment should be lost in repairing it.
Not one member of the present Cabinet was in any way competent for the task. It is most extraordinary, that the Whigs, after all their official experience, should exhibit such a singular incapacity in every matter which has the slightest connexion with finance. They do not seem to comprehend the subject at all; and if their private affairs were conducted in the same slovenly fashion as are those of the public when unfortunately committed to their guidance, we should very soon see the Gazette adorned with some elegant extracts from the Court Guide. The only respectable Chancellor of the Exchequer whom they ever produced was Mr Baring; and he, it is rumoured, was considered too scrupulous to be admitted to that post again. Besides this, his views upon the currency were known to be diametrically opposite to those entertained by Sir Robert Peel. Sir Charles Wood, the worst financier that ever disgraced the memory of Cocker, had committed himself before the suspension of the Act, in an especially ridiculous manner. At one time, this gentleman was quite jocund and hopeful, a firm believer in the existence of a plethora, and smiled at the idea of a crisis with a happy air of mingled indifference and satisfaction. Shortly afterwards, however, he took the alarm, attempted to eat in his own words—an operation which he performed with most indifferent grace,—and possibly became dimly conscious that a Chancellor of the Exchequer has more duties to perform than to sign the receipt for his salary. Sir Charles evidently was not the man to grapple with the difficulty; and besides this, he could not afford to offend Sir Robert Peel, or give a triumph to his political opponents, who had all along denounced the Banking Act as an experiment of a perilous nature. In this position, the Whigs adopted the safest course for themselves, if not for the country. They asked for a committee, both in the Lords and Commons, to consider the question of the currency, taking care, of course, to nominate members whose opinions were already known. We thoroughly agree with Mr Herries, that the inquiry was a work of supererogation. The subject has been already investigated in every possible way. Blue books have been issued from time to time, containing an enormous mass of deliberate evidence; and that evidence has been repeatedly analysed and dissected by writers of great ability and statistical knowledge on either side. The public mind was perfectly ripe for decision—indeed, for months the currency had formed almost the sole topic discussed by the press; and it was peculiarly desirable that we should no longer be left in a state of uncertainty, or exposed to the operation of another panic. But such an arrangement did not suit the Whigs. They were not prepared to come forward with an intelligible plan for remedying the evil which they had already admitted to exist.—Not secretly displeased, perhaps, at the general impression that the Tamworth Baronet had committed a gross and unpardonable blunder, they were unable to dispense with his support, and extremely unwilling to give him umbrage—and therefore they took refuge in the convenient scheme of committees. In vain did Mr Herries, in an able and statesmanlike speech, point out the danger of delay, and exhibit the true causes of the distress which had lately prevailed, and which was still weighing upon the country. In vain did he implore ministers to face the question manfully. His proposal that the House should proceed at once to the consideration of the Banking Act, with the view of suspending permanently its limitations, subject to a wholesome control, was lost by a majority of forty-one. After a most lengthened examination, the committees have issued their reports; and the result is another difference of opinion, which leaves the whole matter open to renewed discussion. The session has rolled away, and the Banking Act is left untouched.
We presume that the most confirmed free-trader within the four seas of Britain will at all events admit this fact, that not one of the glorious promises held out to us by the political economists and gentlemen of the Manchester school has as yet been realised. We can hardly expect that they will be candid enough to confess the fallacy of the views which they then so enthusiastically maintained; and we doubt not that, in any discussion, we should still hear some very ingenious explanations to account for the non-advent of the anticipated blessings. But the boldest of them will not deny that, in the mean time, all the fiscal changes have been followed by a decline in our prosperity, a falling-off in trade, and a consequent defalcation of the revenue. We have certainly not gained in employment, we have lost money; and the best proof of it is, the low ebb of the national revenue. Such being the case, it is no wonder if the budget or financial statement of the minister was expected with the most intense anxiety, and if, for the time, every other topic was merged in the consideration of this. Political history does not contain many episodes equal to that famous discussion—many instances of utter helplessness like that exhibited by the Premier.
We have already analysed the budget fully in another article,[1]and it is not worth while now to recur to it for the purposes of exposure. The deficit was estimated at no less than three millions for the year; and this large sum was to be made up by the imposition of an augmented income-tax. Considering what had taken place on the occasion when Sir Robert Peel first proposed that discreditable and decidedly odious impost, the assurances that it was to be merely temporary in its endurance, and the specious pleas of necessity with which it was then fortified,—it is no matter of surprise that the ministerial plan should have been received with symptoms of marked disgust, even by those who usually accord their support to the measures of the present government. Mr Hume opined that the ministry were mad. Mr Osborne declared his belief that, had there been a regularly organised Opposition, such a financial statement would have been the death-warrant of any administration. Even the Manchester section of the free-traders held aloof from ministers, just as cowards might do from the support of a drowning man. For however vexatious the admission might be, they were bound in common gratitude to have recollected that the change from indirect to direct taxation was effected mainly at their instance, and to gratify their everlasting clamour. That change had resulted in a huge deficit of the revenue; and, it being admitted on all sides that a revenue must be raised—for we have not yet got the length of talking openly of the sponge—they, at all events, might have been expected to say something in favour of their friends, at a crisis of their own producing. But there is no creature on earth so utterly selfish and devoid of compunction, as your thorough-paced economical free-trader. Point merely in the direction of his pocket, and he instantly howls with terror. Five per cent income-tax was as obnoxious in the eyes of Cobden and Bright as in those of other men who acted upon sounder principles; and it is not uninstructive to remark the course which on this occasion the ex-members of the League thought fit to pursue. It had been long apparent to them, as it was to every man in the country, that the revenue of the year must prove insufficient to meet the expenditure. They knew that the unpalatable fact, when announced in Parliament, would inevitably lead to a discussion regarding the policy of past measures, and the wisdom of persisting in a course which hitherto had met with no reciprocity from foreign countries, but, on the contrary, had been used to increase the burden of our embarrassments. Such discussion was to be deprecated and avoided by every possible means; and the readiest way of effecting this seemed to be the suggestion of a plan whereby the expenditure might be lessened and brought down to the level of the revenue. This very desirable result was not so easy of accomplishment; but nevertheless Mr Cobden undertook the task. The product was worthy of the author. The wise, politic, and sagacious principle of the calico-printer was to effect a saving by the material reduction of our military and naval establishments, and the weakening of the national arm. We hope our readers have not forgotten, were it merely from the disgust they must have excited, the silly and egotistic remarks of this complacent personage touching his travels, his observations, and his mission as a peaceful regenerator. Free trade, which ought long ago to have made Great Britain rich, had, according to his experiences, already pacified the world. There was to be no more war—the French were the most affectionate and domesticated men upon the face of the earth—and he, Cobden, and his friend Cremieux, were interchanging congratulatory letters on the advent of the new millennium. In our March Number for the present year, we had the satisfaction of bestowing a slight castigation upon Cobden, to which we beg now to refer those gentlemen who were so wroth with us for presuming to question thedictaof the oracle of the West Riding. Within a few days after that article was penned, Europe was wrapped in insurrection, and Cobden’s correspondent a member of a revolutionary government! The French free-trader, Cremieux, was a consenting party to the decree which drove forth the British labourers from France, without warning and without compensation! The barricades of June have demonstrated the affectionate and domesticated character of the race whom Cobden delighteth to honour. If to cut, in cold blood, the throats of prisoners, to shoot down the messengers of peace in spite of their sacred calling, to mangle the bodies of the wounded, and these brothers and countrymen, under circumstances unheard-of, save perhaps in the tales of African atrocity—if these things constitute domestication, then by all means let us fall back upon a more erratic and natural state of society. How would we have stood at this moment, with regard to Ireland, save for the fact of our being able to overawe rebellion by the presence of an overwhelming military force? Did ever a man, professing to be an apostle and a prophet, find himself landed in such a ridiculous and ignominious posture?
It is strange that the reception which he met with in the House of Commons, upon the occasion of his first attack upon the army, did not induce Cobden to pause before committing himself to a second absurdity. But there are some men whose conceit is of such extravagant a development, that no experience, no failure, no argument, will induce them to part with one iota of a preconceived opinion. Such a person is Cobden. Unabashed by the result of his previous exhibitions, callous to shame, and impenetrable to ridicule, he again addressed the House on the subject of the navy estimates, for the purpose of demonstrating the propriety of an immediate reduction of the fleet. This was too much even for Lord John Russell, who for once took heart of grace, and administered a fair allowance of punishment to the arrogant and ignorant free-trader. But the truth is, Mr Cobden’s career is ended. TheTimes, once a warm admirer of this confident gentleman, has ceased to vouchsafe him its protection, as will be seen from the following extract of 11th August last:—
“What has he done? What have been his tactics? What is the sum and substance of the statesmanship to which all the world looked forward so anxiously? Simply this—a depreciation of our military and naval establishments, and an emulation of America. The first constitutes the whole gist and pith of the honourable member’s speeches; the latter, of his policy. England is to disband her fleets and armies, to give up her colonies, and to enter boldly on a course of Yankee statesmanship. We would not wrong the hon. gentleman. We refer to his speeches on Tuesday and Wednesday nights, as well as those delivered at the close of the last year. What do they amount to? ‘Retrench your expenditure; give up your ships; abolish the ordnance; send round embassies to every country and court of Europe; tell them you have disarmed; ask them to do the same; and then set to work, and tinker up your constitution on the model of the United States. Do away with open voting. Destroy theprivilegeof the suffrage; abolish the virtue of patriotic courage; give every man a vote, andmakeevery man vote in secret. Then you will be rich and prosperous; your expenditure will at once be curtailed, and your commerce will be diffused by the amity of nations.’ This is the policy which is to save us from ruin, to pay our debt and confirm our strength. All that we can say is, that one part of it is well matched to the other; that both equally demonstrate the ability of the counsellor to advise, as his vaticinations last winter proved his ability to prophesy.”
And yet this is the person whom the Whigs lauded, and whom Sir Robert Peel elaborately eulogised for his sagacity!
By a somewhat curious coincidence, the budget was brought forward on the very week when the French revolution broke out. Mr Cobden’s proposal, therefore, met with no support; and it must have become evident, even to the free-traders, that under such a threatening aspect as the Continent presented, no sane man would agree to a reduction in our military force. Still that party continued inflexibly opposed to the ministerial measure for raising an adequate revenue, and, by doing so, we maintain that they were guilty of an act of political ingratitude. In this situation, ministers were fain to withdraw their proposal, and to continue the income-tax as formerly, for a period of three years, without any definite scheme of making up for the deficiency in the revenue.
In fact, the session has passed away without a budget at all. That which Lord John Russell tabled, has crumbled away like a thing of gossamer; and, so far as financial matters are concerned, we are left in the pleasant impression that we are getting into further debt, and have no distinct means of paying it. To exhibit the recklessness with which the Whigs regard all matters connected with revenue, it is sufficient to remark, that with three millions of deficit admitted, our rulers think this an advantageous and a proper time to sacrifice about fifty thousand pounds annually, the produce of duties upon imported copper ore.
Mr Osborne was right. No ministry, had there been a decent Opposition, could have stood such an exposure. We even go further; for we believe that—but for the French revolution, and the universal turbulence abroad, which rendered it absolutely necessary that this country should maintain a firm front, and exhibit no symptoms of internal weakness or discord—the present ministry could not have existed for another fortnight. As it is, we are in some respects glad that they have continued in office; because, though late, they have been called upon to act under circumstances which, in future, may give a new and improved tone to Whig political opinions.
Before quitting the budget, let us say a word or two regarding future financial prospects. It is no doubt possible that trade may revive—though, from the present aspect of European affairs, we are not inclined to be at all sanguine in our expectations. We cannot, it is quite clear, reduce our effective establishments; for no one can say what emergency may arise to make us, not mere spectators, but active partisans in a contest which we shall deeply and long deplore. Economy we may practise at home, and for once we are of Joseph’s mind. There are items in our civil and pension list clearly superfluous and undefensible, and we wish to see these removed, though with a just regard to vested interests and claims. We are no admirers of such antiquated offices as that of Hereditary Grand Falconer; and we think that Mr MacGregor’s inquiry, as to the heirs of the Duke of Schomberg, who for a century and a half have been billeted upon the country to the tune of three thousand a-year, deserved at least a courteous reply from so very determined an economist as the Premier formerly proclaimed himself. A doorkeeper may surely be maintained at a less annual expense than the income of a country gentleman; and in many departments even of government, we have certainly been over lavish of remuneration. But these retrenchments, though they may give satisfaction to the nation, can never free it from its embarrassments. The revenue has clearly sunk to a point when it must be augmented by some decided and effective measure; and it will well become us all to consider, even without reference to past disputes, from what quarter the supply is to come. If the decision, or at all events the expressed feeling, of the House of Commons can be taken as an index of the popular wish, the nation will not submit to an augmentation of the income-tax. No increased duties upon excise can be levied,—indeed the cry is general for the removal of those which exist. The window-tax—though it might be materially improved by a more equitable arrangement, and by rating great houses without any graduated scale—is decidedly unpopular. In fact, all direct taxation is of an obnoxious character—it is the fertile source of murmur and of discontent, and it never can be adjusted so as to render it palatable to the payer.
From what quarter, then, is it possible for us to recruit our revenue? How are we to provide for casualties, and for a possibly increased expenditure? That question must be solved in one way or the other, and that without lack of time. It will not do to go on from year to year with a continually increasing deficit, the arrears of which shall be passed to the capital of our national debt—we must raise money, and the only question is, how to do it.
Within the last six years, says Sir Charles Wood, the nation has remittedseven and a halfmillions of annual taxation: since the peace, says Lord John Russell, more thanthirty-nine millionsof annual taxes have been removed. Highly satisfactory this, no doubt—but what does it prove? Simply that we have pushed the abolition of indirect taxation too far. We have gone on, year after year, lowering tariffs, for the purpose of stimulating foreign trade. We have thereby unquestionably increased our imports, but we have failed in giving any thing like a corresponding buoyancy to our exports.Whywe did this is not very difficult of comprehension, if we look attentively to the state of party which has subsisted for the last few years in this country.
Free-trade, in so far as it lessens the cost of production, is clearly the interest of the master-manufacturer who exports for the foreign market; but, we repeat, it is the interest of no one else in the community. Free-trade in certain articles,—that is, in raw material introduced to this country for the purpose of being manufactured, sold at home, or exported—is just and commendable. Free-trade in what are called the necessaries of life, such as corn and cattle, does not tend to the wealth of the country; but, for the present, we shall leave that subject in abeyance. Free-trade in luxuries and in manufactured goods, whenever these latter displace the home labourer in the home market, we hold to be utterly injurious, and we shall presently state our reasons.
The Manchester school have adopted, preached, and insisted upon free trade inallthese branches. It was their interest to push the cotton trade to its utmost possible limits, and to undersell all competitors in every accessible market. Hence their favourite doctrine of cheapness, which in appearance is so plausible, but which actually is so fallacious, and the pertinacity with which they have continued to preach it up. Hence the League, in the formation of which they displayed such undoubted energy, and the immense sums which they lavished for the popular promulgation of their creed. To conciliate these men, swollen to a formidable number, and maintaining their opinions with extreme plausibility, and no ordinary share of talent, became an important object to the leaders who were then at the head of the two great parties of the state. It is in vain to deny that a large body of the middle classes were concerned in this movement, and, to gain their votes and support, the unholy race for power began.
Hence our legislation, whether under Peel or Russell, has been directed for the last six or seven years invariably to one point. The man who could boast of having removed the greatest amount of taxation was sure to be the popular favourite; and we all know in what manner, and by what means, Sir Robert Peel accomplished his share of the work. He first, on the assurance that it was to be merely temporary, obtained an income-tax, amply sufficient to redeem the financial deficit which was the legacy of his predecessors. He next proceeded to make that income-tax permanent, by paring at, and reducing the tariffs; and finally, in order that his rival might not have the start of him in popularity, he threw his party overboard, and consented to the abolition of the corn-laws.
But there is a point beyond which taxation cannot possibly be remitted; and that point Sir Robert Peel had reached before he retired from office. True, the effect of his measures had not yet become apparent, but they were foreseen by many, and perhaps not unsuspected by himself towards the close of his tenure of office. Further than as being consenting parties to those reckless sacrifices of revenue, it would be unfair to charge the Whigs with having brought us into our present perplexity. Sir Robert Peel is the real author of this, and he cannot escape the responsibility.
Now upon two points—viz., the introduction of raw material for manufacture, and of articles of food—we shall for the present forbear joining issue with the free-traders. But the third one, that of the admission of foreign manufactured goods at nearly nominal rates of duty, is far too important to be passed over, even at the risk of repetition.
The industry of this country is not confined to a few, but flows through a thousand channels. There are, however, about four great trades in which Britain can at present, owing to her mineral wealth, machinery, and capital, compete with decided advantage against any other country in the world. These are the cotton, the linen, the woollen, and the iron trade, the exports of which articles amount to rather more thanTWO-THIRDSof the whole exports of the United Kingdom, or in round numbers from thirty-three to thirty-five millions annually. It is to the unceasing agitation of men connected withthesetrades that we owe the erection of the League, and the progress of free trade which has brought us to so low a condition.
It is no matter of surprise that the corn-laws were obnoxious to such persons. With the agricultural interest they had no natural sympathy; and being always able to command the monopoly of the home market, their invariable effort has been to stimulate trade abroad to the very utmost of their power. High wages interfered with their profits; and in order to command the labour market, they formed their famous scheme for reducing the price of food, by dealing a blow to agriculture at home, and opening the ports to the admission of foreign corn. This cry was to a certain degree popular, especially amongst those who were not connected with their works; for the more intelligent of the operatives, to their credit be it said, very early detected the selfishness of the whole manœuvre, and saw, that with the price of food wages also would inevitably decline. Foreign corn, however, was not enough for the appetite of those grasping monopolists. They looked with envy on the smaller non-exporting trades, who constituted a great portion of the population, and who were defended in the home market, their only field, by a reasonable scale of duties. It presently occurred to them, that if, by any means this scale could be broken down, and the market inundated with foreign manufactures, they might be enabled to export a larger quantity of their own fabrics, reduce the price of articles which they were personally inclined to consume, and finally reap another benefit by cheapening labour—that is, by forcing a new class, through want of employment, to compete with their former operatives. These we know to have been the secret views of the League, and to these ends, for several years past, they have bent the whole of their energies. How they have succeeded, let the present state of the labour market tell. The tariffs of 1846 were expressly framed in their favour. They have done half of the anticipated work; for by the admission of foreign manufactures into this country at a reduced rate of duty, they have thrown many thousands of industrious handicraftsmen into the streets. The small shopkeeper has been reduced from an employer into a mere retailer, and disaffection has been engendered through the pressure of absolute misery.
This may seem a highly-coloured picture; but if any man of intelligence will take the trouble to make himself acquainted with the feelings, and to listen to the individual histories of persons of the working-class, he will find it to be strictly true. Four-fifths of the men who were in attendance at the late Chartist meetings belonged in 1845 to the non-exporting trades, were then in full employment, and probably as loyal as any subjects in the kingdom. So, indeed, we believe they are still, in so far as loyalty to the crown is concerned; for, thank God! Republicanism has not taken any root in the empire. But they are utterly discontented with the government, and furious at the apathy with which, they think, their sufferings are regarded. They find that the repeal of the corn-laws has done absolutely nothing in their favour. They find that the lowered tariffs have opened a sluice-gate through which articles of foreign manufacture have rushed in to swamp them; and they gloomily, and even savagely, assert, that this state of things is the result of a combination of the rich against the poor. So it is: but from that combination the aristocracy and gentlemen of England stand apart. The headquarters of the grinding-society are at Manchester, Liverpool, and Sheffield; the machinery it uses are the arms of the League; the master-spirits of the confederacy are Cobden, Wilson, and Bright.
A very pregnant instance of the sympathy which is felt by the free-traders and political economists for the suffering of the lower orders, occurred during a debate towards the beginning of May last. We specially notice the fact, because it proves that, however two successive ministers may have forgot their duty to the people, there exists, in a higher quarter still, the deepest commiseration for their distress, and an earnest desire to alleviate it in every possible manner. It appears from official documents that, during the first three months of the present year, there were entered for home consumption, at the port of London alone, foreign silk goods worth £400,000, equal to the employment of 31,000 weavers; lace and needlework worth £40,000, or sufficient to displace the produce of 4000 workwomen and sempstresses; and 7000 dozen of boot and shoe fronts, enough to keep 1200 cordwainers in full employment. So near as we can calculate, the duty payable upon those articles, under the tariff of 1845, would have amounted to £88,150: at present it is not more than £65,575, thus entailing a primary loss of £22,575 to the revenue. Such an influx of goods, at a peculiarly unprofitable season, was tantamount to displacing the labour of 36,200 persons, who were to be thrown upon the public charity, without any other resource. A short time after these facts became known, an order was issued from the Lord Chamberlain’s office, containing her Majesty’s commands to the ladies of England, that in attending court they should appear attired in dresses exclusively the production of native industry. Yes! our gracious Queen, whose heart is unchilled by the cold dogmas of political economy, felt like a woman and a sovereign, and resolved, on her part at least, to rescue from famine and misery so many thousands of her poorer subjects. It is most gratifying to know that this exercise of the royal care and benevolence has met with its best reward, for in the midst of all the distress which has unfortunately prevailed, the class for whose benefit those timely orders were issued have been kept in employment and food: the example set from the throne has been widely and generously followed. But will it be believed, that this act of mercy gave huge umbrage to the free-traders, and was fiercely commented on in their journals as a gross infringement of the principles of enlightened government? Therefore, in the eyes of the Leaguers, it seems a crime to interfere for the support of the British workman,—and unjustifiable interference with Providence to give work to the labouring poor!
But this is not all. Lord John Russell, on being asked in the House of Commons whether he had any share in suggesting this philanthropic action, or whether the sole credit of it appertained to his royal mistress, was not slow in uttering his disclaimer. “Hehad not advised the crown in the matter,—he could only say that the order had issued from the Chamberlain’s office.” After a vain attempt to show that no extra quantity of goods had been imported, but that the apparent increase arose solely from the cessation of smuggling, he proceeded to remark:—“But if more goodsarenow entered, and thereby a particular class do suffer inconvenience or distress,yet these entries must stimulate the production and exportation of the classes of goods for which the imports are exchanged.” There spoke the convert to the League—the truckler to Cobden and Co.! There, from the lips of a British minister, fell the most un-British, the most unpatriotic doctrine that ever yet was enunciated! Said we not truly that the whole object of free trade is to put down and exterminate the non-exporting trades, for the exclusive benefit of the few monster monopolies? The Premier concluded an ungracious, halting, and discreditable speech with the somewhat unnecessary announcement that, under all circumstances, he thought he should be the last person to advise her Majesty to make an alteration in the commercial policy which of late years had been pursued.
We need hardly remark that, in the present instance, the importation of these foreign goods could in no way “stimulate the production or exportation” of any kind of British manufacture whatever. The articles in question were sent from France, at a time when every thing was unsaleable, and were sold in London for hard cash, at a heavy discount. Even Cobden need not have grudged this little encouragement to Spitalfields and Bethnal Green. He did not sell a yard of calico the less. Gold, and not shirting, was what the French wanted, what they bargained for, and what they received. But let us see a little more of the sympathy of the Leaguers for the poor, and respect for the sovereign, who surely might be left, in matters of this kind, to exercise some discretion of her own.
Colonel Thompson, representingan exporting constituency, was furious at the alleged interference. “He would ask whether there was any charity, any humanity, any justice, any policy, any common-sense in representing hostility to one portion of the manufacturing classes of the country, to come from a quarter of which he was sure no one in that House wished to speak otherwise than with feelings of the utmost affection and reverence?” We are not sure that we quite understand this outburst of the gallant Colonel, which we copy verbatim from the columns of theSpectator, but, as he talks about charity and humanity with reference to his waistcoat and pantaloon exporting constituency of Bradford, we take him to mean that that favoured place should flourish, and Spitalfields utterly disappear. This is pure Leaguer’s doctrine, distinctly redolent of the Bastile!
Mr John Bright was also true to his order. The partisan of peace opined that “there was no difference between driving out workmen, and keeping out their work: though no order had been issued to exclude foreign work, yet the effect of the order really given is, that French silks, which would have been consumed, will not be used,and English taken instead. It should be known, that from the late convulsions, the contingent depression of trade, and the low price of French silks in France, very large quantities of them have been purchased and brought to this country. The announcement in question might therefore entailgreat loss on large capitalists, and ruin on many of smaller means. The kindness to the Spitalfields weavers would then be done only at a cost of loss and injury to other classes.” Quite right, Friend Bright! the first persons to be guarded areyourspeculators andyourcapitalists. The poor operative, who is not in your line, may starve for any thing you care. There is a protective spirit about this, which absolutely charms us. We wonder that Mr Bright did not on a former occasion foresee that the repeal of the corn-laws might entail great loss on large proprietors, and ruin on many of smaller means!
Sir William Molesworth considered that “it wasa silly and foolishorder; and he was informed, on the best authority, that there was not the slightest chance of its being obeyed.” We leave this remark of Molesworth without any comment, merely asking his authority for holding that, to assist in feeding the hungry, and maintaining our poorer countrymen by the exercise of their own industry, is a silly and a foolish act; and requesting him to consider how far his chivalrous title is consistent with such language, when applied to an order emanating directly from his sovereign.
This little episode is very instructive, as elucidating the views of the free-traders. The great exporting trades have combined to crush and annihilate the small handicrafts, and this they are rapidly doing through the operation of these lowered tariffs. If direct taxation were to be introduced, and the custom-house virtually abolished, in so far as regards articles of foreign manufacture, the thing would be done at once—for no one would wear clumsy English boots when he could get French ones at a lower price; or British instead of Parisian gloves; or silk from Spitalfields rather than the less costly fabric of Lyons. The more honest of the free-traders make no scruple of announcing their views. They admit that the realisation of their maxim, to sell in the dearest and buy in the cheapest market, implies the ruin of every non-exporting trade, and they seem absolutely resolved to push their theory to the utmost. At present Sir Robert Peel has managed it so, that, without being absolutely annihilated, the poorer classes are ground down to the lowest point. We ask the shopkeepers, artisans, and smaller manufacturers, who have no connexion with the foreign market, whether this is not truly the case,—and if so, whether they are inclined to allow this cruel, selfish, and inhuman system to be carried any further—nay, whether they will not at once resolve to make determined head against it? But for the obstinate blindness of the political economists, we would appeal to that dearest of all considerations, their own safety. Do they really think it possible, even were it politic, to drive the whole operative industry of Britain into the compass of a few exporting trades. Can they make millions of men change their habits of a sudden, and walk from the country towns and villages,—wherein, before Sir Robert Peel introduced the foreigner to swamp them, they had supported themselves by the exercise of their craft,—to the factory or the mine, or the furnace, or the printing work, there to spend the remainder of their existence in twisting, digging, smelting, and stamping, for the benefit of Cobden and his confederates? The idea is absolute madness. Already we see the effects of false and unpatriotic legislation, in Chartist meetings and processions, in agitations for universal suffrage, in crime three-fold increased, and in augmented poor-rates. What are considerations of sanatory reform or of public instruction compared to these? Will men thank you for soap and tracts, even should these articles be gratuitous, if you take their labour away from them, and legislate for one class alone, as has been the case of late years? Can you expect to make them loyal and peaceable, whilst you deny them the means of obtaining a fair day’s wage for a fair day’s labour—whilst you not only encourage, but convert into an actual fact the idea that a large portion of the poor are oppressed, and drive them to seek a remedy in attempts to procure a more popular representation? Free trade has been the great incentive to Chartism, and, unless men return speedily to their senses, it may chance to be the terrible promoter of revolution.
But what is to be the real amount of the deficit? No man living can tell. Lord John Russell estimated it at about three millions, and subsequently Sir Charles Wood announced that, by sundry savings and sales of old stores—which latter source of revenue very much resembles the case of a gentleman parting with his body clothes to make up for his annual expenditure—it might be reduced to a million and a half. Since then we have received the official accounts of the trade of the kingdom for the six months ending 5th July 1848; and we very much fear, from a perusal of these, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has understated his difficulties. Our exports, for the sake of which every other interest has been sacrificed, have fallen off to an alarming extent. During the corresponding six months of last year the declared value of our exports was £25,395,243: the whole amount for this period is £21,571,939, or very nearlyFOUR MILLIONSless on the half year! Here is another staggering instance of the utter futility of free trade. The decrease of export for the year 1846, as compared with 1845, was about two millions—and now it is going on at the rate of four millions for half the time! Was there ever a more pregnant proof of the impossibility of forcing markets?
Looking to the imports, we find some very curious results. Lord John Russell took great credit for the increased consumption of sugar consequent on his West Indian experiments, which we shall presently have occasion to notice more minutely; and predicted a still further consumption and increase to the revenue. Let us see how that matter stands. The following is the total of sugar imported to this country for the first six months of the last three years respectively.
So that we are absolutely importingless sugarin 1848 than we did in 1846, before Lord John Russell and his sapient colleagues chose to give thecoup de graceto the colonists! So much for increased revenue from that source.
In the articles of raw material for manufacture there is a considerable increase; and, should money be obtainable at easy rates throughout the coming winter, this may be a source of real congratulation. But from recent symptoms, and the insanity of ministers in refusing to face the difficulties of the Bank Restriction Acts, we very much dread another recurrence of tightness, in which case industry must inevitably be paralysed as before. It is, however, comforting to know that we have a stock of raw material in hand, and that our condition in that respect has improved since last year, when the warehouses were nearly drained. The aggregate amount of cotton, wool, flax, hemp, and silk which have been imported for the last six months is in the ratio of 28,811,825, to 27,372,502 for the same period in 1847.
But the influx of foreign manufactures is the most singular feature of all; and we do entreat the most serious consideration of our readers to this very pressing point. What we have already said regarding the annihilation of the small trades in this country, by the total withdrawal of protection, receives the amplest confirmation from these official tables; and, if we are wise, something must be done, with the least possible delay, to remedy the evils which have been entailed upon us, through our blind submission to the pernicious doctrines of the free-traders. Do honourable members really believe, that by agitating the ballot, or bringing forward schemes for extended suffrage, they will give work to the unemployed, or put bread in the mouths of the starving? If, instead of attempting to gain a little transient popularity by advocating organic changes, they would seriously address themselves to the task of revising the tariffs, and so encouraging the home market, they would be of real use to the country at this momentous time. For momentous it is most certainly. The discovery of a deliberate plan for general incendiarism in Liverpool, the mobs in Glasgow, and the disturbances at Bradford, are all symptoms of disaffection, and all proceed from one cause—from the sacrifice of native industry at the shrine of the Moloch of free trade. Even now, while we are writing, intelligence has arrived of the arrest of armed Chartists in London and in Manchester; assassination has begun at Ashton, and every post brings in tidings of some new commotion. Is this a time for Parliament to separate without any remedial measure? Is this a time to allow our markets to be inundated with foreign produce; each fresh cargo displacing our own industry, and further adding to our embarrassment, by hastening on another monetary crisis by the exportation of bullion in exchange? This is the work commenced by Peel, and consummated by the incapable Whigs. God knows how it will end, if wiser, more unselfish, and more patriotic men are not speedily summoned to take the lead in her Majesty’s councils.
No account is given, as in former years, of the amount of foreign linen and woollen manufactures imported, or of several other important branches of trade upon which Sir Robert Peel abolished the duty. Why this omission has taken place we do not know, unless it be for the worst of all reasons, that the results were too startling for disclosure. But we shall take the statistics of the silk manufactured trade alone, from which it will be seen that, in two years after the relaxation of the duties, we havedoubled our imports, thereby throwing immense numbers of our own operatives out of employment.
Now if, as it is fair to suppose, the same increase, or even half of it, has taken place in the importation of other articles upon which the duties were removed, but which have been quietly withdrawn from the official tables; these statistics are enough to condemn free trade before any tribunal in the world. Mark how the matter stands. Here is adoubled importationof foreign manufactured goods. One half at least of these goods have come in to displace your home manufacture. The other half would have come in as formerly to supply the rich, who would have had to pay a high duty for the gratification of their fancy. That duty, where reduced, is now lost to the revenue. Who is the gainer, then? No one, save the rich consumer; whilst, on the other hand, the revenue has suffered, and home industry has received a prostrating blow. But—say men of the Cobden school—though the silk weaver, and embroiderer, and milliner, and plaiter, and shoemaker, and tailor, may have suffered, the country is no loser, becauseWEexport goods in return for the articles of import. Do you, gentlemen? Let us turn to the export tables, and see how your account stands. Recollect, you have undertaken to show us a corresponding export of your goods to meet the influx of foreign manufactures. Unless you can do this, your case is utterly worthless, and you stand as detected impostors.
The result is a loss on these articles alone ofTHREE MILLIONSin six months, and we are to set that against doubled imports, free of duty, and displacing British employment! Here are the glorious effects of Sir Robert’s commercial legislation!
What, then,hasgone out to meet the import which is rapidly promoting Chartism among us, by impoverishing the poorer classes? Just what we predicted long ago—Gold; the idol without which men must starve, but which free trade periodically sweeps from out our grasp. The lowered tariffs have operated peculiarly unfavourably at the present crisis—not perhaps so much in the branch of silk manufactures as in others; for it is remarkable that the increase of import in 1847, over that of 1846, is quite as large as the increase of the present over the former year; and had Lord John Russell been alive to the duties of his situation, or capable of comprehending the effects which a glut of foreign goods must produce on the home market, he ought instantly to have brought in a bill augmenting the customs duties, and hurried it through Parliament without a moment’s unnecessary delay. The madness of encouraging increased imports, whilst exports are falling, is utterly inconceivable to any who have not eaten and drunk with Cobden; and it is quite possible that some who have been admitted to that precious privilege, may agree with us if they will take the trouble to consider the foregoing tables. We are not the only sufferers. America is beginning to understand that increased imports are by no means decisive symptoms of a healthy commercial state; and the following extract from Transatlantic correspondence, which we copy from the money article in theSunnewspaper of 16th August last, is pregnant with meaning in the present posture of affairs.
“The whole of Europe is in a terrible condition, and our only hope is, that Great Britain may escape the blast which has swept from one end of the Continent to the other with such devastating effect. If England escape, we shall continue to find extensive markets for our products, and our prosperity will be partially preserved. Our markets on the Continent have almost become extinct, so that the worst in that particular has already been realised; but, every week or month, consumption in that section of the world is restricted or limited—so much the more injurious must be the revolution causing such a state of things. With the exception of Great Britain, our European export trade has been literally annihilated; butunfortunately, our import trade with these countrieshas not met with a similar fate, but on the contrary, has rather increased than otherwise. Importers and speculators in this country have taken advantage of the financial embarrassments growing out of the Revolution, which the manufacturers of France and Europe generally have laboured under, and have purchased of them for cash, goods at one half their cost, and have filled our markets.A portion of the specie which has been shipped from this port within the last four months went abroad for this purpose; and while our exports had become reduced to the lowest limit, and exchange drawn upon previous shipments of produce was coming back protested, millions of dollars of gold and silver were going forward to purchase goods which could not be obtained on the usual credit. In this way, our whole foreign trade has become deranged, and we have thus far borne the brunt of the commercial revulsions and political revolutions in Europe.”
What is to be said of a system which swamps our home market, whilst at the same time it promotes a drain of gold? What is to be said of the system which makes a drain of gold almost tantamount to national bankruptcy?
Having hitherto dealt with the subjects of the currency and finance, let us now glance for a moment at the new legislation for our colonies. We need not repeat the tale of the disasters into which the West Indies have been plunged, or the ruin which has befallen many of our own most respectable citizens, who, to their misfortune, had embarked their capital and fortunes in sugar-growing estates, trusting to British faith and protection for at least an adequate return. The veriest zealot could not have wished to have seen the crime of slavery more bitterly avenged; but in what a manner! Great Britain, after having made a sacrifice of twenty millions to emancipate the slave population in her own colonies,—a sacrifice to her, though not an adequate compensation to the planters,—after having declared to the whole world her determination no longer to participate in the profits of forced labour,—after having made treaties, and equipped armaments for the suppression of the slave-trade,—suddenly changed her policy, admitted slave-grown sugar from foreign states, first, at a high, and, latterly, at so low a duty, that her own colonies, already impoverished, could no longer afford to defray the cost of production. Here, again, the principle of free trade has been triumphant and ruinous; here, again, the exporting trades have carried their point, not only against the interests of the colonists, but against those of benevolence and Christianity. The cause of the Blacks has been abandoned for the tempting bribe of cheap sugars, of an augmented demand for cottons and blankets to supply the gangs of Cuba, and of machinery for Brazil, to enable the planter more utterly to prostrate Jamaica.
In February last we reviewed with great care all the evidence which we could collect regarding the West Indian interest. The conclusion to which we arrived was contained in the following paragraph:—“And what is it that our colonists ask? What is the extravagant proposal which we are prepared to reject at the cost of the loss of our most fertile possessions, and of nearly two hundred millions of British capital? Simply this, that in the meantime such a distinctive duty should be enforced as will allow them to compete on terms of equality with the slave-growing states. Let this alone be granted, and they have no wish to interfere with any other fiscal regulation. And what would be the amount of differential duty required?Not more, as we apprehend, than ten shillings the hundredweight.” Having hazarded this statement so early, it was certainly gratifying to find that an impartial committee of the House of Commons, reporting four months later, had, after a full investigation of the whole case,—and of course with official documents before them, the correctness of which could not admit of a doubt,—arrived at precisely the same result. The proposition for a differential duty of ten shillings, which was finally agreed to by the committee, was actually made by a member whose general opinions are understood to lean towards the side of free trade,—we mean Sir Thomas B. Birch, one of the representatives for Liverpool.
This resolution of course implied a direct condemnation of the Whig Act of 1846, which the West Indians bitterly complained of as a flagrant breach of faith, and as having put the coping-stone on their misfortunes. It was the resolution of an independent and intelligent parliamentary committee, founded upon a mass of evidence derived from every quarter; and in a matter of this sort, wherein so vast an interest as that of our most valuable colonies was concerned, it might have been expected that the report would be treated with deference, even though it might in some degree impugn the sagacity of a prime minister, by exposing the results of his former reckless legislation. Such was not the case. Had the seven wise men of Greece sate upon that committee, their report would have been utterly indifferent to Lord John, who immediately came forward with a counter-scheme, which had not even the merit of consistency to give it colour. He proposed a new sliding-scale of duties, the result of which will be, that next year the colonists will have a protection against the slave-owners of seven shillings in the article of clayed, and five-and-sixpence in that of muscovado sugar,—the boon to taper away annually, until, in 1854, the protective duty will be reduced to three shillings on the one article, and two shillings upon the other. This is the doom of the West Indies,—and we expect nothing less than an immediate stoppage of the supplies for the maintenance of the colonial governments. Robbed as they have been, ruined as they are, and all through a course of most reckless and unprovoked legislation, it is in vain to hope that any further capital will be embarked in the cultivation of these islands. For the benefit of economists at home, and the clamourers for cheap sugar, it may be as well to record that this new sliding-scale is to be accompanied with aloanof £500,000, in addition to £160,000 already guaranteed this session, for the purposes of promoting immigration, and that at a period when the annual deficit was originally calculated atthreemillions! The amendment of Sir John Pakington, founded upon the resolutions of the committee, was negatived in a full house by the small majority of fifteen.
This has been by far the most important debate of the session; and at one time it was confidently expected that ministers would have been defeated. Sir Robert Peel, however, came to their rescue at the last stage. Oleaginous and plausible as ever, the wily baronet began his speech by deploring the misfortunes of the West Indians, repudiating mere pecuniary considerations, and calling to mind old struggles, in which these colonies had stood by the side of the mother country. This sympathetic introduction boded little mercy for the parties it seemed to favour. Sir Robert had acquiesced in the Act of 1846, and it was now rather difficult to back out from that position. But soothing measures might be adopted, the salaries of governors defrayed by the mother country, andperhaps, if, after due consideration, it should be found expedient to remove the blockading squadron from the coast of Africa, part of the sums so saved might be devoted to colonial purposes. Then came a discourse upon the merits of irrigation, which would have done credit to a lecturer in an agricultural society. Finally, Sir Robert rested his future hopes for the Indies upon other, and what appear to us peculiarly objectionable considerations. He has no confidence in the tranquillity of Cuba and Brazil, and he hints at an insurrection of the slaves being probable, if emancipation is not granted. We shall not comment more than lightly upon the decency of such a hint. Desirable as emancipation may be, it is, to say the least, questionable whether it would be cheaply bought by so terrible a catastrophe as a general rising of the black barbarian population against the whites; and in the event of such a misfortune occurring either in the above slave colonies or in the United States, it is extremely problematical whether our own dearly bought emancipation would effectually prevent the contagion from spreading to the free colonies. But we will tell Sir Robert a fact of which he ought to be fully cognisant. The greatest enemies and obstacles to emancipation, in the Spanish and South American States, have been himself and his free-trading allies. It is well known to many here, and notorious in the West Indies, that at the very time when the ill-advised Act permitting slave-grown sugar to be introduced into this country was produced, negotiations were actually pending in Cuba for the immediate emancipation of the slaves. The results of that Act were the instant abandonment of such an idea, the withdrawal of the slaves from the coffee plantations to the sugar-fields, double work rigorously enforced, and an enormously increased importation of human beings from the coast of Africa. With such a bonus held out to the Cuban planter, such a huge increase of consumption in this country as Lord John Russell gloatingly contemplates, it would be utter insanity to expect that emancipation can take place through any other means than blood, rapine, plunder, and incendiarism. Sir Robert and the free-traders have effectually precluded any milder method. Had they been true to the principles professed by this country at the time of our own emancipation, there is every human reason to believe that by this time Cuba would have been a free colony. Had that event taken place, slavery, and of course the slave-trade, would have received its death-blow. But now when we have given, and continue to give, a direct premium to the abhorred system, when we have shown that we love its produce so much, as to hold the welfare of our own colonies as nothing in comparison, it is mere Jesuitry to cant about the probability of voluntary freedom. This is the worst and most indefensible argument, if, indeed, it can be brought within the category of arguments, which has yet been advanced from any quarter in support of the false legislation and determined opposition of ministers to the just claims of the colonists.
In the course of the debate a singular discussion arose, which tends to throw some light upon the management of the Colonial Office. A most important despatch upon the state of Jamaica had been received from Governor Grey, and this was withheld from the select committee then sitting, although Mr Hawes, the Under-secretary for the Colonies, was directly questioned as to its existence. We do not wish to enter into the details of this matter, or to cast any imputation upon the probity of Mr Hawes, who, in explanation, was fain to take shelter under the plea of a mistake. But the circumstance certainly did look awkward, and the doubts, not only of the House but of the country, were far from being removed by the extreme acrimony displayed by the Premier, in his injudicious defence of his subordinate. Never in our recollection has a Prime Minister shown so remarkable a want of temper and of courtesy to a political opponent, as was exhibited by Lord John Russell in his reply to Lord George Bentinck. We should be glad, for the sake of the utterer, that the speech could be erased from the pages of Hansard, even were we to lose, at the same time, the brilliant and withering reply which it elicited from Mr D’Israeli. A suppression certainly had occurred, whether through mistake or otherwise; and the matter was thought so serious that Earl Grey volunteered an explanation in the Upper House. He had better have let it alone. New charges of suppression were preferred; and finally Earl Grey admitted that, on one occasion at least, he had quoted passages from a Jamaica memorial in support of his argument, totally and purposely omitting to read other sentences, which gave a different construction to the meaning intended to be conveyed! This is popularly said to be the method adopted by a certain personage, who shall be nameless, whenever he has occasion to quote Scripture, and yet it is practised and defended by a high official functionary! We copy the remarks of our contemporary theSpectator, as very apposite on this occasion.
“The personal dispute about the conduct of Lord Grey and Mr Hawes, and the strictures of Lord George Bentinck, which began on Friday last, have usurped a large share of the week’s debates; not altogether to so little purpose as most personal squabbles, since it throws considerable light on the administration of colonial affairs. The general impression, when all sides have had their say, is, that Mr Hawes and Lord Grey did not intend to cheat Lord George Bentinck’s committee by the deliberate suppression of evidence; but the very statements made by ministers, in defence, unveil reprehensible practices. It seems that the routine of the Colonial Office is such as to preclude any security against ‘mistakes’ so grave as the withholding of most important despatches. And Lord Grey claims, as an admitted official privilege, to pick out bits of evidence in his exclusive possession, that make for a particular view, although those bits may be torn from a context that should perfectly refute that particular view! In effect, he upholds the doctrine that a government is not bound to lay before parliament all the information that reaches the departments, even though that information be not of a secret kind, but may select such parts as go to bolster up the preconceived crotchets of the minister for the time being. In this case, Lord Grey had preconceived crotchets hostile to the West Indian colonies, whom he treated as if he were the Attorney-General prosecuting a state criminal. He has carried beyond its usual bounds the spirit of theAnti-Colonial Office, in Downing Street. With this spirit of animosity the Secretary for the Colonies coupled the most singular exhibition of personal trifling, and self-worship. He appealed to the name of his father, as a reason for not accusing himself! and pointed to the ‘awful warning across the Channel,’ as a reason for not preferring charges calculated to weaken English statesmen. ‘Don’t talk of inefficiency or dishonesty,’ cries he—‘it is dangerous; for such talk has upset governments abroad.’ Yes, shaky and dishonest governments; but what is Lord Grey afraid of?”