Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

every opportunity that occurs favourable for the propagation of the views which he thinks to possess a character so important, and which, if realised, will conduce so greatly to the welfare of his country. He takes delight, and experiences satisfaction, in giving expression to his convictions, and he endeavours to bring the minds of other men to adopt similar convictions, knowing that without a general concurrence, laws cannot be made, or, if made, will not be observed, or the condition of the people improved. But it is a matter of notoriety, that Sir Robert Peel did not evince any such disposition as that just alluded to with regard to the important principles of free trade, notwithstanding he had designated them “irrefragable." Instead of evincing confidence in these principles and showing ardour in advocating them, he studiously avoided becoming an initiator of measures founded on these principles. From the dissolution of the Wellington Administration, Session after Session passed, and Sir Robert Peel was ranged merely in the rank of objectors, and not until he was subjected to a pressing emergency did he seek refuge in the further adoption of the principles of free trade. The assertion which I have just advanced, is matter of so much public notoriety, that it does not stand in need of particular confirmation by the adducement of especial evidence. In proof, however, I will adduce one strong and sufficient instance.

The politician of the world will here say, that with regard to the evidence thus contributed to the great subject-matter under inquiry, by the practical mind of Lord Ashburton, and by the contemplative mind of Lord Denman, it amounts to nothing. That the opinion and argument advanced are not to be adduced as having any of the quality of conviction in them. That these two Parliamentary representatives of two manufacturing constituencies delivered an opinion and

maintained an argument, in the instance under notice, exactly in accordance with the wishes and views of those by whom they were elected, and for the purpose only of satisfying them, and of appearing to support their interests.

Now, with regard to the assertion that this evidence, as well as all such evidence,-evidence as it is commonly though wrongly called, amounts to nothing, I concur entirely in the truth of this assertion. I do not use it at all in the character of affirmative evidence. I use it only in the character of negative evidence. This character it does bear. Lord Ashburton, in his social capacity of British merchant, carrying on trade in almost every part of the civilised world, had been led to see that advantage accrued to him, and to many other men, from having all the markets of the world freely open for the conduction of trade. This being an advantageous, and, consequently, a very pleasant, thing to him, his simple practical mind adopted with facility the conclusion, and had revelled in the idea, that the British capitalists, and also the capitalists of every other nation, ought to have every market of the world completely open for an exchange of commodities. The social law of the case- -or that main feature which both writers and statesmen are so fond of concealing, by burying it under the mystifying term of the abstract principle -the difficult and obscure abstract principle had not engaged his attention. He did not stoop so low as this. In and towards this main department, he had neither shown nor felt devotion. The profit accruing to him, and to other men of similar vocation, from the enterprising employment of capital, by means of buying and selling the productions of the different nations of the world, constituted the Alpha and Omega of his course both of thinking and of acting. Accumulation, and not distribution of wealth, was his cherished idea. For the realisation of this idea his pleadings, in general, were directed, and

-

his arguments constructed. To have required him to constitute evidence, and to construct argument on the main feature of the subject, namely, the creation and distribution of wealth, would have been fruitless. He would have turned away, as so many other men have turned away, in contempt and derision. He would have declared that he had not studied this abstract part of the question; that he left this to be done by dreamers, theorists, and visionaries, in their closets. The plea on the side of distribution, which was now advanced by him in favour of his Taunton friends, was an exception, an antagonistic exception, to the rule prevailing in his own mind, and which, on all other occasions, was maintained by him. Hence, I maintain, that we cannot attach the high quality of conviction, either to the one or to the other of the courses of argument to which Lord Ashburton committed himself.

With regard to Lord Denman, the mind of this liberal and honourable legislator had imbibed, very naturally, a distrust and a dislike of the courses of those statesmen by which the regulating principle of trade had been so perverted, as to be made injurious to the interests of the great body of the people. Hence his mind adopted the notion, that general benefit would accrue from an abolition of that principle under which restriction was applied to the commerce of the nation. He did not look deeper than this, and so in the instance under consideration, he abandoned his adopted free principles, and supported those of an opposite character, seeing that the manufacturing people of Nottingham, in whose welfare he had taken an especial interest, would sustain injury by the operation of the free course.

I now return to a consideration of the course pursued by Sir Robert Peel.

On the 3rd of April, 1840, an important discussion was raised in the House of Commons on the great question of the

Corn Laws. The mooting this question necessitated, of course, the consideration of the whole question of free trade, for it was the truth or falseness of the free principle that the discussion involved. At the conclusion of his address, Sir Robert Peel concentrated the power of his argument, bringing it to bear on this principle. His peroration is recorded as follows: "The principle of total repeal he perfectly understood. It was certainly a magnificent scheme for introducing, in our intercourse with foreign nations, that principle which ought to regulate the intercourse of this great empire within its own boundaries. He doubted the possibility of applying this principle to the external commerce of this country, in a state of society so artificial, with relations so complicated, and with such enormous interests at stake, which had grown up under another principle, however defective it might be, namely, the principle of protection in certain cases. If the principle now contended for was good for the regulation of the trade in corn, it was good for the trade in many other articles. If good as affecting corn, it was clearly good as affecting labour. Upon this principle there ought to be no navigation laws. Every merchant ought to be allowed to procure labour at the cheapest possible rate, and there ought to be no preference for the British seaman. But the Legislature controlled that principle, just in the abstract, by a reference to the necessity of providing for the defence of this country in case of danger. It was found beneficial to encourage our marine, and to endeavour to secure the maritime eminence of this country by giving a protection to its marine. Therefore, in this instance, the Legislature corrected the principle, however good it might be in the abstract, by giving preference to the seamen of this country. Besides, if the principle was to be applied generally, the whole colonial system must be altered.

Foreign sugar must be entitled to admission into the home. market on terms equally favourable with the sugar of our colonies. The timber duties must of course be got rid of. Every protecting duty on manufactures must be abolished, precisely on the same principle on which it was argued that there ought to be no protecting duty on corn; and, as he had said before, if the principle was good in the case of corn, if they might not take an insurance against the caprice or hostility of foreign countries in time of war and against the vicissitudes of seasons, by encouraging the home produce; neither must they seek to secure the preeminence of the marine of the country, by giving an advantage to the labour of British seamen; neither must they give a preference to the productions of their own colonies, or afford protection to their own manufactures. As he had said before, theoretically and in the abstract, this magnificent plan might be correct; but when, on the other hand, he looked to the practice, to the great interests which had grown up under another system; when he found that whatever theoretical objections might apply to that system, still great and complicated interests had grown up under it, which, probably, could not be disturbed, without immense peril; when he, besides, bore in mind that, defective as that system might in principle be, yet under it this country, considering its population, had acquired the greatest colonial empire, the greatest Indian empire, the greatest influence, which any country ever possessed; when he considered, also, that under this system, he would not say in consequence of it, for that might be denied by honourable gentlemen opposite; but simultaneously with it, we presented this spectacle to the world, a country limited in extent and population, yet carrying on greater commercial and manufacturing enterprise than any other country ever exhibited; when he considered all these things, he would not

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »