http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Gordon-Lennox,_5th_Duke_of_Richmond
presented a petition, signed, he said, by a large number of gentlemen, farmers, and labourers of West Harlsey, praying the House not to consent to any alteration in the Corn Laws, and complaining of the unconstitutional course of the Anti-Corn-Law League. The noble Duke, in continuation, said, he had had opportunities of seeing a very large number of the gentry and tenantry of the country since the opening of the "comprehensive scheme," as it was called, of the Ministers had been made known in another place, and he could only say that that "comprehensive scheme" had been repudiated by every one of these individuals who came from every part of England. They viewed the proposed measure with strong indignation, and, one and all, they were prepared to stand to the last to maintain protection, not only for themselves, but protection for the domestic industry of the country. They considered they had been grossly ill-treated and deceived: for the men who by their support were sent into the House of Commons upon the faith that they would maintain the protective system, were — at least many of them—now wavering and doubting; and they thought that the men who had made such pledges were bound to resign their seats in order to see whether they would again be returned. He entirely 338 concurred in these opinions. He thought the abandonment of the system of protection would have an injurious, indeed a ruinous, effect upon the great interests of the country; and the manner in which the subject had been agitated by the Anti-Corn-Law League ought to be one reason, even if there were no others, that the Ministerial measure should be thrown out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Kinnaird,_9th_Lord_Kinnaird
He (Lord Kinnaird) did not know whether it was according to the rules of the House, but as the noble Duke had been permitted to allude to the "comprehensive scheme" submitted to the other House by Her Majesty's Government, he probably might be allowed to add a few observations. He was not going to enter into the details of that scheme. He was happy to say that, although he wished the repeal of the Corn Laws had been more immediate than was proposed, that scheme was fully satisfactory. The protectionist party called upon the Government to appeal to the country. It was, indeed, a strange doctrine, that the Government should not first try the House of Commons. If the Government were beat in the House of Commons, they would, of necessity, appeal to the country; but to appeal at once, without taking the sense of the existing Parliament, would be a practical adoption of the Chartist doctrine of annual Parliaments. As far as he had had opportunity for judging, he believed there would be a majority, both of the people and the Parliament, for the Government measure; but what would be the consequences of postponement? The noble Duke might approve of it; but how long would the question be allowed to exist? Did the noble Duke consider it was possible that the country would very long submit to delay? The consequence of delay, he (Lord Kinnaird) said, would be a sweeping reform in the Parliamentary constitution. The people, disappointed in their desires, would not submit to the continuance of protection after having had the abolition of it within their grasp; and if it were denied, they would not submit to the present constitution of the House of Commons, with regard to the number of nomination boroughs in the hands of the protectionists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Baring,_1st_Baron_Ashburton
It was completely undeniable that the principle of free trade was in accordance with common sense; but the question which they had to consider was, how that principle could be established in a country having such complicated interests—placed in such an artificial position with regard to other countries of Europe, which were placed in positions equally artificial, and which had interests that were fighting against this country in every possible way—this country having, too, a debt of eight hundred millions upon its shoulders. How, he asked, was it possible that the principle of free trade, even admitting—which he did—that it was the principle of common sense, could be applied in such a case? He not only admitted that perfect free trade, if practicable, would be in accordance with common sense, but that it would be consistent with the best interests of all countries. The noble Lord advocated entire free trade; but how, he would to ask the noble Lord, would he be prepared go into a Committee of Ways and Means, to pay the interest of the national debt, 348 and to maintain the credit of the country, without meeting with all the difficulties and chances of a loss of revenue, which his principle would oblige him to risk.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Grey,_3rd_Earl_Grey
It would have been better, he thought, if the measure, which substantially amounted to the abolition of the protection on corn, had, that object being contemplated, proposed the abolition at once. For his part, he regarded the modified sliding scale, which was to be continued for three years, as neither more nor less than a mockery of protection. It was clearly considered so by those noble Lords who advocated the principle of protection, and being so regarded, he (Earl Grey) was totally at a loss to understand upon what ground it could be recommended to them. He confessed that as a landowner, this was the only part of the measure of which he was afraid. He was not afraid of a fair and free competition, for he was perfectly persuaded that the agriculturists of this country were no less able than the manufacturers to compete fairly in the market with their foreign rivals; but he was seriously afraid, when a change in the policy of the country was about to take place, and the avowal was made that protection could not be maintained, that the interposition of an interval of delay before that suggested change was carried into effect would be most injurious, by prolonging those evils with which a state of transition in commercial affairs was invariably attended.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Spring_Rice,_1st_Baron_Monteagle_of_Brandon
He must protest, in passing, against the doctrine of his noble Friend, that tithes should be considered a burden upon land, for which the landed interest was entitled to protection. He could on this subject rely on the authority of Mr. Ricardo, who clearly showed that when tithes became a rent charge, they ought not to be considered as a peculiar burden on land, augmenting the cost of production. Tithes were only a different mode of apportioning the produce. They never had belonged to the landlord, and therefore neither the landlord nor the occupier of the land had any claim to protection in that respect. He could not conceive how tithes could be brought forward by his noble Friend as an argument against free trade.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmond_Wodehouse_(1784%E2%80%931855)
The letter for which he would first call would be the copy of a despatch from Mr. H. U. Addington to Mr. Canning, dated at Washington, on the 30th of May, 1824, and detailing in the fullest manner the conflict of feelings displayed by every description of party in the United States. Nothing could be more comprehensive than that letter, and there was the remarkable fact that neither Mr. Addington nor Sir Charles Vaughan made any particular allusion to corn as being mentioned in it, but spoke of the articles alluded to as Swedish iron, hammered iron, and bar iron, corn having been in fact hardly ever mentioned. The concluding paragraph of Mr. Addington's letter was as follows:—
I have only to add, that had no restrictions on the importations of foreign grain existed in Europe generally, and especially in Great Britain, I have little doubt that the Tariff would never have passed through either house of Congress, since the great agricultural States, and Pennsylvania especially, the main mover of the question, would have been indifferent, if not opposed to its enactment.Such was the version of Mr. Addington—now take the construction of Mr. Chapman, "That our Corn Laws were an apology for the hostile tariffs of other nations required no proof." ["Hear!"] Hon. Members cried "hear."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bowring
While residing at Cairo, with a commercial commission from the British Government, strong representations were made to him (Dr. Bowring) on the subject of the Pacha's decrees, which ordered that corn, beans, and bread, should be sold only on such and such terms. But neither farmers nor bakers would obey—the bazaars were left without grain—the shops had no supplies of bread—the more rigid and severe the ordinances for lowering prices, the higher those prices mounted. Famine menaced the city—the people were on the verge of insurrection. In such a state he had undertaken to be the organ of the public voice to the ruler of Egypt, and to represent to him, that however benevolent his intentions, his decrees were fearfully augmenting the alarm and the misery, and would infallibly lead to extensive and enduring distress. He told the Pacha that the causes which led to the rise and fall of prices were, for the most part, beyond the control even of the mightiest monarch, and that the only way to secure ample supplies at moderate rates was to remove all impediments to the ingress and egress of food; that prices would best regulate themselves; and that by allowing them to mount upwards was the certain means of bringing corn to the market. And it was his good fortune to persuade the Pacha of the correctness of these opinions, and to induce him to withdraw the decrees which interfered with the freedom of 448 the trade in grain. The consequences were what he had ventured to foretell. Abundance succeeded to dearth—an ample supply poured into the markets, and the Pacha acknowledged that the advice proffered to him had been sound and wise.
We were giving a noble example—and when a country like this became a teacher of commercial wisdom, she was sure to find many and apt learners.
No comments:
Post a Comment