Mr. Gladstone. Ricardo on the other. The House might have almost contented itself with reading the old debates of 1822, instead of again discussing the issue in 1842. The House, however, debated Peel's new proposal for three nights. In these debates the Cabinet was represented by Knatchbull and Graham; but Peel found his most competent assistant in a younger man. Mr. William Gladstone, the son of a Scotch merchant settled at Liverpool, was born in 1809. Like his great leader, Peel, he followed up a brilliant career at a great public school, by taking a high degree at Oxford. Fortunately, even the doors of a reformed Parliament were open to a young man of promise; and the Duke of Newcastle, anxious to maintain his influence at Newark, invited Mr. Gladstone to stand for his borough. The Tory duke watched with satisfaction the progress of the young politician whom, he probably thought, he had distinguished by his notice. Mr. Gladstone, whose father had possessions in the West Indies, made his mark in the first reformed Parliament by a vigorous defence of slavery and the planters. His ability was rewarded by a subordinate office in Peel's first Administration. From 1835 he became one of the recognised supporters of Conservative principles. Supporting Graham's motion, condemning the war with China, in 1840; 2 supporting Sandon's resolution on the sugar duties in 1841,3 he had strong claims on the Conservative Ministry. His services were rewarded with two offices, the Vice-Presidency of the Board of Trade, and the Mastership of the Mint; and his ambition was further gratified by his appointment to the Privy Council. Any one, however, who will turn back to the debates of 1842 will see that these various honours were worthily bestowed. The brunt of every great contest in that session fell on Peel; but Peel found his most capable lieutenant in the young orator whom he had just raised to the Privy Council. The first occasion after his acceptance of office on which Mr. Gladstone rendered effectual service to his party was in 2 Hansard, vol. Iv. p. 1029. 1 See ante, vol. ii. p. 108. 3 Ibid., vol. Iviii. p. 160. replying to Russell's criticisms on Peel's scheme. In preferring a fixed duty to Peel's graduated scale, Russell was adopting the wiser and more statesmanlike course. But there was one objection to Russell's fixed duty. In periods of scarcity, when the price of corn was high, it imposed a much heavier burden on the consumer than Peel's scale. Both statesmen practically proposed when the price was 645. that the duty should be 8s. But Peel contemplated that every further rise in the price should be attended with a corresponding fall in the duty. Russell saw the advantage which this circumstance gave to his opponent, and suggested as a matter for consideration that when the price rose to 735. the 8s. duty might be changed into a 1s. duty.1 Mr. Gladstone at once fastened on this suggestion. What would be the effect, he asked, of the two schemes on an importer of corn when the price of wheat stood at 645., the point at which both Russell's and Peel's scheme met, at which "these two great planets were in conjunction?" Under Peel's scheme the importer would have an inducement to let in his corn which would increase with every increase in price; under Russell's scheme he would have every inducement to keep back his corn till the price rose to 735.2 Russell's scheme thus reproduced one of the evils of the old law, and would prove a source of inconvenience to the consumer. It is probable that the great body of members only imperfectly understood the issues which were thus laid before them. But the majority of them had been returned to Parliament pledged to reject Russell's scheme, and Russell accordingly experienced a decisive defeat. This division, however, did not terminate the controversy. Two days after the defeat of Russell's amendment, Mr. Villiers proposed the total repeal of the Corn Laws. The consequent debate spread over five nights; but total repeal found little favour on either side of the House, and Mr. Villiers was defeated by a large majority.+ 2 Ibid., p. 370. Hansard, vol. Ix. p. 352. On the following day, Christopher, one of the members for Lincolnshire, a county which has been always remarkable for its fidelity to protection, endeavoured to obtain a slightly higher scale of duties than that which had been proposed by Peel. Christopher, however, did not venture to press his own views to a division. A subsequent proposal to levy relatively higher duties on barley was also defeated; and Peel's scale was embodied in a bill, which was read a first and second time in the first fortnight of March.1 The Budget. For a whole month the time of the House of Commons was occupied almost continuously with these discussions. But the members were already eagerly expecting a more important debate. From the commencement of the session men had intently speculated on the financial measures which it was known that Peel was preparing. During the whole month, however, in which the House was engaged on the Corn Law, Peel made no sign. He declined to commit himself to an imperfect statement,2 and he waited till the Army and Navy estimates were voted to bring forward his Budget. At last, on the 11th of March, he rose to allay the general expectation. Baring, in 1841, had estimated the revenue of 1841-42 at £48,310,000, the expenditure at £50,731,226, and had placed the deficit at £2,421,776.3 Peel, speaking within three weeks of the close of the financial year, placed the revenue at £48,053,000, the expenditure at £50,387,000, the deficit at £2,334,000. The deficit of 1837-38 had amounted to £1,400,000, the deficit of 1838-39 to £400,000, the deficit of 1839-40 to £1,457,000, the deficit of 1840-41 to £1,842,000, the deficit of 1841-42 was estimated at £2,334,000. The gross deficits of these five years had exceeded £7,400,000. But the evil did not stop here; the expenditure of 1842-43 was placed at £50,819,000, the revenue at only £48,350,000. There was every probability, therefore, that a further sum of £2,470,000 would be added to the gross deficit in the ensuing year; and that the accumu 1 Hansard, vol. lx. pp. 1103, 1184; and vol. Ixi. pp. 44. 405. lated deficits of the six years would amount to almost £10,000,000.1 For six years a Whig Ministry had tolerated these discreditable deficiencies. Spring Rice had made no effort, and Baring had failed in his attempt, to determine them. His addition of five per cent. to the customs and excise in 1840 had broken down. His modification of the sugar and timber duties in 1841 had been rejected by Parliament. It was obvious that Peel in 1842 could not resort to the proposal which he had assisted in defeating in 1841, or to the measure which had proved abortive in 1840. One expedient, however, was open to the financier; and Peel had the courage to impose a direct tax on income. He proposed to place for the next The incomethree years a tax of sevenpence in the pound, or of tax revived. almost exactly three per cent., on each person's income; but to exempt from its operation all incomes of less than £150 a year, and all Irishmen, except Irish landlords residing in Great Britain. Ireland being excused the tax, Peel increased the duty on Irish spirits by 1s. a gallon. In addition to these arrangements, he decided on equalising the stamp duties, and on subjecting coal exported in British bottoms to the tax of 45. charged on coal exported in foreign vessels. By these various methods he expected to derive an income of £4,380,000, and thus convert his deficit of £2,470,000 into a surplus of £1,900,000.3 ? Peel said in 1842 that the five per cent. ought to have produced £1,895,000, and that it only yielded £206,000. Hansard, vol. Ixi. p. 432. 3 Peel expected to derive £3,770,000 from the income-tax, £150,000 from Protection By one bold stroke Peel had succeeded in converting a deficit into a surplus. By another bold stroke he applied his surplus towards the relief of trade. In 1842, the duties. tariff enumerated no less than 1200 articles. Every commodity which either necessity or fancy required paid toll at the custom-house. Many of these duties, however, were not raised for the sake of providing a revenue for the State; the majority of them were imposed for the sake of protecting the British manufacturer or the British colonist. The country gentlemen who had governed England for one hundred and fifty years had displayed the merit of consistency in their principle. They taxed foreign corn, foreign meat, and foreign wool, for the sake of maintaining their own rents; they taxed foreign commodities for the sake of maintaining the profits of the manufacturers. In their universal benevolence they were ready to listen to any cry for protection which was raised by the humblest interest; the only interest which they consistently. disregarded was that of the consumer. The great town of Birmingham once seriously desired that the use of shoestrings instead of buckles should be prohibited; and it is probable, if shoestrings had only been imported from abroad, the absurd request would have been complied with. Some member, however, recollected that, if Birmingham made buckles, Coventry made ribbons, and the House, unable to decide between two such claims, suffered the consumer to tie instead of buckling his shoe.1 Birmingham succeeded in surviving the crisis in its trade which the change of fashion had threatened. But the House neglected to apply the lesson which it might have learned from the incident. Members, who thought it the first duty of freemen to free themselves from competition, forgot that in freeing themselves from competition they had ceased to be free. stamps, £250,000 from spirits, and £200,000 from coal; total, £4,380,000. Hansard, vol. lxi. p. 449. By an odd mistake, which is corrected in the text, he placed the deficit in his speech at £2,570,000 instead of £2,470,000. Peel subsequently explained that he had provided the additional £100,000 to meet any deficiency which might arise or special emergency. Cf. ibid., pp. 842, 902. 1 The story was told by Slaney in the House of Commons in 1830. Ibid., New Series, vol. xxiv. p. 686. |