Page images
PDF
EPUB

Mr. John Smith took occasion to observe, that there had not been a single day, for some time past, without some new joint-stock scheme being brought before the public. He could not help joining, therefore, in the lamentation of the hon. member, as to the uncertainty of the law on the subject.

he should be willing to afford every remedy in his power; but unless that was done, it would be better to let these companies alone.

Mr. Alderman Bridges defended the milk company, which he said had been established these eighteen months, and had already been productive of much public advantage, by giving to the community a cheap supply of pure milk.

without any care, activity, or exertion on their parts, would, he feared, find, in the end, their expectations disappointed, and that they could not compete with effect against individuals, who devoted their whole time and attention to the promotion of their respective trades. The highraised hopes of many who embarked in Mr. Huskisson said, that, as far as any such speculations would, in the end, varemedy was wanted to check wild and un-nish into thin air, and leave those who reasonable speculation, no one could be entertained them nothing but regret and more willing than he should be, to devise disappointment. At the same time that and concert one. With respect to the law, he gave this as his opinion of many of the however, it must be recollected that there speculations afloat, he did not see how the was one existing, by which these com- parliament could at present interfere. If, panies were bound, and for any violation in any of the measures which came before of which they were liable. It was, no them, any thing illegal could be showndoubt, the duty of the House to watch at- if any particular evil could be pointed out tentively any bill coming before them, for the purpose of giving to any of those companies extraordinary privileges. If such a bill came before them, it would be the duty of the House to reject it. But, whatever might be their opinion as to the nature of many of the recent speculations, the law which referred to partnerships was well known; and, with the exception of bankers, he did not see that there was any thing in the law to limit the number of persons who might choose to associate, for the purpose of carrying on any particular trade. He would admit that the rage and folly of the day led to speculations for carrying on ordinary trades in the way of extensive partnerships. They had milk companies, and brick companies, and fish companies, and several others of that kind which he could not enumerate; but, when any of them came before the House with a bill, and asked for no new or exclusive privilege or power, he did not see how the House could turn them away. By refusing the power which they asked, of suing and being sued in the name of one of their officers, he did not see that they could be prevented from acting as a partnership; but, the getting such a power would not of itself be the means of enabling them to continue long in those extensive associations. He was sure that the good sense and industry of those who carried on trades, for the more extensive exercise of which some of the companies had been formed, would in the end prevail, and that those trades would return to their natural channel. Many of the owners of shares, who might be considered as sleeping partners in trades of which they knew nothing but the name, but who expected to reap large profits

Mr. J. P. Grant said, that though his majesty's government might not feel disposed to alter the law with respect to extended partnerships, yet he thought it was their duty so to regulate it, as to prevent the present practices of the transfer of shares.

Ordered to lie on the table.

IRISH MISCELLANEOUS SERVICES.] The House resolved itself into a committee of Supply. On the resolution, "That 1,600l. be granted, to defray the expense of the Hibernian Marine Society for the year 1825,"

Mr. Hume objected to the principle of voting away large sums to charitable institutions in Ireland. The whole sum to which these eleemosynary grants amounted was 342,000l. He admitted that in this was included grants for the purposes of education, to the principle of which, if properly applied, he did not object; but many of the other grants ought not to be sanctioned. We had no institutions similar to some of those now before the committee; and he did not see why the public should be taxed to support them in Ireland. Many of them ought to be reduced altogether, and others put upon a proper footing.

Mr. Grattan denied that the whole

[ocr errors]

amount of the grants was for charitable purposes. A great portion of them was for education, to which no objection had been made.

Sir T. Lethbridge thought that it would be niggardly in the extreme to withhold these grants. Nothing was so important, in the present state of Ireland, as to provide permanent establishments for the education of the lower orders.

Mr. Monck contended, that the support given by government to charitable institutions generated more mischief than it relieved. If they were to give 100,000l. for instance to the Foundling Hospital, they would do nothing more than give a bonus to incontinency, and to the propagation of illegitimate children. He was convinced that the House was proceeding in a wrong course, and that the best thing it could do would be to abandon it.

Mr. Curteis hoped that these charitable votes, instead of being permanently fixed at their present rate, would be annually reduced.

Mr. Lockhart objected to the principle of these charities. By increasing the number of paupers, they increased the quantum of misery already existing.

Mr. Hume asked, if it was intended to reduce these eleemosynary grants? Within a few years, they had increased from 79,000l. to 342,000l. He protested against such an increase, without some satisfactory reason being given for it.

Mr. Goulburn said, he would not pledge himself to any annual reduction of these grants. Sums must of course be voted, commensurate with the necessity of the

case.

Mr. C. Grant was of opinion, that though the principle of some of these grants was objectionable, the reduction of them ought to be gradual. Amongst the grants which he considered objectionable, was that to the Protestant Charterschools. Though they might be valuable in particular instances, in teaching reading, writing, and arithmetic, he believed that, upon the whole, they had utterly failed in training up good men, good citizens, or even good Christians. He therefore wished to see the management of them corrected, as it gave education to one class only of the king's subjects, and excluded every other. He was afraid that too many of the grants were partially and not generally applied. If the House thought proper to interfere with the cha

ritable institutions of Ireland, he trusted it would take care, first of all, that its bounty was equally divided amongst men of all religious persuasions in Ireland: and next, that it did not collect in Dublin all the pauperism and profligacy of Ireland.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that, before hon. members condemned these grants to the different schools and hospitals in Dublin so loudly, they ought to consider of what avail they were to that metropolis. They were most of them established before the Union, and were supported by the various noblemen and gentry who at that time were in the habit of residing part of the year in Dublin. As the Union had withdrawn from them great part of that support, the government thought themselves bound, in a certain degree, to supply it. In London these institutions abounded, but were so well supported by voluntary contributions, that it was unnecessary for government to give them any assistance. As far as any evil might arise from such a mode of expending money, it was the same whether the money came from the purse of the public, or from that of individuals. He would not withdraw these grants upon any abstract objections; because he knew that, by doing so, he should leave many persons in a state of absolute destitution.

Mr. S. Rice contended, that the efforts made by individuals to relieve private distress in Ireland were equal to those made by any individuals in any European country. Though Ireland had no poor rates, and long might she continue without them! her poor were supported by dispensations of charity, which did honour to the country which bestowed them.

Mr. Grattan supported these grants, and contended that the charities to which they were given were, in the main, excellently conducted.

Mr. Hume complained, that the gradual reduction of these charities which had been introduced, had not been adhered to. He was convinced that these grants did more harm than good.

The resolution was agreed to.

[ocr errors][merged small]

been the clumsiest mismanagement of the affairs of the linen trade in Ireland, machinery such as this board would never have been continued in the present advanced and enlightened age of science. He called upon ministers, who were abolishing shackles upon the freedom of trade, to do away with this. Why should the linen be more protected than the woollen, the cutlery, or any other trade in Ireland. These establishments might have been necessary in the infancy of the trade, but were not necessary now. Upon general principles, therefore, he objected to this board.

Mr. Goulburn said, that if the question were now raised for the first time, whether or not, under the present circumstances of the linen trade of Ireland, a board ought to be appointed, he should be slow in voting for it. But, there was a great difference between originating a public body of this nature, and not continuing one which had been a considerable time in existence, and which had worked the greatest benefits for that most important trade in Ireland. It had been the object with the Irish government to foster the linen trade, and their labours had been greatly assisted by the linen board. Many frauds in the trade were prevented by it. It was, in fact, essential to the prosperity of Ireland.

Mr. T. Wilson did not entirely agree in what had been said of the necessity of this board by the Irish Secretary, but still it was difficult to interfere with a body from whose labours considerable benefit was said to have accrued to Ireland. As a general principle, he was decidedly opposed to all shackles upon trade; and he thought that ministers were bound, by their own professions, to be of the same opinion. It was, however, important to consider, whether this general rule ought to be applied in every particular case.

Mr. Trant denounced the linen board as utterly incompetent to the task which it had undertaken. He had himself conversed with some of what were called Inspectors, who knew nothing whatever of linen. He agreed with those who were for removing all restrictions upon trade. At the same time he admitted, that it might not be safe, suddenly to withdraw the apparatus by which the linen trade had been hitherto carried on.

Sir G. Hill defended the linen board, on account of its utility to the staple trade of Ireland.

Lord Althorp was hostile to the vote, upon general principles.

Mr. Hume moved, that the grant be reduced to 9,938/.

Colonel Bagwell bore testimony to the services of the board, in promoting the linen trade in the south of Ireland. It was but latterly that this manufacture had been there introduced; but since its introduction, it had given employment to a great number of poor persons, who would otherwise be reduced to a state of destitution

Mr. Peel said, that the grant had been made to Ireland, partly in consideration of the discouragement of her woollen manufactures. It was therefore connected with feelings existing in that country, and ought not to be considered as an abstract question. He hoped that this short discussion would be taken as a notice in Ireland, that parliament had turned its attention to the subject.

Mr. Grattan opposed the vote, and contended, that the situations were given away upon a system of favouritism.

Dr. Lushington argued, that the effect of the vote would rather be to retard the improvement of the trade than to accelerate it. It would create a factitious trade, and finally leave many hands out of employment. At the same time, he did not wish the vote to be withheld without notice; and if he did not press a division, it would be on the understanding that next year a clear and distinct case should be made out, by the supply of due information.

Mr. Goulburn was in favour of the grant, because it employed the poor of Ireland; at the present moment, an object of the highest importance.

Mr. R. Gordon resisted the resolution, and complained that a large part of the money voted for the linen board went to retainers of ministers.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer adverted to the report of the committee two years ago, recommending a variety of alterations in the linen trade, which had been carried into effect, especially regarding the bounties, which changes had not been accomplished without difficulty. Ministers had, therefore, not been asleep on their posts. Ireland was in such a state, that it was not possible yet to apply to her the ordinary doctrines of political economy. It might have been wrong to grant the assistance to Ireland in the first instance, but it would be most injurious

Sir G. Hill stated the particular reasons for continuing the grant for the board. The linen trade was not one requiring a large capital. Hence it was necessary to have a board to protect the interests of the small manufacturers. The linen board had already produced the greatest advantages, by augmenting the trade from a few hundred thousand pounds to five millions annually.

Mr. Hume was convinced, that the linen trade would have been six millions a-year, instead of five, if this board had never existed. Out of 72 individuals connected with the board, there was not a single Catholic. It was, therefore, an insult to the feelings of the people of Ireland to continue it. They were not all paid, but possessed extensive influence; which they always exerted in favour of ministers.

to plunge at once into an entire new | the other side of the House to state why, system. and on what grounds, such a duty had been laid upon a most important produce of our Indian empire which contained a population of 80,000,000 of souls, who were ready to take our manufactures to a very large amount, provided they could find in our markets a vent for that native produce? If he was told, that the object of the government had been to protect the West-India interest, he must contend, that the only effect of such a system was, to keep up and sustain an accursed and detestable system of slavery, the existence of which every man must join with him in sincerely deploring. When he stated, that the duty on WestIndia sugars was 27s., while that upon East India was about 37s., the House must immediately perceive that such a difference as 10s. between the two duties, was calculated to keep one of these sugars almost entirely out of the market; and, by consequence, greatly to diminish the supply that would otherwise be poured into it. Now, it was pretty generally allowed, that abundance of produce was the very sinews of commercial prosperity. It was true, there was a drawback allowed on the exportation of sugars, amounting to 68. per cwt.; but it could be easily shown, that that drawback, without effecting any benefit for this country generally, by increasing the supply and diminishing its price, served only to put upwards of a million of money into the pockets of the WestIndians. It was with pain that he felt himself bound, on this occasion, strongly to object to the course which ministers seemed disposed to take. He had with pleasure supported them in the principal measures of what he conceived to be their improved policy. He had had the gratification to see them reduce the duties on wool, timber, iron, hemp, and wine itself; and in all the principles upon which right hon. gentlemen over the way had suggested those reductions, he had most cordially concurred. Even upon questions, perhaps of more doubtful expedi ency, he had gone with ministers, because he conceived that trade could only flou. rish by being entirely free. But, to retain

Mr. J. Smith agreed, that the true principles of political economy could not be applied to Ireland in her present unsettled condition. By means of the grants to Ireland, many thousands had been employed in productive and reproductive labour. Though, in some respects, it might not be well managed, he should be very sorry to see this grant withheld.

The House divided: For the Amendment 17. Against it 76. Majority 59.

EAST-INDIA SUGARS.] On the order of the day, for reading the Annual Duties bill a third time,

Mr. Sykes said, that, before this bill was read a third time, he wished to make a few observations respecting the Sugar trade. He did not know on what principles ministers were acting. It seemed to be the policy of this country to prohibit the importation of sugar, unless it came from the West Indies. Now, on what good principle such a policy could be founded he knew not. If it should be said, that East-India sugars might be imported, he admitted the assertion; but only to a very small extent, for it was notorious, that the immense duty laid on sugar imported from the East Indies, amounted almost to a prohibition of that article. This appeared to him to be to-pear to him calculated materially to injure tally at variance with sound policy, which would rather induce ministers to favour the importation of the products of a country that took so many of our manufactures in return. He called upon gentlemen on

the duty upon East-India sugars did ap

our commerce. Why was that duty to be continued, if it was so contrary to those principles of free trade which ministers themselves had advocated in other cases ? He called upon the government to set

open the sugar trade, as it had done others. As for the West-Indians, all the benefit which the present regulations might procure to them was lost to us. At present, the produce was so much greater than the consumption, that the drawback in question was not so great a bonus to the West-India grower, as, under other circumstances, it might be. But, what would be the case, whenever the -consumption should equal the supply? Why, whenever we happened to grow no more sugar in the West-Indies than was equal to the consumption, or demand of the market, the West-India interest would have a complete monopoly of that market. The East-India trade, in the mean time, was suffering severely from the inequality of duties, and the public were left without the benefit of a fair competition. No other heavy goods were called for in the East-India trade, except rice, saltpetre, and sugar; but sugar alone offered that permanent and advantageous article of commerce, which it was the duty of the government to encourage by a more equal apportionment of the duties. The keeping up this prohibitory system, not only encouraged slavery in the West Indies, but had, in a considerable degree, cramped the productive energies of India. To prove that the West-Indians themselves considered that they derived no very material benefit from the drawback allowed on the exportation of sugars, he should cite the authority of a gentleman who was allowed to possess the most extensive information on these subjects, and who was himself the agent for the island of Jamaica. He meant Mr. Hibbert. A letter signed by Mr. George Hibbert, and published in the Royal Gazette of Jamaica, contained an admission on the part of the writer, that the drawback allowed on refined sugars was little short of a gratuitous bounty of about 6s. per cwt. on the exportation of all West-India sugars. The House would observe, that this drawback of 6s. per cwt. would amount, upon the sugars imported from the West Indies into this country, which was perhaps 190,000 tons, to about 1,140,000l. Now, these facts were admitted by Mr. Hibbert himself. He allowed that the bonus afforded by this drawback on bounty would be to such an extent; and yet that, large as this bonus was, it would not answer the necessities of the West-Indians. It would be observed that, year after year, the West-Indians came to that House,

asking for further relief; and yet that, to whatever extent that assistance might be afforded, it never proved sufficient. He had a further objection, however, to bounties of any kind; upon this principle

that they never, or rarely, were serviceable to the country. A free, unfettered trade, left to its own energies, was that which mainly enriched the country. If a bounty was allowed on sugar, or any other article, the only effect was, that the foreign consumer would buy it so much cheaper; and in that case it must be allowed, that we ourselves made a present of so much to the foreign consumer. It had been said, that a rise of prices in colonial produce was rather beneficial than otherwise; and thus it was often argued, that such a rise of prices improved the condition of the West-India slaves. But, he denied this. He had reason to believe, that the only effect of such an advance in prices was, that the slave was compelled to work the harder during all the time the improved market was likely to last. The free labourer might benefit under such circumstances; but not the slave.

And this would appear from a slight review of one or two important facts. In the Bahama Islands, where the slaves were generally better treated than in many parts of the West Indies, and sugar was not cultivated, the average increase of slave population, with reference to other of the islands, was about three per cent. In Barbadoes, where very little sugar was raised, the increase was about one-and-a-half per cent. In the larger island of Jamaica, where the cultivation of this produce was carried on to a much larger extent, the decrease of human life was about one per cent; but, in Demerara, in Guiana, the great mart for sugars, and where the most considerable number of slaves were employed in its cultivation, the decrease of human life was about three per cent. The hon. gentleman, after again calling on government to remedy such a defective inequality of duties as that which he had pointed out, sat down, protesting that he should never cease to advocate the cause of free trade all over the world.

Mr. R. Gordon threw back the insinuation, that the rise in the price of sugar was beneficial only to the West-India planter or proprietor. When the question came under discussion in a more regular form, he should be ready to give a direct and positive contradiction to the state

« PreviousContinue »