Punch: Punch (76.1879)

May 10, 1879.] PUNCH, OR THE LONDON CHARIVARI. 207

REVOLTING MEANNESS!

Nurse {examining Christening Present, just received). "Lor, Ma'am, if Mr. Macstingy hai

sent dear baby the cup his cochin-china fowl won at the poultry show ! "

{Commons.)—Adjourned Debate on the Rylands Resolutions.

Mr. Goschen, the great gun of the Debate, thus far, fired off the heaviest charge that could be
fired against the Government, packed into forty minutes.

"The First Lord of the Admiralty asked, with much emphasis, whether if the Liberals were in office they
would diminish the armaments by a single man or a gun. He would answer that question. If it were his
misfortune to be responsible for the acts of the present Government—if he had an Afghan war on his hands ; if
he had left a Viceroy in charge who moved a division of the army half way to Cabul on sanitary grounds ; if he
had a High Commissioner who dreamed a dream of establishing a second India in Africa, whom he had censured
but not yet removed; and if he had to provide for garrisoning Roumelia in consequence of engagements at
Berlin; if, possibly, he had to send men to Cyprus in order to meet his engagements in Asia Minor,—no, he
certainly should not think of reducing the armaments with which he had to face those engagements."

That is the pith of the matter. Accept the policy, and you have no right to complain of the
expenditure. Still, the Government ought to meet their Bills. But what was their financial policy?
It simply postponed the excess of expenditure and liabilities over income to a future day; it
renewed bills ; it prolonged liability. They had, in fact, avoided unpopularity.

Sir H. Selwyn-Ibbetson, to a House growing small by degrees and beautifully less, read a long
brief for the Government, bristling with figures, but blank of facts, and blanker of style. _ But as
nobody listened while Sir Selwyn read, and as certainly nobody has read since, the infliction was
by no means so bad as it looks in the Times.

Mr. Gladstone said the Government was not arraigned for not putting on more taxes, but for
spending more money than a wiser policy would have required. They had augmented military
charges by six millions, and, if they had contemplated a reduction this year, it was a case of
death-bed repentance. Unluckily, Ketchwayo had stepped in. By the habit of supplementary
Budgets, the Government was destroying Parliamentary control of the purse. Sound financial
policy had been turned upside-down, and the longer reaction against the Government, its finance,
and its foreign policy, was in coming, the worse it would be when it did come.

Then, after a lot of small fry, pro and con., Mr. Childers boiled down Mr. Smith's facts into a
very thin jelly, and analysed away his figures, bringing the disagreeable total—according to his
reckoning—to five millions increase of military, and twelve of general expenditure.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer replied. The Government had done nothing that was not
necessary to maintain the credit and provide for the safety of the nation. Their object was not
aggression, but tranquillity and prosperity. They had avoided war by mere expenditure and
demonstration of strength, and they had deserved well of their country.

And so the House divided, by 303 to 230, and then cheered itself lustily.

Tuesday.—A remarkable night in the Lords.

Lord Bateman tried to dig up Protection in the form of Reciprocity, whereupon Lord Beacons-
field spoke its funeral sermon, and, like the Sicamber, kicked what he had once adored.

Punch has given a column to his ballad of Lord Bateman, and a Cartoon to the Diz-interment.

Lord Bateman considered Reciprocity the coping-stone of Free Trade. He would not restore
the Corn Laws, but would levy a small customs entry" on wheat coming from abroad. He
repudiated Protection, but would impose " a small restrictive tariff " on all countries which would
not enter into reciprocal arrangements with us. He objected to be called a Dodo—though he

admitted it might be a compliment
to be called a "Do-do" to Prince
Bismarck. So far from being one of
the Seven Sleepers, he, and those
who agreed with him^were the only
people wide-awake. He couldn't see
how a country would get richer if its
imports were greater than its exports
—as Professor Fawcett contended—
it being his experience that people's
wealth was not to be measured by
what they bought.

Lord Airlle said that Lord Bate-
man's Reciprocity was only Protec-
tion in disguise.

The Duke of Rutland went as far
as Lord Bateman, and a good deal
farther. Free Trade meant national
ruin. So far from believing with
Mr. Bright that the distress in 1842
was ten times as bad as now, he be-
lieved the distress now was ten times
as bad as in 1842. Landlords and
tenants were going to smash on all
sides. And no wonder. The more
wheat we grew, the more wheat other
countries would grow ; and the more
cattle we raised, the more cattle would
be imported. Ergo: The cheaper
bread and beef got, the worse off we
should be. In short, everybody was
being shipwrecked, and the only life-
buoy was " Protection."

Lord Dun raven submitted that
bad seasons, idleness, drunkenness,
improvidence, wars and rumours of
wars, standing armies, and strikes
might together have more to do with
bad times than Free Trade. Lord
Morley thought that " Reciprocity"
would, in practice, come to cutting
off your nose to spite your face.

Lord Beaconsfield finally put the
extinguisher on the Duke of Rut-
land, Lord Bateman, and their
friends. The policy of fighting hos-
tile tariffs with free imports was
deliberately and finally adopted in
1846. Reciprocity was barter; and
barter belonged to the lowest form of
civilisation. His honourable friend
had quoted some of his own " musty
phrases," thirty years old. But thirty
years ago we had a complicated tariff,
with a great many dutiable articles.
Now, the tariff included twenty-three
dutiable articles only. AVe had no
longer the materials for a system of
reciprocity. The " most favoured na-
tion clause " was in all our commer-
cial treaties, and forbade it. Reci-
procity was dead. Best it should
te buried—once and for ever !

Lord Granville congratulated
Lord. Beaconsfield on having put
down his foot to stamp out the rising
hopes of Protection.

{Commons.)—Mr. Burt went into
the very serious and ugly subject of
loss of life from boiler explosions,
and insisted upon the necessity of
compulsory inspection, and more
stringent enforcement of the respon-
sibilities of boiler-owners, who, from
niggardliness or carelessness neg-
lected their duty to have their
boilers kept in proper repair, and
used with proper care.

Messrs. Hermon, Cowen, Sir T.
Bazley, Mr. Macdonald, and Mr.
Sheridan, supported Mr. Burt.

Mr. Cross quite agreed with him
in his end; the only question was as
to means. He doubted if the way
was yet open to compulsory and
general boiler inspection, but he