The Sun.
London, England, 1852-11-27 00:00:00

SUN, LONDON, S.►,

chines, pillaging of houses and shops, encounters with the
military, 34 sentences to death, 5 of whom suffered, Luddite
insurrections &c. The hon. gentleman was frequently in-
terrupted while perusing the extract, most of which was
lost in cries of " Divide," that constantly resounded from
the Ministerial side of the house.] During that period we
had the Capel-street conspiracy, and the outbreak of the
blanketeers, which led to the Manchester massacre. (Oh,
oh from the Ministerial side of the house.) He (Mr.
Cobden) very much doubted whether the greatest politica
changes which took place in this country had not resulted
from the corn law of 1815. (Oh !) That law put a prohi-
bition duty on corn until it reached 80s. a quarter in this
country. What was the state of this country in 1841 ?
Why the whole of the districts in Lancashire and York-
shire were given over to desolation. Stockport had then
3,000 empty houses. The people, reduced almost to despair,
by an extraordinary instinct had abandoned their houses
and workshops, and went to the roadside. Now all those
sufferings were as clearly traceable to the corn laws as any
effect could be to its cause. (Hear, and Oh, oh.) U
you looked to the prices of corn at that time in Russia,
Prussia, Germany, and America, and compared them with
the price in this country—a price sustained by artificial
means—you would find that the greatest disparity existed,
and that if the barrier of monopoly had been broken down,
you would have had millions of quarters coming in to feed
the unhappy masses of the country. The Registrar-
General's report showed what were the effects of this
unjust restriction on the health of the people, and our
criminal statistics proved that as the price of corn rose
crime increased, and as it fell crime diminished. (Hear,
hear.) In 1836, when wheat was as low as 395. sd. a
quarter, the commitments were little more than 20,000;
but in 1842, when wheat was dear, the commitments, ex-
ceeded 30,000. In 1850, when the price fell again, the
commitments also fell to 26,813. From 1846 to the pre-
sent period, notwithstanding the increase in the popula-
tion, the commitments had decreased more than 5,000.
(Hear, hear.) Was it not, therefore, clear that the corn
laws had 'produced all those calamities which, as Christians,
we prayed might be averted ? He would then ask whether
it was wrong to brand those laws as unjust ? (Cheers.) But
while they were discussing whether the odious epithet of
just should be applied to the repeal of the corn laws, the
only communications with which he was troubled were
complaints that the Free-traders were too quiet, and did
not assert their principles with sufficient ardour. (Oh,
oh, from the Ministerial side.) Hon. gentlemen opposite
had been allowed to assume too much the tone of a griev-
ance. They complained that the Free-traders were too
harsh, and wanted to trample on those that were down.
He saw no symptoms of being down among the snmort.rs
of the Government. On the contrary, he had seen very
high spirit maintained among them, and he saw also, with
feelings much akin to disgust, the way in which a por-
tion of the other side of the house treated the son of the
illustrious man to whom we owed this measure. He
(Mr. Cobden) complained of gentlemen opposite, not
because they behaved badly to Free-traders, but because
they behaved badly to those who sent them to Parliament.
Some of them claimed compensation on the ground that
free trade had done some injury to the farming interest ;
but he complained that the landlords of this country had
been the authors of all the mischief that had ensued. For
six years they had kept alive the delusion about the resto-
ration of protection. Those six years might have been
better employed as a transition state for the farmers, for
he admitted, that in getting back from a vicious system to
a sound one, inconveniences must be felt by somebody.
That was the penalty which people who went astray had
to pay for being put right. (Hear, hear.) But the transi-
tion penalty should not be thrown on the farmer' shoulders.
The landlords had enhanced the mischief, by sending
round the honourable member for Warwickshire (Mr.
Newdegate) to delude the tenant farmers. That honourable
member had called him (Mr. Cobden) a successful dema-
gogue. He could not return the compliment. (Laughter.)
He had been sent on the platforms at Drury-lane and Con-
cert-hall, to do his best to keep alive the delusion. Such
gentlemen had been the mortal enemies of the farmer.
(Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Cobden) would advise the hon-
ourable member for Cambridgeshire, a tenant farmer, to
keep out of bad company. (Laughter.) This metropolis
was a dangerous place, especially in the political world.
The honourable gentleman said the farmers had been
nearly rained during the last six years, but what had
the agents of the landlords done for the farmers ? He
tells them not to talk about rent—about clearing away
hedge-rows and diminishing game. (Cries of " Oh, oh !"
and interruption.) He was aware he was coming to the
marrow. (Laughter, and cries of " Hear, hear.") The
agents told the tenants to look to protection' and to depend
on Mr. Newdegate, who had 100 protection societies
throughout the country. (Derisive opposition cheers.)
The honourable and gallant Colonel cheered. (Colonel
Sibthorp here called out " Hear, hear," in so loud and
boisterous a tone as to call forth laughter from both sides
of the house.) He (Mr. Cobden) had read the gallant
colonel's address at Lincoln, and he had marked his conduct
there and in that house; but he was sure the gallant colonel
would agree with him when he said that he was not
persuing the course of hon. gentlemen around him. If
these gentlemen had principles, they did not show that
they were worthy of good principles. They came into that
house to maintain protection, and they told the farmers it
was the cause of justice. But, although they came there
to maintain protection, they were ready to say they were
for free trade, if they could get the noble lord the member
for Tiverton (Lord Palmerston) to draw up an amendment.
(Cries of Divide, divide.) If they persevered in their inter-
ruption, it would redound on themselves. (Cries of Oh.)
What was the language they had held in that house? They
said they were in a minority—but they would bow to the
majority. Did the Free-traders do so ? When he (Mr.
Cobden) came into Parliament in '4l, for Stockport, a vote
of want of confidence was moved against the Government
by the hon. member for the West Riding of Yorkshire on
the question of free trade—and what did the Free-traders
do? Did they bow to the majority of 90, which turned the
Government out ? No ; they set manfully to work, and
they gained the representation of Yorkshire. (Cheers.)
If the Protectionists think their cause to be just, let them
take the same course. He (Mr. Cobden) would say that
they wanted the courage of their countrymen if they did
not take that course. If they retained their convictions,
don't let them vote for the amendment of the noble
lord (Lord Palmerston), or for the resolution of his hon.
friend (Mr. Villiers.) Let them maintain their prin-
ciples, and if they be just they could not fail of success.
He thought he could not speak too strongly of the insult
offered to their reason and their common sense by the
language that had been held by the right hon. gentleman
the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the course of the
debate. (Cries of ‘: Oh, oh," and interruption.) He had
tried to make them believe that he had not been encou-
raging the party who called for protection. Why, he had
a pocketful of extracts to prove that the right honourable
gentleman had done so. He bad told them that he had
measures in store for the agricultural interest, and yet the
Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Wal-
pole) had told them that they were not to expect, in the
budget, any remedial measures for the agricultural interest.
The question really at issue that night—(interruption)—he
was going to say that the question at issue was to vote for
a resolution in support of a free-trade policy, and to vote
for a resolution for free trade accompanied with compen-
sation. (Cheers and interruption.) Looking at free trade
as a measure calculated to put an end to injustice, to
sedition, and rebellion—(loud cries of Oh, oh, from the
Ministerial side)—he should vote for the resolution of his
honourable friend (Mr. Villiers) and he should most em-
phatically state that the question of free trade was not
settled, while those who had taxed their bread-baskets had
their hands in their pockets. (Loud cries of " Divide,
divide," for several minutes.)
Mr. BUTT could not recognise anything in Mr. Cobden's
past conduct or station that justified him in assuming the
tone of a dictator. The motion, as interpreted by Mr.
Cobden's speech, was not to approve of free trade, but to
record the triumph of himself, and what was known as the
Manchester school, and to humiliate every section of the
house. With regard to the motions, Mr. Butt explained
that he could not, with his Protectionist opinions, vote for
the amendment, but with a clear conscience he could
oppose the motion.
Mr. GLADSTONE said, it was not his intention to have
addressed the house after the speech of the right honourable
gentleman, the member for Wiltshire (Mr. Herbert), after
the speech of the noble lord, the member for the city of
London (Lord J. Russell), and still more after the soothing
speech of the right honourable gentleman (Mr. Walpole.)
He was‘content, in speaking on the question, to pass by
the antecedent conduct of the men who now held the
reins of office. But he had heard an appeal from an hon-
Sir Robert Peel, in which he had expressedana
ourable member (Mr. Cobden) to the friends of the late
da astonishmentheyt
caotultdhebemuforiL itnhetyheingalltenerdyed to pursue,votingon this question with
the Protectionists. He could not, therefore, hear that
appeal in silence. The reason, then, why the friends of Sir
R. Peel would be found voting for theresolutiou of the noble
lord (Lord Palmerston) was because they believed their
vote to be dictated by the principles of justice. He (Mr.
ni
ght from the
however,
Gladstone) was quite certain that the hon. member (Mr.
Villiers) when he proceeded to frame his motion, did not
I heard t wou l d appear,
that
hon. member (Mr. Cobden) that the object of the objection-
firnotem ndtht°e explanationexcitepart ytheyhad warfare.
able words was to exclude the question of compensation.
(Hear, hear.) But he (Mr. Gladstone) took a different view
of the matter, and would say that from no rational con-
struction of the words could they draw such a conclusion.
(Hear, hear.) The epithet used was that the repeal of the
corn laws was just. It might be so, but collateral claims
might arise for compensation. (Ministerial cheers.) It
might be just to abolish the slave trade, but just to give
compensation. (Cheers.) He was simply arguing from the
words they re
lied on, and which did not bear the meaning
oiven to them by the hon. member for the West Riding
rMi. Cobden). He (Mr. Gladstone) did nofforget or under-
value the services
that hon. member had given to free
trade. Complain they might of the course of
argument pur-
sued in that house, but it could not be denied that he had
been mainly instrumental in the triumph of that measure.
The dirtinction between them was this : —The Secretary of
that evening, •
State, who had addressed the house
was a
jest or
that
in 1856 he did not think free thraoc e
does thinkj thart apolicsve
policy ; but he says that now
what was the difference between"
both wise and just. Then, .
this feeling, united in that
them ? Why, that they were
while hon. gentlemen opposite were obliged to put up with
t they were wrong,
the hard necessity. of
because they believed the
they on his side joined them,
measure of free trade was wise, just, and beneficial, which
hon. gentlemen on the opposite side also assented to.
(" No," from the Ministerial benches.) If this were so,
why need they travel back to the year 1846, for the pur-
pose of finding out materials with which to insult hon •
gentlemen opposite ? He put it with confidence to the
hon. gentleman who brought forward this motion, and he
.
had no hesitation in declaring that the resolulion was
drawn up in form of language for which there was no Par-
litmentary precedent. He did not mean to say that there
was no precedent for a motion to adopt a similar resolu-
tion to that moved by the hon. and learned gentleman,
but he did contend that there was no case as a precedent
where such a resolution was adopted by the house, and if
the house would allow him he would refer to a case
which had the closest analogy to the present one of
any that he was acquainted with. He alluded to the
case of the celebrated appropriation clause, and he
did not refer to the case for the purpose of creating any
bitterness of feeling between parties on the present occa-
sion. The noble lord (J. Russell) could well bear a refer-
ence to this case, for it was one of those rare cases in which
the noble lord, notwithstanding the ability and judgment
which he displayed in the conduct of any matter which he
undertook in Parliament, was baffled. (Hear, hear.) The
noble lord, after displacing Sir Robert Peel in 1835, fought,
the battle of the Appropriation Clause with consummate
ability, until he was obliged to give it up in 1838. He
had placed upon the records of the house the declaration
that no measure for Ireland could be satisfactory that did
not appropriate the surplus revenue of the Irish Church for
the purposes of education. Well, then, the Government
were defeated upon this motion, upon which the hon.
member Log Devonshire brought forward a resolution, call-