The Sun.
London, England, 1852-03-20 00:00:00

THE SUN,-

Lord and o ours.—(A laugh.) Now, the facts do not bear
this out. The Noble Lord (Palmerston) was, no doubt, like
other persons, persuaded of the value and importance of
his proposition, but he was not likely to carry that pro-
position by those who usually go with him. Out of 136
Members who followed the Noble Lord, not above thirteen
usually voted with the Government, and seven of those are
not usually supporters of the Government on many public
questions of the day.—(Hear, hear.) While, on the other
hand, among those who voted with the Noble Lord I find
the names of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, the
Secretary of State for the Home Department, the Secretary
of State for the Colonies, the President of the Board of
Trade, and the Chief Commissioner of Works—(Hear)—and,
in addition to these five Members of the Cabinet, I find the
names of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the Chief
Secretary for Ireland, two Secretaries of the Treasury, and
the Solicitor-General for Ireland. In all 24 Members of the
present Government voted in favour of that motion ! ( Cheers.)
The Right Hon. Gentleman talked of the late Government
having been overthrown by. the internal dissensions of its
own supporters. For what is all this? I have already said
that the position which Ministers occupy is a perfectly fair
one, and I cannot conceive why they should attempt to put
a gloss and false colour upon facts which show that they were
anxious to overturn the late Administration. They were
' justified in doing so if they thought we were not carrying
' on the Government for the public advantage, and whether
they carried their opposition too far on some occasions it is
for others to judge. They might be satisfied with that de-
fence, insteadlof which they have taken the extraordinary
course of seeking everyrkind of false pretence.—(Oh, oh,
groans, and hear, hear, which rendered the conclusion of the
sentence inaudible.) Have I not shown it?—(No.) Will
the House deny that during the whole of last session and at
the commencement of this they did the utmost in their
power, by party motions, to overturn the Government ?
(Hear, hear, and No, no)—and that they were not strangers
to the division which led to the declaration on my
part that I had lost the confidence of the House?
Far be it from me to find any fault with the individuals
named to the offices in the present Government.
I could not myself understand the reasons for the extraor-
dinary diffidence shown last year, when gentlemen of the
party opposite refused to accept office, and were parties to
the declaration made by Lord Derby, that he could not find
.1 persons competent to fill the several offices of the State.
But neither do I see any reason for the extraordinary confi-
, deuce now shown, when they say that they will not only
accept office, but carry on the affairs of this great country
in a position which Mr. Pitt was never bold enough to
assume.—(oh ! and laughter.) I allude to the project of
carrying on the affairs of this great count' for eleven months

...sentry -
without having the confidence of the House of Commons.
—(Oh! and hear.) It is true that in this respect a con-
siderable change has been made in the course of this day.
The declaration made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer
The Go rn-
ve
—a declaration which I understand has also been.made else-
where—shows the benefit of public discussion. Th
meat now perceive that the position which they have taken
up cannot be maintained in the face of Parliamentary de •
bade, and they have already—to use the phrase of the Home
Secretary—altered and modified their course. I now come
to the question of commercial policy, and I must declare
that there is something extraordinary in the present position
of the Ministry with regard to it. Their position is not one
of total reserve, neither is it one of open avowal. Every
day produces some change, and every man holds a different
opinion as to the course which the Government intend to
pursue. Step into the street, and the first man you meet will
tell you that Ministers have thrown protection altogether
overboard. Before you proceed ten yards further you meet
another man, who tells you that Government stand firm by
protection, and will propose it in the next Parliament.—
(Laughter.) The consequence is that persons are can-
vaseing all over the country, some saying that they will
support the Government as Protectionists and others as
Free-traders. This is a great evil.—(Laughter.) A
Noble Lord to-night said he would tell us what a Protec-
tionist was. I opened my ears at this, expecting to hear a
satisfactory solution of the enigma; but the Noble Lord
disappointed me by saying that a Protectionist means a sup-
porter of the Earl of Derby's Government. Well, but
some men say they are Free-traders, and will support Lord
Derby's Government; while others say they will support it
because they are Protectionists. In this case Free-trade and
Protection are interchangable terms. 'This is a matter which
certainly requires some explanation. The Hon. Member for
the North Riding said the farmers of :England know who are
their friends. I confess I rather doatit it. lam inclined to
think that it they had known their friends they would have
acted on the advice which I have given them from time to
time.—(Derisive cheers.) I think that advice should have
caused them to look on me as a friend .rather than an enemy.
I beg leave to refer to the advice whi ch I have given the
farmers at ditThrent times. In 1841 I rsaid I thought the far-
mers of England ought to accept an Bs. duty. I thought
that great commercial changes were cc ening—that an altera-
tion of the corn-laws would probal*,' be proposed among
other things, and that it would be advantageous to them to
effect a compromise by accepting a fixed duty. But no I was
represented all over the country as being the enemy of the
farmers. There can be no doubt, however, that any one who
should now propose an Bs. duty vent Id be deemed a stanch
Protectionist and a great friend of 'the farmer.—(" Hear,"
and laughter.) In 1845 I asked the farmers to consent to a
6s. duty and some diminution of the' taxes which press par-
ticularly on the agricultural interest. They would not hear
me, and I was still their enemy. Ire 1849 the Right Hon.
Gentleman opposite, in stating the ease of the party which
he was leading, seemed to intimate sleet he was desirous of
having my opinion as to the course he was pursuing. I
answered by stating that the great party of which the Right
E Hon. Gentleman was,the leader in this House had a tradi-
tional pulicy to maintain, and I advi sod them to give up
protection. I believe I was then acting as the farmers' friend.
If the party had given up protection in 1849 they would
now be in a much better position t lain that in which they
stand.—(Hear, hear.) They would lave avoided the diffi-
culty now before them. Consider the, difficulty in which
they have placed themselves. :From 1849 to the
present time they have talked to tie 3 farmers of scarcely
anything else but protection. Last ye ar a deputation went
1 to Lord Derby, bearing resolutions which enforced the
-necessity of reversing the financial ist id commercial policy
of Sir R. Peel; and Lord Derby, in addressing them, ex-
pressed a hope that what he then said. -would for ever secure
him against being misrepresented as having abandoned
protection. So matters have gone or L up to the present time,
and now we are told that the utm of it that is to be done is
the imposition of a duty so small tha t it will not make an
appreciable difference in price, and'. even this will not be
proposed unless Lord Derby has not in ly a great majority in
Parliament, but also the concurrence of the country. This
distinction between the country and the: House of Commons,
by the bye, sounded strangely from one who refused to make
any change in tbe representation.—. 4 Hear, hear.) It is
evident that a duty which is to affect prices to an inappre-
ciable extent, and which is to be obti tined only by a great
majority of the House of Commons, i a concurrence with the
country, will not be obteined at all, math if obtainable would
not be worth having. This specimen, (of protection reminds
me of an illustration used in this lie use a century ago by
Mr. Pulteney, who said some proposition of the Minister
bronght to his mind the story of Sir ]Epicure Mammon,who
after having been led to expect for a lot ig time that he would
obtain the philosopher's stone, at last. could get only some-
thing to cure the itch.—(Laughter and: Oh.) The fixed duty
having departed, there is next some talk about removing
burdens which pressed upon agriculture to the extent of twc
or three millions; an objection,eble plan in itself, besides
winch it would afford relief to the extent of only 3d. or 6d.
in the pound. What would such relief as this, or a duty
producing an inappreciable rise of price be, compared with
the descent of price caused by the repeal of the corn-laws
from 565. to 88s. or 40s. a quarter? Is there no danger in
leading the farmers to suppose that they can obtain an equi-
valent for what they have lost? The Honourable Member
for the North Riding asked what we had to do with the
opinions of the farmers. I beg to say that we have a great
desil to do with them, because, although founded on
mistaken views of their own and the general interest, they
have great weight in this House and the country. I re-
member that during the discussion on. the repeal of the corn-
laws in 1846, although I regretted to see a strong and able
opposition directed against a measure which I thought ne-
cessary to the safety of the country, I found consolation in
the circumstance that the farmers and the country gentle-
men of England were acting in unison, and that the farmers
would continue to follow their natural leaders. If, however,
afts er having led them to expect the restoration of
prc tection you should finally abandon it, the tenantry, in-
ate ad of choosing the country gentlemen of England for
thinir representatives, will choose from among themselves
Fe stsons who have not such Conservative notions. A very
considerable person, a man of the greatest sagacity in this
coclntry, said to me not long ago—" People talk of dema-
gogues and the danger of democracy, but for my part I
b Ai eve that some of the tenant- farmers of England are more
den iocratic than any other clase"—(" Oh!" and laughter.)
I w ill not tell on what authority I make this statement, but
if I were te do so you would admit it to be high authority.—
(" :IN. lame, name.") I must decline naming my authority. I
ane giving merely an opinion ; if I were stating a fact I
might be asked for the name. Another mode by which the
fans iers are to be relieved is a revision of taxation. It is
easy to talk of a revision of taxation, but when it comes to
be o onsidered it will be found to involve a great deal that
lii 4at Hon. Gentlemen will hardly like to encounter. In
18:17,0 Mr. Huskisson made a speech in which he requested
the. House to consider how great a portion of our taxation
fell. -.upon articles which entered into the consumption of the
great body of the people and called upon it to weigh the
danse,er attendant on such a system.—(Hear, hear.) Sir R.
Peel had done much to alter the proportion of taxes borne
by the bulk of the population ; but those who have read a
, speech made by a Protectionist in another country mast
prers:iot
liesvis seen that we have not gone as far in that direction as
ranee. M. Thiers, in one of the most able arguments in
favour of protection I ever read, which was delivered when
was a free Assembly in France, and made a great im-
direct
Lae,. l• said, "You ask us to imitate the example of Eng-
-18700,000 Wei have already gone far beyond her. France pays
general
taa • sterling of direct taxes and 18,000,000/. ct in-
and
1 England pays about 20,000,0001. of ,direct
under the u seal taxes, and 35,000,000/. of indirect taxes
That being tar ef Customs and Excise."—(Hear, hear.)
say that the revision of taxation—a
subject whichglierraeat itlillered when I was in office—is a ques-
tion which re
conefuravest deliberation, and that will
itnirdinirgecytoauntdointease
dire
IcTlentaxation. I am very unwilling
that it is necessary to diminish
to diminish the great rev
eanamdolUnt of lihrectivtaxation, yet that is,
tlllielolkwe obtain by means of the
hich you must arr
oenTll- leo;11
ere would be danger in
tea?
wanhdichnteheda
Rightl ty
thataCdasd ictniootgr an
i cstsfuea sonniudeo rnEpax resente
mosti abhorrent to tch
Hon. President of the Board of
expressed last year
acting ti
si na
Igo the
ehre
oi
fn c 01 Toe;
Then the Noble
ks e
very imprudently it appears to me—befe •
raised a question—
re ha constituents,.
I taxes
by asking why, as they pat( on tea
bread.and soap, they
should. not also pay a tax onlt is obvious that th ; htput the e.
Noble Lord's constituency mg
" We pay no taxes on bread b
way ; and say, and meat e
suppose we pay none on soap and very little on.
tea? That would be a better arrangement than.
taxing our bread."—(llear, been) These are questions,
which the Hon. Member for the North Riding thinks very
simple and easy of solution, but if the Right lion. Gentlemen
opposite--abandoning protection as odious to the grew.
mass of the people—apply themselves to the question of '
the revision of taxation, they will find that they would be ,
compelled to carry further the system of direct taxation,
which Sir R. Peel introduced —(Hear, hear.) I think,
then, that the Government, before going to a gener, sl
election, ought to state, without going into detail, whit
course they intend to pursue, in order that the country*
may know something of the issue which it has to try. It
is very well to ask the House of Commons to show for-
bearance, but, on the other hand, I think we ought not to
be treated with contumely and superciliousness.—(Oh, oh.)
The Noble Lord at the head of the Government has tried to
raise a fresh issue—one which, I think, he has no right to raise
—and with respect to which he has no more claim to the ap-
probation of the country than any other party. The Noble
Lord has raised an issue which appears to me astonishing—
namely, that he is Minister in order to prevent an outbreak al
democracy. I have had the honour of being Frat Minister
of the Crown during five years, and I cannot see that durin g
that period democracy has made any encroachment on the
just prerogatives of the Crown, or the authority of the two
Houses of Parliament. The throne is guarded by the virtues
of the Sovereign, and-the Mei Houses of Parliament maintain