The Sun.
London, England, 1852-11-24 00:00:00

NAVY DEFENCES.
In reply to Mr. RICH,_
Mr. STAFFORD said the committee appointed to
inquire into the naval defences of the country, had B:a
gested that certain things should be done, with the view
of rendering those defences more efficient, but he did not
think it desirable to state now what they were.

APPEARANCE OF THE HOUSE.
Immediately before the important motion of the even-
Pg was brought forward by the honourable gentleman
the member for Wolverhampton, the house presented a
°erY animated and crowded appearance. All the galleries,
4."l'e St geranrstrs', the Lords', and the Speakers', -were crowded
the fi few moments after the doors were opened.
The attendance of members both on the ministerial side
and on the side of the opposition was unusually nume-
rous. The Cabinet Ministers mustered in full force, and
"lancing along their bench, the eyes of the observers
marked side by side the Secretary of State for
the Colonies, the Secretary of State for the
-151-nine Department, and the right hon. the Chancellor
of the Exchequer. After the arrival of some unimportant
Zessages from the Lords, it was felt that the event of
night was coming on. Directly Mr. Villiers rose,
the
hum of voices throughout the house ceased, and
everything evidenced a sense of breathless expectation.

FREE TRADE.
Mr. C. VILLIERS then rose to move the follow
resolutions :

" That it is the opinion of this house, that the im
rrnved condition of the country, and particularly of the
Industrious classes, is mainly the result of recent
Zuraercial legislation, and especially of the act of
c 46, which established the free admission of foreign
Leasure
' and that that act was a wise, just, and beneficial
...Leasure : That it is the opinion of this house, that the
maintenance and further extension of the policy of free
ii.acle, as opposed to that of protection, will best
n
toe,„,lll.9Perty and industry of the nation to bear the buer'chens
"'Loch they are exposed, and will most contribute to the
general prosperity, welfare, and contentment ofthe people:
11 at this house is ready to take into its consideration
any measures consistent with the principles of these
resolutions.,,, which may be laid before it by her Majesty's
Ministers."
hi...° said--Sir, Sir, in rising to submit the resolutions to the
"use of which I have given notice, I think it right
to state why it is that I have deemed it my duty to
I),ereevere with the motion, and why I did not acquiesce
~t
a4.t, the request of the Right Hon. the Chancellor of the
ehequer to postpone it until he had explained his own
proposals to the house. Sir, with that view I beg to call the
attention of the house to the position in which the house
..
itse 1 c
stands with respect to the great matter which we are
especially summoned at this unusual, and perhaps incon-
l'enient season to settle. (Hear, hear.) There seemed
t° be a general understanding on the first
night
of the session that there should be no
amendment moved to the Address, as it was thought the
great question which we were called upon to discuss
°blight to be left to some future occasion, when it could
e node a distinct matter for our legislation. (Hear.)
It seemed to be the opinion, that under these circumstances
it
x- would be more proper to leave the matter for another
,-,3'.' and it was under these circumstances that I rose
-Pen that occasion to give a distinct notice that I should
1113" a future occasion, bring the matter under the dis-
tinct notice of the house ; but, sir, in consequence of
the unanimity that prevailed on the first night
notiento.ewtehnitesh a the address—(hear'
'5, the session the house became bound, by the
hear)—there was no
amendment moved with respect to the particular matter
in
°lea I, we were supposed to have been summoned—
(hear'
that,otlre'f-ear)—and we were bound by that paragraph
s'eeeh which related to this question, and which I
will
undertake to say was objected to generally by the
(Ilear, hear.) It is impossible to exaggerate.er
sal dism. the Paragraph in the Speech has given umv -
sum, -eathd'aetion. (Cheers.) We thought we were
likeha(i upon
ht lil ee
n official intimation or opinion of the Government
moped here upon this occasion to hear something
designated
great
iltudatdlre
togethermatter upon which the last Parliament
een dissolved, and the new Parliament called
the 'passage in the Speech and the
t° which I refer contained no such
information,
atThed etrherwouasghnoouthint thgeinwithboluet
unworthy
I took IIY
cwohunattryhasasbeaenn
evasion of the whole matter. (Cheers.) Sir,
that, leave to observe, on the occasion of the Address,
anal
,eewhere everybody expected to find something distinct
wasa 2ar, they found that nothing was desided, that nothing
asserted,
but that something was implied of a question-
able character, while the whole paragarph concluded in
Wardyi which were used purposely not to be respectful to-
„aos the house. (Oh.) Hon. gentlemen opposite say
thatil," but I say this most advisedly, I do not believe
, in the history of Parliament,
Such a
hear.) paragraph composed by any Minister. (Hear,
We all know what is meant when referenc 1 is
Canmade to the wisdom of Parliament. (A laugh.) It is a
tphra.se which people make use of out of doors
(Awheneverlaugh,)
they wish to speak sarcastically of the house.
Niisdo g .)
People, then, refer in a sneering tone to the
Was mof the house, and as thispassage. in the Address
• couched in a si • - •
facto • radar strain, it is not srAis-
rY either to him or the country. (Loud cheers.)
parliament was dissolved for
bring-
ing a particular matter
purpose of
the
Parliament was
assembled for the purpose of receiving

the answer of the country to that issue. I am, therefore,
at a loss to understand how hon. gentlemen opposite
could have, for an instant, supposed that this passage
in the Speech would be at all satisfactory to the
great majority of this house ; and, certainly, I am somee
what surprised to hear, from what has transpired in
another place, that it was expected to be satisfactory,
and that any body who disputed the matter would be
considered factious. (Hear, hear.) Yes, anybody who
is dissatisfied with the allusion in the Speech to the
question we are called upon to decide, is to be considered
as a party opposed to those measures which Government
contemplate introducing for the benefit of the country.
(Hear, hear.) Sir, it is on this account that I consider
it most important that this house should at once come
to some distinct and positive declaration upon the great
question at issue. (Cheers.) It is, sir, because I con-
sider that this house has been put in a position anything
but satisfactory to the country, that I now call upon it
to pronounce an opinion upon this matter. (Cheers.)
I have been called upon by the right hon. gentleman the
Chancellor of the Exchequer to postpone my resolutions
until he has had an opportunity of propounding his own
measures ; but, sir, I am at a loss to understand the
logic of such a proposal, for the house has been
summoned to pronounce its opinion upon a par-
ticular matter, upon which it is supposed the coun-
try has decided, and the house can therefore have
nothing whatever to do, in the first instance, with the
plans of the Government. (Cheers.) Parliament was
dissolved to enable the country to decide what our
commercial policy shall be ; the country has answered
that question, and it is now for the house to ascertain to
which side of the question that answer is favourable.
We are now assembled to consider an important subject,
having been dissolved because the first Minister of the
Crown could not make up his mind upon it, and wished
to take the opinion of the country as to whether he was
right or wrong. (Hear, hear.) He had consented, to
use his own expression, to be tried by the country. Well,
he had been tried, and he was found to be wanting. Is
it an answer to the verdict returned by such a jury, to
say--" if this policy won't do, you shall get something
else—certainly you differ from us on this matter,
but I have got a colleague of astonishing re-
sources and standard ability, who will give you
something which will delight you beyond any
thing else, if you will only allow him to propose his
measures." (Laughter.) Now, I don't deny there may
be a genius of that kind, who, like certain individuals
that vend medicines for the cure of all maladies, may be
able to propound a measure which will be universally
palatable ; but in the meantime, we must confine our-
selves to the business which we have come here to
determine. (Hear, hear.) I am perfectly astonished
that a motion so obvious, so reasonable, and so
strictly in accordance with the purpose for
which we are assembled, should be considered
factious, and to be framed with the object of upsetting
the Government. I don't exactly know why lam to
trust this Government more than another. Are their de-
clarations so explicit, and their consistency so satisfac-
factory, that I am to have blind faith in their policy.
(Laughter.) Though I have read the papers, and tried
to collect as much information as possible, I have yet a
difficulty in ascertaining what their measures are really
to be. A noble marquis goes into an agricultural dis-
trict, and being in the confidence of the Government, says
that he is convinced that they will endeavour to advance
the interests of the agricultural interest, though he de-
clines to specify the particular measures ; and another
member, holding an important post in the Government,
goes to Lincolnshire, and declares that Lord Derby is
still a Protestant at heart. Let the hon. gentlemen op-
posite frankly state they are honest converts, and are
inclined to adopt our views, and they shall receive every
forbearance they can expect from this side. (Cheers.)
If any man were to look at the two propositions together,
lie would declare that mine was the amendment, and the
right hon. gentleman's the original. I cannot, there-
fore, withdraw it, seeing what it has done already, and
because I will not despair before the close of this evening
or of this week, of seeing the right hon. gentleman adopt
it, and perhaps vote for it ; and we shall only have
one division upon it, or perhaps none at all.
It is a most valuable admission to make, that
one act of recent legislation has cheapened the price of
food, and thereby greatly improved the condition of the
working classes. I entirely agree with the right hon.
gentleman ; and, in alluding to that act, I have called
it by name the act of 1846. There is one point in the
amendment that brings us near to an agreement, so near
that I am in hopes we shall have but one division, per-
haps none. It is a most valuable admission, " that one
of the acts of our recent legislation had cheapened provi-
sions, and thereby greatly improved the condition of the
working classes." I entirely agree with the right hon.
gentleman on that point, and so much do I agree with
him that I have specifically referred to that act, and so
entirely do I agree with him in his reference to that act,
that I have characterised and ventured to allude to that
act of recent legislation which cheapened provisions, and
thereby improved the condition of the working classes as
the right hon. gentleman admits in his amendment, I
have characterised it as a wise and just measure. (Loud
cheers.) If the right hon. gentleman will give me some
reason for withdrawing my resolution, he will feel obliged
to tell me why an act which according to his own
amendment has conferred such blessings should not be
characterised as I have characterised it. I should be sur-
prised if there should be any hesitation on the part of his
friends, for, having long considered the subject, having
many times heard it discussed in this house, I have a dis-
tinct recollection that the repeal of the corn-laws was op-
posed solely on account of the welfare of the people. It
was always a labourers' question. So it is with me, show
me that the labourers suffer, and I am in the lobby with
you at once. (Cheers.) It is a poor man's question essen-
tially; it was always discussed by hon. gentlemen opposite
in that point of view, and I am perfectly sure that if any
foreigner was present when our discussions were going on,
he would have thought that all the benevolence was on that
side of the house and all the hard-heartedness on this
side ; he would have thought that those benevolent men
cared nothing for their own kindred or their own pro-
perty., but were all ready to be sacrificed for the benefit
of the humbler classes, whereas their opponents were
harsh and flinty-hearted men, always grinding the faces
of the poor, and seeking to throw on them misery.
(Cheers.) If such an observer were to appear to-night,
and to see that we have admitted that recent changes in
the law have benefitted the working classes, and greatly
improved their condition, but yet that a great party, the
majority that used to be, object to designate that act as
wise and just, 1 believe he would be led into some doubt
as to the sincerity of their sympathy with the poor.
Now, if I must offer a word of advice to the right hon.
gentleman and to that party, it would be at once to
accede to my resolution. For if ever there existed a law
which had the effect of raising the price of provisions,
and, consequently, deteriorating the condition of the
people, it must have been the most odious and exe-
crable law that ever existed, and I cannot under-
stand why an act which tended to repeal such a
law, and to produce such consequences as the right
honourable gentleman has described, can be other
than I have described it in my resolution. (Hear,
hear, and cheers.) I cannot conceive a more guilty
exercise of authority than that of tampering with the
subsistence of the people, and if an act having that
effect existed for the benefit of a few members of the
community, I cannot conceive anything more odious than
such an enactment. (Hear, hear.) What is it that you
mean by an act that has raised the price of bread and pro-
visions, and lowered the condition of the people ? Such an
act involves everything that affects the condition of the
people. (Hear, hear.) The amount more or less of food
which the people have determines the condition of that
people, of three millions of people who earn their daily
bread by their daily toil. (Cheers.) Whether a man shall be a
degraded animal or a, social civilised being, depends entirely
on the means he has of obtaining, not only that which is
necessary to supply the requirements of nature, but on the
excess beyond that which enables bim to attend to his other
wants, moral and social. (Hear, hear.) A man so ele-
vated or degraded is literally either a civilised man or the
contrary, just in proportion as food is abundant or scarce ;
p whichtcircumstance affects and that is, in the present state of the world, the most im-
portant
ects the connectedplenty
or with
scarcityt he
of moralfood n. a ture Whatof
man,o
isthebusiness of life? Look at the millions upon millions
e en r gt
manhtheir
occupant
uaa
pbl
ao
nbu
etr forod fett
hef r
ioe ooudrna?
tolentdi
oso
rtr hteahl tee
vwgahat
gaol,
cldh,
wdo erht
pee
tre
hmr
he i
ran
hpe
ess
of the world's people ; what is their business but that of ex-
wesohhfhaaaelnitpgjhbremature grave. (Hear, hear ) It is tha, t which has
produced the universal conviction now prevailing in the
country, that it depends entirely on the amount of food
what is to be the condition of the ')
fore, if any minister or man in authorityeople.
shall,
try
yherteo-
persuade any portion of his fellow-countrymen that the
act in this country which had the purpose of increasing
abundance of food, has had the effect of increasing crime
—I presume to say that if 'any man pronounces such an
opinion, he will excite the wonder, if not the indignation
of the people throughout the land. (Hear.) There are
men in every parish throughout the country whose
expe-
rience has satisfied them that the crime and destitution
of the people solely depends on the amount of food
available for their support ; and in making the reference
I do to this point, I am perfectly satisfied that the right
hon. the Secretary of State for the Home Department
will feel it necessary to make some explanation to this
house of certain statements he made in the country when
recently he addressed his constituents. I am perfectly
satisfied that the right hon. gentleman has been misre-
presented or misreported, for I believe him to be the last
man in the house who would misrepresent a fact or mis-
lead his countrymen. But with his high authority he is
supposed to have suggested to the people he addressed
that in consequence of recent in consequence of recent
legislation crime had increased, and with it destitution.
(" No," from Mr. Walpole.) I readily believe the right
hon. gentleman's denial, and I am obliged to him
for its promptness, for it shows that the opposite is
his conviction. It is from the general conviction of
the importance of this matter, and the belief that
the amount of food influences crime, that makes
the people, so steadfast in supporting recent changes.
(Hear.) I do not think that there could be any
greater proof of the heartlessness, I had almost said the

criminality of men, that they should for the sake of bene
fitting themselves attempt to limit the subsistence of the
people. (Hear.) But, sir, notwithstanding my convic-
tion of this, I am obliged to ask what we are assembled
here for on the present occasion ? lam obliged to ask
whether such a case as I have described did not exist for
upwards of thirty years, and whether we are not to re-
cognise the enormous advantages to the community
which have attended the repeal of that law ? Why, there
is nothing in the institutions of the country, nothing in
our wealth or power, which could reconcile the working
classes to the enormous injury which such a law must
inflict on them. And what I understand to be the dif-
ference between this side of the house and the other to-
night is, that we designate the repeal of such a law wise
and just, and that on the other side such a designation is
deemed to be factious, and utterly incompatible with the
right hon. gentleman's (the Chancellor of the Exchequer's)
honour and credit to admit it. (Cheers.) lam told, and I
have received information a few minutes before I entered
the house, that if it should be declared by the majority of
this house that the repeal of the corn-law has had the effect
which the Chancellor of the Exchequer admits, and has in
fact stated in so many words, and that having had such an
effect, it is wise and just that such declaration must resu't
in the resignation of Government. (Laughter and cheers.)
I should be extremely sorry for that, for I can assure the
right hon. gentleman and the noble earl at the head of the
Government that whatever they may think of the motives
of those who are opposed to the right hon. gentleman's
resolution, I have not the slightest desire to see the right
hon. gentlemen opposite displaced. (" Oh, oh," from
the Ministerialists, and cheers and laughter from the
Opposition.) Ido not deny that the noble earl at the
head of the Government is a great authority as to what
is faction. (Loud cheers, and laughter from the Opposi-
tion.) The noble earl tells us that he has been thirty
years before the public, and during that time the public
have had ample opportunity of witnessing his conduct,
and I as one of the public, am not in the least disposed
to dispute his high authority on such a subject. (More
laughter and Opposition cheers.) No doubt the noble
earl was single-minded, but it was just possible for a
person to be single-minded on some subjects, and have a
singular mind on what was just when his own interest
was involved; and as they had seen too that it was not
altogether impossible for a person to abandon, for the
sake of power, every opinion and every principle he had
professed. (Hear.) I have said I should be extremely
sorry if the result of the division should be the displace-
ment of the present Government. (Oh, oh.) I care
little whether any credit is given to my statement in this
respect or not—(hear)—but even should that be the re-
sult, I believe this great country would survive even
though the noble earl, the present Prime Minister, were
not at the head of affairs. (Cheers.) But this argument
about the difficulty of forming a Government is by no
means a new one. Whenever a Ministry has been hard
pressed and felt its existence in jeopardy, we have been
told that the then occupiers of office were the only
party able to form a Government, and carry on the
affairs of the country ; and when they have been
displaced we have heard within a month, perhaps,
the very same thing of their successors. (Loud cheers
and laughter.) I am, therefore, not disposed to at-
tribute so much importance to this argument of the
necessity of continuing the existence of the present Go-
vernment as some people seem to be—l have seen four
or five different Governments in power since I have been
in Parliament, and so far as I hare been able to observe,
there has been a very strong family resemblance in all of
them. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) Nor have I found
that the country has suffered much by the change, for we
usually find that those who succed to power generally do
that as a Government which they opposed while in oppo-
sition—(much laughter and cheering)—and as far as
their measures are concerned, are scarcely to be distin-
guished from those who preceded them. (Hear, hear.)
My own impression is, that no very great genius is re-
quired to administer the government of the country.
(Hear, hear.) I believe all that is essential in the various
public offices is done by the subordinate public servants,
of whom we hear little or nothing, and that it must be
in consequence of great want of judgment, or a great de-
fect of capacity, that any Government can become suffi-
ciently unpopular to be displaced. (Much cheering and
laughter from the lower Opposition benches.) Therefore,
I beg to re-state that, in making this motion I have no
object of displacing the Government. lam not acting
in any way as a partisan on this occasion. ("Hear,
hear," from the Opposition, and " Oh" from the Mini-
sterial members.) And if I might be allowed to offer my
advice to the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, it would be that he should do no such thing
as resign, but that, if this motion should be carried against
him, that he should rather be thankful for it, and pro-
ceed quietly onward in the course which, apparently, he
is only wishing for the opportunity to follow. (Cheers.)
The right hon. gentleman seems to me, as far as I can
discover his intentions, to be inclined to enter upon a
career of usefulness ; and I would not have him deterred
from persevering in it. (Cheers and laughter.) The
right hon. gentleman takes, I think, very much the
same views of the financial policy of the country that
those whom he used to assail take—(hear, hear)—and
with his great talent, which seems to be available for any
purpose—(roars of laughter)—l should be very sorry to
see him removed from the office he now fills. Certainly,
I am still more hopeful of the course he is likely to pur-
sue from what he has already shadowed out of his future
policy. (Hear.) I think we have reason to expect good
from his statement in bringing forward his budget last
year. He then stated facts very candidly, and though
his friends were very anxious afterwards to exculpate him
from the charge of drawing any conclusions or opinions
from those facts, still there does appear to me in what
he has now avowed in the amendment, something like a
conclusion which he honestly means to carry out. (Loud
Opposition cheers.) He showed very fairly in his budget
speech how the policy which had prevailed in this
country for the ten years previous had greatly relieved
the country without interfering with the revenue. These
were the facts, and he was obliged to state them. (Hear,
hear.) He showed that duties on various articles had
been repealed, and others reduced by a large amount ;
and that the revenue had not suffered, but had
benefitted. This he was obliged to state, notwithstand-
ing that it was offensive to his friends ; and now by
his amendment to-night he appears to have gone so
much further in the right direction as to account for
the facts he so stated last year, and to pledge himself to
continue the policy out of which they had arisen. (Hear,
hear.) That policy I believe to be, that you reduced the
duties on articles of general consumption—or rather,
that you in the first place removed altogether the duties
on articles of necessary consumption, and then proceeded
to reduce the duties on other articles of general consump-
tion, depending for your revenue on the principle that
when the means of the people are increased by the re-
duced prices they pay for articles of necessary consump-
tion, they are enabled to consume more of the articles of
general consumption. That was the effect of the state-
ments of the right hon. gentleman last year, and, as was
to be expected, these were statements which, coming
from such an authority, were exceedingly distasteful to
hon. gentlemen on the other side. (Hear, hear.) But
nine months of gestation have done a great deal—(hear,
hear, and laughter)—and now the right hon. gentleman
comes forward and proposes this amendment, which ad-
mits the whole case, that when you remove the duty on
articles of food, you may safely reduce the duties on
other articles, because, as the people will be able to con-
sume more of such articles, you will be sure speedily to
recover the revenue. (Hear, hear.) That is an intelli-
gible principle, and what we want is to have it fully
acknowledged. (Cheers.) We want the right hon.
gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer fully to
acknowledge it, and pledge himself to proceed in the
same course. (Cheers.) But we have as yet no
positive statement that that is his intention. I
have no doubt there are measures prepared with
that intent—(hear, and a laugh)—but the statements
of some of the right hon. gentleman's colleagues in
office, which have gone forth to the country, have tended
to convey a different impression, and no one really
knows whether he is going backwards or forwards ; but
if the house decide in favour of my resolution, there will
then be no doubt for our future policy, for we shall have
a general acknowledgment by the house of the advan-
tages of the system of free trade, (Loud Opposition
cheers.) I remember two years ago I ventured to make
a statement to the house showing how expansive the
powers of the revenue were. The amount I then stated
was so large that many people, I believe, scarcely be-
lieved it, though hon. gentlemen who were agitating the
counties with a view to the coming elections made use
of that statement for their own purposes. They told the
constituencies that I had said in the House of Commons
that 91 millions had been abstracted from the farmers
by free trakle, and they required an indemnity for that
loss. (Hear, hear.) But what I spoke of was the diffe-
rence between a year of general scarcity and a year of
great glut. I took 1847 as against 1849, and showed
what an enormons difference there was between the
prices paid by the community for its food in those two
years, and I argued that that difference might go far to
account for the improved state of the revenue.
(Hear, hear.) I did not stoop to contradict the use
which was made of my statement, for it struck me
that when gentlemen so applied it they exposed them-
selves to this reply, "if these 91,000,000 have been
so taken from the farmers, who gave it to them in
the first place ?" (Loud Opposition cheers.) To
illustrate the policy which I hope and expect the
Chancellor of the Exchequer is prepared to
pursue, and the advantage to the revenue resulting from
the removal of the duties on articles of necessary con-
sumption, and reducing the duties on articles of secondary
consumption, by increasing the consuming powers of the
people, I will refer to some facts in reference to this me-
tropolis. Now, I find the system of protection, which
hon. gentlemen opposite were so anxious to maintain,
existed from the year 1828 to 1841—( An hon. member
—" 1842 " )—to 1842, that is while the sliding scale
existed, The population of London, according to the
most moderate calculation, is 2,500,000. From July,
1828, when the sliding scale was enacted, up to the end
of 1841, when it was abolished, 14,787,990 quarters of
wheat were admitted, 12,452,562 of whichl or 84 per
cent., were not admitted until the price exceeded 70s.
per quarter. 70s. per quarter for wheat gives 60s. per
sack for flour. The quartern loaf would than be lid. ;
it is now 7d. (Hear, hear.) The consumption of the
population of London is not less than two quartern
loaves per head per week, so that the saving is Bd. per
head per week, or 11. 13s. per annum, being, for the
whole population, 4,750,0001. (Hear.) Again, as to
sugar—ln London, where the consumption is greater
than in the country, the allowance to servants is half-
a pound each per week for breakfast and tea alone ; the
middle and upper classes consume not less than 501 b. ;
so that the average may fairly be taken at 301 b. The
soft sugar that, up to 1845, was 7d., is now 4d. to sd. ;
the loaf sugar that was 10d. and 11d., is now sd. to 6d.;
and probably half the consumption of London is loaf
sugar. Take the reduction, as a low average, at 31d.,
the saving is Bs. 9d. a head per year ; or, for the whole
population, 1,093,750/., the entire consumed giving
above 26Pb. per head. In coffee, on a similar circula-
tion, the gain to London is 166,666(. ; and on tea,

125,0001., representing a total of 5,739,5831. in London
alone, there being a proportionate gain also to the
country and to the provincial towns. (Cheers.) This
shows the advantage of reducing first the prices of the
necessary articles of food, and then of reducing the prices
of articles of secondary consumption. That is the ad-
vantage of free trade as compared with protection. Now
the reason why I wish to press this resolution on the
Government is, because the noble earl the First Minister
of the Crown does not appear to me to be sufficiently
informed on the matter. And I say if any one thing
more than another justifies my motion, it is the speech
of the First Minister on the first night of the session.
The noble earl has told us that he could not understand
the difference between food and any other article. He
told us that last year ; and his notion is that, if . the
price of food falls, wages must fall in the same propor-
tion. This he has told us this year. (Cheers.)
Now I want to show the noble lord that the difference
between food and other articles is, that food is an
article of first and necessary consumption, and it depends
on the price of that first necessary how far we can con-
sume other things. The noble lord is occupied wholly
considerations of revenue, and can see no difference
the one and the other. But that is the differ-
conomically and financially, there is the greate,,t
difference between the price of food being low
and high, inasmuch as it is that difference upon which
the power of the people to consume other articles must
always depend. (Hear, hear.) The noble earl seems to
think the price of food as only an influence on the rate
of wages, and that if the price of food falls the rate of
wages must fall. Now, I can hardly suppose that a man
of the noble lord's extraordinary intellect really believes
that. (Hear, hear, and a laugh.) I cannot suppose that
he really believes that if there is more food in the
country the condition of the labouring class is worse
in proportion. (Cheers from the opposition.) I should
not like to offer him such an insult as to suppose so ;
for, although such a fallacy might attract the ignorant,
I think no intelligent man will be found to say, that
the more food the people can command, that is, the
lower the price, the worse are they off. (Hear, hear.)
But the noble earl said the other night, that he was
afraid, notwithstanding there had been an improve-
ment in the condition of some interests, that with
regard to the working classes, the consequence of
reducing the price of food was, that wages were lower.
(Hear, hear.) I consider it, therefore, important to show,
that, while food is lower, the people are able to consume
more of other articles, and that the general condition
of the country has improved. I hardly like to go into
details, because I hope now we are generally agreed on
this matter, and that whereas those statistics which used
to be detailed showing that the people were better off in
proportion as food was cheap, are no longer necessary.
All parties now in the country are in a prosperous state,
and, judging by the amendment, it
.appears to be ad-
mitted by the other side, that that Y6sult has been in-
fluenced by the price of food. (Hear, hear.) I have
had more papers and statements sent to me on this sub-
j ect than I am able to carry, which I would read to the
house if I thought there was any dispute—any difference
of opinion—on that point. (Hear, hear.) These state-
ments, which come from persons in all the towns and
all parts of the country, say that there never was known
so much prosperity as now exists ; and that such is the
result test by whatever means you please—whether, by
the amount of labour employed, the amount of paupers,
or the amount of crime and the state of the gaols.
(Hear, hear.) Take either or all of these tests, and it
will be found by these statements that the condition of
the people is better now than it was at any former pe-
riod. Ido not proceed to read these to the house be-
cause I hope we are all agreed on that subject ; and, in
the words of the right hon. gentleman's amendment, that
that which has reduced the price of provisions has effectu-
ally improved the condition and increased the comforts of
the people. (Cheers.) But I want the right hon. gen-
tleman to go further. He appears to have convinced
himself that the condition of the working classes has im-
proved, but (I do not know why) he confines the admis-
sion of the improvement to that class. I cannot con-
sent so to confine it. (Hear, hear.) For there is no
possibility of benefiting the working classes without that
benefit being extended to all others. (Loud cheers.) For
the same reason, and in the same way, the laws which
formerly existed could not injure the working classes
without all other classes—every business, every section
of the community, participating, sooner or later, in the
injury. (Hear, hear.) Therefore Ido not understand
why the right hon. gentleman confined his resolution to
the working classes, when it is quite clear that if they
consume more, more must be produced, and the manu-
facturers and producers of all the articles that enter into
their consumption must necessarily be benefited in pro-
portion. (Hear, hear.) Our foreign trade must be
greater, for foreigners are allowed to come to our shores
without obstruction, and inasmuch as the means of their
customers are exhausted in the purchase of food, they
have more to expend in other secondary articles, and
the merchant, the trader, and the manufacturer are all
alike benefited by the same cause. It is for this reason
that in my resolution I propose the right hon. gentle-
man shall accept the principle and admit the doctrine
that the property and industry of the country will be
better able to bear their respective burdens under the
principle of free trade than under that of protection.
(Hear, hear.) And it is upon this point that lam
anxious to have it understood what is the opinion
of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which from
anything that has been said I have not yet been
able to discover. (Hear, hear.) I want to have
his views on these respective principles, free trade and
protection—(hear)—and as that is one of the purposes
for which we have met, it is certainly one of the pur-
poses for which I have brought forward my resolution.
(Hear.) I want to know if he thinks protection a great
good—that it will enable persons to support their bur-
dens ; and that free trade is an injury which prevents
them from bearing those burdens ? This proposition has
not yet been disposed of by the right hon. gentleman,
and it is left untouched by the amendment he has put
upon the votes. Now, my opinion is that protection is
an unqualified mischief—(loud opposition cheers)—that
it is unjust in principle, vicious in practice, and is pecu-
liarly injurious to the interests intended to be protected.
(Loud cheers.) Under these circumstances, if we can
come to an agreement—if the right hon. gentleman
would come to the same conclusion, it would be impor-
tant, because I expect some future legislation will have
reference to it. My opinion is, that no compensation is
needed for the interest that was protected—(hear)—for
as regards that interest—l speak not of individuals—it
has been served by free trade ; while, under protection,
every interest (I don't believe there is an exception) has
witrhineg red
the.
(Hear,
) The experience we have had
du
advan-
tage of setting all interests free. (Hear, hear,
lastr.has
shown
the great
hear.) If I wanted
i an illustration of the truth
Hear
five heea years
of this statement, f there is one interest which
illustrates more than another how much injury was done
by protection, how much benefit has resulted from its
abolition, without injury to the interest concerned, I
would refer to the landed interest. (Hear.) I have
made inquiries on the subject at various times from all
persons competent to give an opinion—and I have gone
very largely into the matter on former occasions when I
brought the subject before the house, especially in 1844,
when I referred to all the evidence I could collect, and
naming the persons whose opinions I had extracted
and all those opinions showed that the total and uncon-
ditional removal of the corn-laws would best serve the
landed interest. (Cheers.) I thought that conclusion
just then, and I think so still more now, for all my sub-
sequent experience confirms it. (Hear, hear.) But if I
asked persons qualified to give an opinion of the present
state of the agricultural interest as to what their view is
of the position of that interest as compared with what
it would be under protection, and if I have observed this
coincidence amongst them that all agree that that in-
terest was never rn a more healthy state—(oh)—if hon.
gentlemen opposite doubt what I say I must produce my
authorities—(hear, hear)—and when I shall have read the
evidence to which I refer, and which are known to hon.
gentlemen opposite, they will be obliged to admit the
truth of what I say. I asked one man who has been in
the occupation of land for many years past— a person
who is employed by several noblemen and gentlemen as
a land agent, and who is well known as a person exten-
sively engaged in the management and sale of land—l
asked him, and that within a week, what he considered
the present state of the landed interest ? And the reply
he made me was that he had not known it for many
years so prosperous. (Cheers.) I asked him did he
mean that land sold for more now than formerly ? and
he replied " Certainly." (Cheers.) " For more years'
purchase," I asked, "do you mean ?'! He said, " I
speak from an experience of 25 years, and I never
before knew land sell so high as it now does. I have
known land sell for 37 years' purchase within the last
three months, and pasture land for 35 years' purchase."
(Cheers.) The farmers may be depressed, but if they
are it is because their landlords do not do what is just
by them. (Hear, hear.) The Legislature cannot give
them redress—the relief must come from the landowners.
(Hear, hear.) If we go to farmers and ask them what
they want, they do not tell you they want the res-
toration of protection—they refer to a matter of a
more domestic kind—something that can be settled
between them and their landlords. (Hear, hear.) But
that is never alluded to in this house. If we ask whe-
ther the labourers are well off, the answer is, that they
are notoriouslybetter off, and although it may be said that
it is owing to the removal of many of that class by emi-
gration, yet it is clear that their improved condition is
derived chiefly from improvement in agrbs iculture, which
has caused a demand for and has absorbed labour.
(Hear, hear.) I will not weary the house by going into
details, but I happened to see a statement in a public
journal on this subject, and I took the trouble to verify
it, and it affords a remarkable case, and precisely in
point. It is a case of a landowner who supposed that
he was ruined by the measures of 1846, and who was
extremely indignant at the withdrawal of protection,
who supposed that his rents would all be at an end, and
he charged the Ministry who repealed the corn-laws with
the whole of his loss. In his distress he sent for an
agent, who was to ascertain in what way he could
remedy it. The statement was as follows :—" At the
time the Government made known the intention to re-
peal the corn-laws, which is now nearly five years since,
the owner of an estate of about 4,000 acres, situate in
the centre of England, alarmed at the prospect which
free trade presented of reduced rent and diminished in-
come, had his attention drawn to the necessity of pre-
paring his tenants for the lower prices they would have
to take for the produce of their farms, and sought, in
the improvement of his estate, for means to enable
them to continue its successful cultivation. The
success which has attended his proceedings offers so
valuable an example to others, that I trust I shall
be excused for giving some account of it. At the
period mentioned the estate was divided into farms of
180 to 300 acres, which, tithe free and arable, with valu-
able pasture, were let at rents of from 15s. to 30s. an
acre. The tenantry, although ancient, had held only by
tha year ; the land, which is naturally fertile, had had
scarcely anything done to improve it, and the farmers
had little idea of any capability in the soil beyond what

they would each receive notice to quit, but that leases
for 21 years would at the same time be offered them, at
an advance of rent of 20 per cent. ; that permission
would be given them to break up certain portions of the
pasture of their farms, after they had been drained, upon
plans that would- be given them ; that draining-tiles
would be allowed them to drain all their lands, but the
draining was to be done at depths and upon the plans
so to be laid down • that their homesteads would be
improved, and sheds built to give them accommodation
for wintering their stock in yards, and fattening of cattle
in stalls ; and that they would be allowed to remove all
unnecessary hedges and trees injurious to the corn ;
but at the same time their leases would forbid their
existing practice of taking two white corn crops in suc-
cession ; and they would be obliged to dress a fourth of
their arable land every year, and other restrictions would
be introduced on what they had been in the habit
of doing. It was expected in this way they might be
made to adopt a more advantageous course of hus-
bandry, and that their farms might be put into better
condition, and made more productive, so as to become
cheaper to them at the increased rents than they had
been under the old. I must pass over the difficulties of
the next three years, the stand made against these mea-
sures, the obstacles thrown in the way, the withdrawal
of some of the tenants, the objections raised to the deep
draining, and the attempting the cultivation of roots
where roots had never grown, &c. Fortunately, some
of the tenants left, and the readiness with which the
vacated farms were re-occupied, and at still higher rents,
and the example which the new tenants afforded, who,
directed by their leases, at once proceeded to grub hedge-
rows, to deepen drains, and raise turnips, and green
crops, and better clean the land, were answers to many
of their objections. And now, it is to the result I would
call attention, which is as follows :—This estate now
affords a clear rental of 23 per cent, advance on the
natal of 1845. The rents are now better paid than they
ever have been : the two last audits were held quicker
than ever after the quarter days, and at each the whole
of the rents were collected without an arrear, and the
tenants, with scarcely an exception, admit they are doing
well, and their farms are cheaper than they were to
them at the old rents ; and well they may so, for such
crops as they have had the last two years were
never before seen in their parishes. I am aware
that such an instance of meeting the requirements
of free trade is little likely to have the approval of
tenant farmers, and yet how far more truly bene-
ficial has been the course here adopted, than
u
would have been that of the proprietors seeking to afford
relief by reducing his rents. No reduction could have
given the same relief but what would have been mis-
chievous." This seeems to be a case which cannot be a
singula
r one,
enree,
tand a probablygreatextent;
fsoarmle
find p plan ni
it stated
b e
in
acted
on elsewhere
all
the agricultural journals and by agriculturists—properly
latf ee
rtoto stated
ali
pt ir the
protection
thec ti reports e
op counties.o
or t
legislative N None
called—that the land is often in a most deplorable
state, the buildings not fit for their purposes ; and that
if the improvements which are required were made by
e l ef;reportsußoyal ore essays
the farmers, it would do well. I allude to facts which
re areandoeessoafysr
those of
ithe t
t
s r
that
Agri-
cultural Society with regard to farming, and which re-
the best thing the landlords can do for the tenants is
by improving their estates. I will read a few extracts
from those essays in order to show—(" Oh, oh," from
the Ministerial benches, and cheers from the Opposition.)
Hon. gentlemen may dislike to have the real facts
known, but I only want to show that if the agricultural
interests is to be improved it must be done by the land-
owners. (Hear, hear.) I will quote from a prize essay
of the Royal Agricultural Society on farming in the county
of Kent. (The hon. gentleman then read the extract in
question, but in so low a voice that we could only guess
at the purport, which was, as we understood, a recom-
mendation for a co-operation between landlords and
tenants in drainage and other agricultural improvements.)
I will not read others on the same subject relating to dis-
tricts such as Leicestershire and other places, for they are
all to be found in a journal which gentlemen opposite
must see, and which prove that the only thing to make
agriculture successful is that owners and occupiers should
combine- to improve the cultivation of' the land. If there
is any force in what is said by the farmers as regards
what they require, it is certain that they never express
that they are in want of protection. If we look at the
reports of what they say at their meetings, we shall see
they say that they have many grievances, but they are
not such as legislation can remedy. I feel as much as
any man can for the farmers. (Hear, hear, and cheers.)
And why, in God's name, should I not ? (Hear, hear.)
They are a most valuable class, a most valuable portion
of the middle class—of the producing class of this coun-
try, who have invested their capital in the land ; and
among that class there are none who ought more to be
respected. (Hear, hear.) Any one who debates on the
wants and requirements of the community at large, and
omits the farmers, makes an omission of those who are
as much entitled to consideration as any class. I am
sure my interests would not lead me so to regard them,
and I say so distinctly. I think them a most interest-
ing class—(hear and a laugh)—and I think the time has
come when their interests should be more considered in
this house than they have hitherto been. (Cheers.) I
I think them a very ill-used class. (Cheers and coun-
ter cheers.) I can show that their distress has been
made capital of—(loud cheers)—and that no class has
been more deluded. (Cheers.) It is no fault of any
class that they are not so bright as others. (Hear, and a
laugh.) A man's circumstances generally determine his
intelligence ; and their circumstances have not been such
as to make their intelligence brighter than it is ; but is
that a reason why any one should impose on them—
(hear and cheers)—and that they should be led to believe
that they have friends in Parliament who will secure to
them certain advantages at the expense of the rest of the
community among which they live and by whom they
profit ? These have been the promises that have been
held out to them for the last thirty years by some per-
sons who have not lost anything by them. It has been
held out to them that if they will return those persons
to Parliament, and if they will give them their politi-
cal support, they will pass acts of Parliament which
will keep up rents. Those are the people who have
made promises which have never been fulfilled.
The law of distraint operates as a serious injury to the
farmer'; for by its operation his credit is impaired, be-
cause the landlord has always a preference before every
other creditor. Who would advance the farmer money
when the landlord can always secure himself at least six
months' rent ? Besides this, it makes the landlord more
careless as to what sort of person he gets as a tenant—
(hear)—and consequently there is created a mischievous
competition among the farmers. (Hear, hear, hear.)
There never was a time when there was such a desire to
buy land as now, and there never was a time when
landowners could obtain money so easily. The labourers
are better off now, every one admits, than they ever
were before. As some proof that they never were
better off I will read an extract from Wiltshire, which
stated to the effect that there was nothing the people
so much wishedfor as portraits of Sir R. Peel, so grateful
were they for the blessings he had conferred on them.
The country is in a state of unexampled prosperity ; the
demand for our productions is so great that our manu-
facturers cannot execute their orders ; the people were
never so well off, so comfortable, and so well supplied
with the necessaries of life ;and I will state further, that
this condition of things is owing to the application of the
principle of free trade to all the interests of the country,
and not to the other causes to which the noble earl at
the head of the Government, or his colleagues, have
ascribed them—(loud cheers)—and I say it is unworthy
of any one, when they see their
great results, and when
their connexion with the change of policy which has
taken place is so obvious, to attempt either to underrate
its effects or to ascribe them to any other cause. (Hear.)
And I call on the right hon. gentlema,n -to explain dis-
tinctly to us what he means when hetalks
of t
errflu-
ence caused by the discovery of gold in Australia, the
share which emigration has had in producing these re-
sults. Let us ascertain whether or not that has been
the case, and let not the right honourable gentleman
ride off on something else, but state directly the in-
fluence which the recent influx of gold has had. I
admit that that influx has given activity to trade, just
as any other article of trade would have done, but not
more. Gold is an article of exchange always available,
and its increase has caused a demand for other produc-
tions. But it has done nothing more, and I even doubt
if it has done so much ; but my Lord Derby has ascribed
the present condition of the labouring classes chiefly to
the recent discoveries of gold. I want this explained,
for if I read his statement right it was, that inasmuch as
the influx of gold had raised the value of other articles, it
had therefore tended to raise wages, and to better the
condition of the labouring classes. But I understood the
right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to
say that the cheapness of food had been the cause of the
improved condition of the labouring classes. Which is
it then, is it the influx of gold or the cheapness of pro-
visions? (Hear, hear, and cheers.) Then with regard
to emigration. The statement of the noble lord at the
head of the Government is not very clear on that point,
for he has mixed up the questions of Irish and English
emigration. I want to know what has been the effect
of emigration on the condition of the people. As far as
I can understand, the greatest amount of emigration has
taken place in the last six months. It cannot, therefore,
be that which has so raised and bettered the condition of
the working classes. The noble lord talks of emigration
from this country to Australia as if it was included in
that from Ireland to other countries. If we examine
the emigration, we find that whereas some hundred.

thousand persons- have emigrated to Australia, who
were Englishmen or Scotchmen, a far greater number
of emigrants have been Irishmen, who have gone to the
United States and British America. A great many per-
sons have certainly gone to Australia, but they are not
of the class which the noble lord has described; they have
been of the middle-class principally, and not of the la-
bouring class. I hope the right hon. gentleman will in-
form us of that which it is necessary for us to know in
solving this matter; for we are now in process of solving
the great question whether or not the abolition of pro-
tection has caused the present prosperity of the country.
(Hear, hear.) They have in fact consistently and per-
severingly underrated the prosperity of the country; for
when at last they have been compelled to acknowledge
that prosperity, they have as consistently ascribed it to
every cause but the direct one—viz., the adoption of the
policy of 1846. (Cheers.) But I believe the facts do
show beyond all fair dispute that that prosperity is not
only mainly but entirely due, directly and indirectly, to
the operation of that commercial policy which was com-
menced by the late Sir R. Peel, and has been continued
by the noble lord the member for the city of London.
Sir, in bringing these remarks to a close, I beg to say
that in bringing forward the motion with which I shall
conclude, I have no other object in view than that which
has guided me, ever since I have been in the house, on
this question. (Sheers.) I say once for all, that my ob-
ject in introducing :this motion is not at all to displace
hon. gentlemen opposite. I don't want to take any of
their places. I have no party purposes in view, in the com-
mon sense of "party purposes," and I don't want the
house to take this motion as necessarily a motion of
want of confidence in her Majesty's present Ministers.
(Cheers.) Certainly they have themselves said, they
have volunteered that declaration, that they do not
possess the confidence of this house. (Cheers and cries
of " No, no.") They said at the opening of the session,
and they repeat it now in their amendment, that they
have not changed their own opinions, while the opinion
of the country remains against them ; and therefore I
say, they admit that they have not the confidence of the
new House of Commons. (Loud cheers.) If they had
changed their opinions on the subject of free trade, they,
being in office, and this being a free-trade House of
Commons, might be said to have the confidence of the
house ; but if Lord Derby does truly represent the rest
of them then, inasmuch as he adheres to his former
views, they are in an undoubted minority on meeting
Parliament. (Loud cheers.) But I do want, for what
I believe to be great national reasons, to have this re-
solution carried, and to have the views of the House of
Commons on this question most distinctly, most expli-
citly, and most emphatically expressed ; and more espe-
cially do I want this resolution to be placed on record,
at least during this Parliament, in order that we may
thus have a final settlement of a matter which, while
unsettled, leaves men of business in this country in
doubt, and which leaves the rest of the world unde-
cided as to what our permanent commercial policy
really is. (Loud cheers.) I therefore do hope that the
right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer
will not attempt to evade this real question by talking of
factiousness or by impugning my personal motives—
(cheers)—but I hope that he will talk straightly to the
question before the house, and that he will not sit down
without letting us at last know what he does generally
mean. (Loud cheers.) Enormous is the mischief which
has been done by;the course taken by the hon. gentlemen
opposite ever since, 1846. I know, from what I have
read, and also from what I have seen on the continent
of Europe, that abroad people exaggerate the importance
of the party to which hon. gentlemen opposite belong ;
they imagine that Lord Derby does represent a strong
section of the English political community, and that on
this question he has power eventually to reverse the
policy of Sir Robert Peel ; and it is indeed notorious that
in those instances where foreign nations are disposed to
change their own commercial policy, the movement is
retarded because foreign governments are compelled to
take notice of the continued existence of this so-called
protectionist party in this country. Constant mischief
is still being done, as it has been done, by the agitation
and assertion of these protectionist and anti-free-trade
views ; and I, therefore, do say that the importance of
some distinctly worded resolution such as this, and which
shall be taken as a final decision of the Parliament and
of the country, cannot be overrated ; and as for myself,
I will only say that I have no motive but that which has
influenced me during the fifteen years of struggle in pro-
posing the resolution which I have already read to the
house. (Loud and long continued cheering.)
The resolution having been seconded (we did not notice
the seconder), and read by the Speaker,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—Sir, if
the speech which we have just listened to with so much
interest—as we do to every speech of the honourable and
learned gentleman's—had:been in favour of a repeal of the
corn laws, or in favour of a repeal of the sugar laws as
they existed some time ago, I think it would have been
much more appropriate than on the occasion upon which
we have now listened to it—(hear, hear)—because what we
have now to decide is—not whether the corn laws shall be
repealed ; not whether the sugar laws shall be repealed ;
not whether protection or free trade—to use the somewhat
inaccurate language of the honourable and learned gentle-
man—should be repealed or supported—but whether her
Majesty's Ministers, in their conduct since their accession
to office, have fulfilled the pledges they gave to Parliament
and the country—(cries of " no, no," and cheers)—and
whether, having announced that they would defer to the
opinion of the country on a question of great importance,
they have frankly or not communicated to the house the
resolution at which they have arrived. Now the honour-
able and learned gentleman has just told us that enormous
mischief has been clone to the country by the course
which has been taken by the Protectionist party
since 1846, far from wishing to escape the issue be-
fore us, I say it is the:duty of the House of Commons, if
that be their opinion, to express it, and to announce in a
manner which cannot be mistaken, that they have no
confidence in the men who have perpetuated this enor-
mous mischief. (Loud cheers.) I hope, therefore, Sir,
that this house will allow me on this occasion, in the
most dispassionate manner, to trace our conduct since the
period to which the honourable and learned gentleman has
referred—that they will allow me, especially as there are
gentlemen who have now their seats in the house for the
first time—that they will allow me to place before them
an impartial, and I am sure an accurate statement of the
principal incidents that have occurred during the last five
or six years, with reference to this great question. I feel
it my duty to do so, not only for the sake of the Govern-
ment, but for the sake of Parliament and the country ;
and I pledge myself to show that the inevitable and the
irresistable inference which the house will draw from this
statement—the conclusion at which every impartial mind
must arrive—will be very different from that which the
honourable and learned gentleman attempted to establish
by the convenient generalities in which he indulged.
(Cheers.) And now, in the first place, let me state, in a
manner which I am sure is accurate and cannot be misap-
prehended, the piincipal reasons why we opposed the re-
peal of the corn-la'ws, which was proposed by Sir Robert
Peel in the year 1846. We opposed that change on two
grounds. The main ground was that we believed that
change would prove injurious to the interests of labour.
That was the main, the principal ground on which
I myself based my opposition. It was ,f (or
it was nothing) the cause of labour. We opposed
that change for a second and subordinate reason, be-
cause, irrespective of our great and principal objection, we
believed that it would occasion injury to a considerable in-
terest in the country. On a subsequent occasion, in the
year 1850, the question was incidentally referred to in this
house. I then used this expression in reference to the re-
peal of the corn-laws—it is a question of labour or it is no-
thing. After the repeal of the corn-laws, two other great
measures connected with that policy, which is popularly but
somewhat indefinitely described as free trade, were carried.
The Minister who proposed the repeal of the corn-laws, and
carried it, was dismissed from office, and was succeeded by
another Minister, who proposed the repeal of the sugar-
laws ; but that proposition was not approved of by the Mi-
nister who proposed and carried the repeal of the corn-laws.
I mention the circumstances because the question has al-
waYs been argued (as it has been to-night) as if there had
been from the beginning two great parties in this house—
the one banded together to carry what is called free trade
in all the articles of popular consumption, the other mar-
shalled to oppose that proposition. Shortly after the re-
peal of the sugar duties, Parliament was dissolved, a
new Parliament was assembled under the management
of the noble lord opposite, and after considerable delay
another great measure, the repeal of the navigation-
laws was passed. Then commenced the complaints in
due time from three great interests—the agricultural,
the colonial, and .the shipping interests—(cheers); and I
may fairly say that during all the years which have
elapsed since the erection of 1847 down to the recent dis-
solution of Parliament, we have been mainly engaged in
discussing or in legislating upon agricultural, or colonial,
or shipping distress. (Hear, hear.) Now let me put this
fact before the house—convenient for some no doubt to
forget, but the accuracy of which will not be questioned
by the experienced members of this house, and
will be well for those who are not experienced in
athwisliihcelinsiet
rmemeal ee of,
t
to remember. From the time whichsincreestehnet ep
the corn laws has passed down to this p
there has not been a single attempt de in the House of
Commons to abrogate the measure I 1
846. (Oh, oh, and
of discussion in this
th
house, I must tell to
cheers.) Well, but onee
ahtnozatbtlieinge,enistltehmaatnevweryhobohdays
taken his seat to
-night for tiro
who has anything to say is entitled to offer his remarks.
(Laughter and cheers.)
I have made that statement, and
the honourable
gentleman who forms his opinions from the
tumultuous vociferation of the platform, will find when
he comes into the House of Commons being
the necessity of
a little more accurate in his st ate ments. (Oh, oh, and cheers.)
I repeat the statement. I repeat it on behalf of the
party
who have perpetrated enormous mischief. I repeat the
statement, that from that moment to the present there has
not been a single motion in this house—at least with the
sanction of that party—there has not been a single motion,
made to return to that protection which has been attacked
to night with such unnecessary vehemence. (Cheers.)
What was the reason that we did not bring
forward a motion to question the policy of the act of
1846, which from conscientious and honourable motives we
opposed ? Because we laid down from the first this great
principle, that the fate of the proposition must depend not
upon the injury it might do to the agricultural interest,
but upon the way in which it would affect the condition of
the working classes—(hear, hear)—and we had no facts be-
fore us_eufficientlx large, in our opinion, to convince us that

gentleman in favour of protection to sugar, a rest ected
baronet, late the member for South Essex, whose abs Ince
from this house but that ho has been replaced by an b on.
friend of my own, I should say I viewed with deep rem et.
(Great laughter.) There were tWo followers of Sir Robe rt
on that committee—the right hon. gentleman the mem& 'r
for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Goulburn) and Mr.,
Cardwell. There was a Whig Cabinet Minister—and of
course, being a Whig, no doubt a most sincere free-trader
—(hear)—and then there were six gentlemen of remark-
ably pronounced opinions on all subjects connected with
free trade. Let me read these names ;on a subject of this
kind they are quite classical. There was one of the mem-
bers for Liverpool (Sir Thomas Birch)—the honourable and.
learned gentleman who has made the present motion—one
of the honourable members for Manchester (Mr. M. Gib-
son)—the honourable member for Westbury (Mr. Wilson)
—a member for a Scotch burgh—and another honourable
gentleman—l am not sure at the present moment whether
he is a member of the house. Out of fifteen members
three were Protectionists, three belonging to that party
who, by their interference on this subject, have perpetrated
enormous mischief. What was the result of this commit-
tee ? The result of the investigation made by this free-
trade committee was, that they came to a resolution that
there ought to be a differential duty of 10 per cent. be-
tween foreign and colonial sugar. Well then, for the
enormous mischief that was perpetrated on this second
branch of the subject, let honourable gentlemen opposite
take their fair share of the blame. What happened in
consequence of that effort of the Protectionist party? The
noble lord the member for the city of London, who is a
most intense free-trader—wh6, after the gracious Speech
from the Throne—after the speech of the First Minister of
the Crown—after the notice which I had given in this
house, which everybody, even the hon. and learned mem-
ber for Wolverhampton, deems to be fair and satisfactory
—the noble lord had the courage to rise and say that this
house had now to decide whether it was to maintain free
trade or to return to protection. (Hear, hear.) Sir, I
thought I was listening to the tones of the appropriation
clause—(loud cheers)—when the noble lord in his place in
the house had the audacity to make that declaration.
(Renewed cheering.) I say that on the sullject of the
sugar duties the noble lord did come down to the •
house and confess that his legislation had been rash,
precipitate, and Jnjurious ; that its action had been
more rapid than he contemplated ; and he in-
troduced a law immediately to suspend the change
in the duty, and to prolong that protection which
he had taken away. (Cheers.) Well, now, with regard to
the first question, that of the land. I have shown the
house that the party which perpetrated enormous mischief
has, from the moment of the repeal of the corn laws down
to the present time, never attempted to disturb that law in
this house. I have shown that, with respect to the repeal
of the sugar duties, they confined their exertions to a calm
and elaborate investigation into the facts ; and that in con-
sequence of the inquiry being pursued so energetically, and
sustained with so much knowledge, we, the party in oppo-
sition, influenced the conduct of the Minister of the day ;
and therefore, on these two heads, I, think I have shown_
the house that the accusation of the hon. and learned gen-
tleman has no'foundation. (Cheers.) Now I come to the
third branch. We opposed, and not the protectionist party
alone,—we opposed the repeal of the navigation-laws.
Have we ever since attempted to abrogate the decision of
the house? On the contrary, the present First Minister of
the Crown took an early opportunity to say that he thought
that change in our legislation should not be attempted to
be reversed—that it would be impossible to retrace our
steps in respect to those laws, after the country had come
to the resolution which it had done. Now, let me retrace
the conduct—in respect to these great questions—of the
party which has perpetrated enormous mischief to the State
—let me remind the house of their conduct since the re-
peal of these three great laws has taken place. Not in any
single instance attempting to disturb the decision of Par-
liament with respect to them, still circumstances arose
which called the attention of the Protectionist party to the
condition of the cultivators of the soil in this country.
When the general election in 1847 took place, the organisa-
tion of political parties were entirely broken up—high
prices for all kinds of farm produce were then in existence,
and the opinions of the constituent body were really not
tested on the principles or the merits of the possible con-
sequences of recent legislation. That there was a large
Protectionist party returned to' this house arose from a.
feeling which will always animate large bodies of men in
this country—sympathy and gratitude to those who have
fought their battle, or who have been true to their
colours. (Laughter.) Honourable gentlemen opposite
may deride that feeling, but, rely upon it, if that feeling
don't exist, Parliamentary Government will soon be a
mere name. But every one knows that the economical
'controversy, so far as agriculture was concerned, was
never entertained on that occasion. Farmers were re-
ceiving high prices, political parties were in a state of dis-
organization ; and though there was a large party returned.
in favour of the agricultural interest, the fact is that there
was no pressure from that interest in any way to make their
advocates in this house then bring forward their complaints.
But in 1850, the pinch, which had been forseen, not only
commenced, but was in acute operation. What was, then,
the conduct of the party which perpetrated enormous mis-
chief ? We were then pressed by our constituents, and by
those whose interests were naturally dear to us. We heard.
them complain of great suffering, and their sufferings and.
losses we know to be great. I need not attempt to prove
them, because I have a ready witness of the losses sus-
tained by the farmers in the honourable andlearned member
for Wolverhampton himself. But when these complaints
came before us, what was our course ? Did we demand the
restoration of protection? On the contrary, we said that we
had opposed the repeal of the corn-laws, first and mainly on.
the ground of the interest of labour; in a second and subor-
dinate sense on the ground of the possible injury that the
repeal of the corn-laws might inflict upon the corn grower.
We were not satisfied that the working classes were injured,
and therefore we would not lend ourselves to the cry of the
farmer, and come forward to demand the restoration of
protection. (Laughter.) I can easily understand that these
statements may be disagreeable to honourable gentlemen--
(no, no)—but they should remember that if my arguments
are unsound, or if my facts are untrue, before this debate
is over both will be exposed. I say our statement to the
farmers was this—Because your interests are suffering we
cannot recommend a return to the Protectionist policy.
Nothing would justify a return to that policy but the
proof that injury has been done to the interest of labour; _
for we from the beginning believed that the interests of
labour would suffer. I was the organ of the party on that
occasion, and I said to them—if you find distress acute—if
cute-
ofif
you find your sufferings intolerable—if you find the cost
positon
productioniwi tnhotrerfeemreunneeeratotitvhe—e lettath;atnionof country, and.
us
thisconsider your
position relieve youve
youfro r
from
elthoserelief,
ibfurandyetnhis anything
gr can
nhibche dinonaeny whichoty will
other way will g
we will hoourdutytotoohytaiounifnorthyeouHtohaustereorh• Cef. ommlnonpsursu, and.
we will endeavour
once of that advice, and at the request of several of my
friends, I brought forward a motion in this house of a re-
medial nature, and it received, if not the sanction of this
house, yet there can be no doubt that it received very con-
siderable support. Well now, in the year 1851 a change of
government appeared very unexpectedly about to take place.
In 1851, and I beg honourable gentlemen to condescend to
remember those dates, for they are of great importance in
forming an impartial estimate of the position of the present
Government—in 1851, the moment the house met, I gave
notice of a motion the object of which was to relieve the
cultivators of the soil from the pressure of certain local
incidents of taxation. It was not to restore protection
not to question the policy of the repeal of the corn-laws.
of
I brought forward the motion with a distinct disclaimer) and I
intending to enter upon that question—(heat',
said I thought it would be unwise to make
t uaommons. I
one of public discussion in the ofHouse_
edial character with
brought forward my motion of a iticocanrtroversy
regard to agriculture, which I think was
.) I say that the
hear')
in a hill house
by a majority of ten votes.
,ofinudthingat
the Government in
afsignterwoffiarede
division on that question displacedi
reality, because, though they
point, yet the Governmenotrtant
a subject, and in a thin.
themselves, on not so iro
it
their duty to resign. The
noble lord, in a statement
f which he subsequently made in
difedivndostysre
that division as the one which mainly
house, in a minority,
this house, reform Under these
decided the duct
L Derby
recommended to the notice of
cumstenc,rd
, by the Prime Minister of the country, and,
his Sovereign,
to form a Government. Now, look at the
coon of th e G.
Hciewaosf at
thtehsee
iof a party in
o'eamssi teioaneotf Lord DerFliyarautamtheaut moment.
troueprm.ple
„olio, was, that it would be unwise and injudicious to dis-
turb the repeal of the corn-laws that had. taken place in
1846. (Laughter.) He recommended that course, but
there was a powerful party in the country who were dis-
contented with the advice which he gave them • and, sir,
are hon. gentlemen surprised that there should be a strong
party favourable to what they call Protection, notwith-
standing the course which we may feel it our duty to
take in either house of Parliament ? We remembered
that the farmers of England had at that time, according to
the statement of the honourable and learned member for
Wolverhampton himself, lost upwards of ninety millions
in one year. (Hear, hear.) It may be perfectly wise, just,
and beneficent that a body of English producers should.
lose more than ninety millions sterling in a single Year ;
but this I say, with the greatest deference to all the lights
of political economy opposite. You may rely upon it, as
long as human nature remains what it is. large bodcies
of
men will not lose millions without being discontented
with
that legislation—without challenging the justice
But you had
legislation of which they are the victims.
more than this. You had a great colonialand interest in this
then you had, in
country subjected to absolute ruin
by a minister who, at the
and unrestricted competitionhe
t restrictions and the bur-
addition, a great shipping interest; subjected to unlimited
same time, did not remove
h a o, ho told the greatest com-
dens which, only
Are you surprised, then, that
prosperity. (Lmercial communityoudcheers.)ix imnothoswogrld absolutely impeded. its
)'arty which, from its numbers and its
great and ramified interests,
a great party—a pa might be called a national
party—that they
should be discontented with the recent
legislation to which.
I have adverted? But Lord Derby
had made up his mind that nothing could justify a return
to the abrogated system, unless the labouring classes
and permanently suffering. What, then, was
llct of !Lord Derby in 1851 ? He was called,
i.nill'eerecl'aieiy
riexpectedly
' to form a Government. He announced
a policy which, while it showed sympathy for great
classes of his countrymen and for those suffering
which were always proved by honourable gentlemen oppo!
site, was consistent with the policy he laid down—that the
repeal of the corn laws should not be disturbed unless thd
working classes were in a state of suffering. The prOf