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

IIIEI

was first mooted. He voted against Sir Robert Peel on
that question, and he might say he never uttered a word
in any degree harsh against the distinguished statesman by
whom that great commercial change was proposed. (Hear,
hear.) On the contrary, he deprecated the attacks that
were directed against him, and only discussed the question
as a question of policy. Now, he contended that the
grounds to which he had adverted were of a nature to jus-
tify him in giving a silent vote, and the last two grounds
justified him in not concurring in the measure as a just
one. (Protectionist cheers.) Wisdom and justice could
not be predicated of any measure unless it were equally
beneficial to every class. He did not desire to raise a
corn-law debate, but there were reasons which he con-
ceived justified him in opposing the resolution of the
honourable member for Wolverhampton. There was the
authority of Adam Smith for this general proposition
in political economy, that it was wrong to remove pro-
tection from any particular interest hitherto protected,
without giving it an opportunity of adapting itself to the
altered circumstances of the times. Every such change,
said the great economist, should be effected by a gradua-
tion. (Hear, hear.) Now, as to the second topic in the
noble lord's speech, he could not forbear making a few re-
marks. The noble lord, taking up the expression of the
right honourable baronet the member for Carlisle, had
assumed in his speech that they were going to give what
he called, or understood to be, a compensation to the
landed interest, and he had employed a strong argument
against any such supposed compensation preparatory to the
budget itself being laid before the house. The noble lord
could not fail to remember that if there was one thing
more than another he had insisted upon in speeches from
the Throne, it was that a paragraph should be inserted de-
ploring the existence and extent of agricultural distress.
The noble lord, when he heard the budget, would find his
his suspicions totally unfounded. He (Mr. Walpole) was
not at liberty to enter into the budget, which his right hon.
friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would do in the
course of his duties, and with far greater ability than him-
self ; but he could assure the house that it would be
founded strictly on the resolution which the right hon.
gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended to
move as an amendment to the motion of the hon. member
for Wolverhampton ; that was, that they unreservedly
adhered to the policy of 1846—0 f free trade, as they (the
Free-traders) called it—of unrestricted competition, as they
(the Protectionists) called it. They would adhere to it,
fairly and fully, and the measures they proposed to intro-
duce should not be inconsistent, or interfere with it.
(Hear, hear.) With regard to the third point. he thanked
the noble lord for the fair and honoutablo manner in which
he had spoken of the noble lord at the head of the Govern-
ment. He (Mr. Walpole) had seen in the last few months
much of that noble lord, and he believed no minister ever
lived who was actuated by purer and higher motives, and
he was sure he would scorn to act in any other way than
honesty and the precepts of the constitution prescribed.
(Protectionist cheering.) The noble lord was perfectly
sensible that if they had taken office on principles they had
renounced, they were no longer entitled to retain it. Let
him remind the noble lord that the question of commercial
freedom was not the only question, nor by any means the
most important one, which constituted the bond of union of
honourable gentlemen on that side of the house (the Govern-
ment side). He must remind the noble lord that they did not
come into office by any motion of their own. They came into
office because the noble lord had not the confidence of his
supporters; 2dly, because the noble lord recommended that
Lord Derby should be sent for; and, thirdly, because Lord
Derby and his followers were at that time, in point of num-
bers, the only party likely to obtain the confidence of Parlia-
ment and of the country. Ifit were not so, bring the point to the
test. They only held office under the conditions of the
constitution. They did not desire to hold office a day
longer than they ought to, and he must say—and he said
it with regret—that he wished those eliminations and re-
criminations which he had heard in the course of that de-
bate, as to gentlemen on one side only seeking office for
the emoluments which belonged to it, and gentlemen on
the other side only aiming at it for the same purpose,
might no longer be heard ; for he utterly disbelieved that
the majority of public men could be actuated by any such
motives. All he could say was, that the noble earl would
not hold office a day longer than his political justification
warranted him. The right hon. gentleman the member
for Wiltshire had said that Ministers holding certain
opinions, and not carrying them out when they had the
opportunity, being in office, ought not to remain in office.
He (Mr. Walpole) contended, however, that neither the
abandonment of opinions on conviction, nor the retention
of them when unable to carry them out, were disqualifi-
cations of men in office. (Protectionist cheers.) And, if
otherwise, he did not know who would hold office for any
length of time. If it were otherwise, as the right hon.
baronet the member for Carlisle once said, he would con-
cur with Lord Ashburton, in saying that the country
was not worth living in. (Hear, hear.) He was pre-
pared to adhere to the policy of free trade, upon the same
grounds that the most stedfast Protestant adhered to the
Emancipation Act, and that the purest Tory adhered to
the Reform Bill of 1832. (Hear, hear.) He was bound
to vindicate the character of his noble friend at the head
of the Government, and believing that they had a higher
policy to carry out, namely, a Conservative policy, which
had been always their bond of union, until the house with-
held its confidence from them, they should feel it their
duty, as Ministers of the Crown, to maintain those prin-
ciples by which they were united, and in the maintenance
of which he believed they would best consult the welfare
and happiness of the country. (Loud cheers, and calls for
a division.)
Mr. COBDEN then rose and said—Mr. Speaker, on this,
probably the last occasion on which the controversy be-
tween protection and free trade may ever be pressed on
this house, it may probably be not presumptuous in me to
offer a few observations. (Hear, hear.) Upon the last
and most solemn occasion on which this question was
treated—on the second reading of the bill of 1846—1 re-
member it well, because it was a cause of the greatest
uneasiness to my mind—the noble lord the member for
Tiverton took a similar course to what he has taken on
the present occasion. It is no secret that in that Par-
liament there was a very large majority of the House
of Commons who in their hearts were opposed to a
repeal of the corn laws. Perhaps it would not be too
much to say that two-thirds of the members were by in-
terest, if not by conviction, opposed to it, and pro-
bably not more than twenty members of the House of Peers
were favourable to it. Now that which gave me, as one
most deeply interested in the success of the measure, the
greatest concern was, lest there should be a sufficient num-
ber of leading statesmen of the day, on either side of the
house, willing to carry on the business of the country and
maintain the duty on corn. For I was sure it only re-
quired a sufficient organisation of such men, with the sup-
port the House of Commons would have willingly given
them, to defeat the purpose of Sir Robert Peel, and give
us a xed duty on corn. Under these circumstances, when
I heard the noble lord, the member for Tiverton, at the
conclusion of his speech at that time, declare that he was
still in favour of a fixed duty—that declaration, which is
still vivid in my recollection, gave me great anxiety. Now,
sir, the noble lord's political course has since that time been
the subject of great controversy in this house. I was one
of six on this side of the house who refused to vote for
Mr. Roebuck's motion, and my feelings with relation to
the noble lord's foreign policy, were affected by his con-
duct with reference to great questions at home. (Question
and order.) When I heard that Lord Aberdeen gave his
vote in favour of the repeal of the corn laws. (Cries of
" Question," which drowned the remainder of the sentence.)
I mention this as a reason why the juveniles, as they are called
in thiahouse, should not follow the noble lord into the same
lobby. When the noble lord rose, with that blandness
which characterises him, to suggest the alternative of his
amendment, we were under the impression that the noble
lord, who at present sits at this side of the house, would,
unless we accepted his mediation, have withdrawn his
amendment. It appears, however, that although the noble
lord is perfectly aware that nine-tenths of hon. members
on this aide of the house will, with few exceptions, vote
with the hon. and learned member for Wolverhampton,
yet the noble lord has pressed his amendment into the ser-
vice of the Protectionist Government, and if this division
should result unfavourably to the free-trade cause, the
country will understand—(loud murmurs from the Minis-
terial midis of the house)—that the noble lord—(renewed
murmurs)—is the author of our disasters. (Oh, oh, from
the Protectionists, and loud cheers from the Opposition.) I
do not complain of the terms of the amendment per se as
the noble .lord has given it. Ido not complain of the terms
of the amendment so much because it does not go to the
full extent of the affirming of free-trade principles. What
I object to. in the noble lord is, that when free trade is per-
fectly safer-and nobody can now believe it is in danger—
you might as well believe that you could pull the stars out
of the firm ament, as that you could now impose a duty on
corn—the noble lord has, by his intervention, and by
uniting with the Protectionists, taken the only course
which leaves a chance of danger open. (Oh, oh, and
cheers.) ' Were the motion of my hon. and learned friend
adopted b y a majority of this house that would, so far as a
vote eon], I go, bar any claim to compensation—(hear, hear)
—but by refusing to acknowledge that the repeal of the
corn laws in 1846 was just, and, by excluding the word
" proper! ;y" from where it appeared in my hon. and learned
friend's a lotion' the noble lord has just opened the door for
the quest ion of compensation. Now, Ido not deny what
has been . said on the other side that it is perfectly compe-
tent for any member to bring 'forward a motion to grant
compense; don to the landed interest. Nay, Igo further ;
if the mnj ority of the house decided that we should not
grant col n pensation, still, if any hon. member thinks other-
wise, it ist his bounden duty to bring it before the house.
But what we want on this occasion is, to affirm, by a vote
of this ho' a.se, that the majority of the house are of opinion
that the r epeal of the corn laws was a just measure, and
that, in I consequence of that repeal, no party had any
claim for compensation. (Hear.) Now, the noble lord
wants to I arevent us from taking that course. The noble
lord has m x t said a word against the motion of my hon.
friend ; on -the contrary, he said he approved of it, and
would vote. , for it if necessary. The noble lord has not ad-
verted to ti to arguments on the other side for the purpose
of showing ; that they were wrong. He has not proceeded
in the max ner a friend of ours should. Master of argu-
ment as he i s' he has employed his talents not to bring the
opposite pa] -ty over to our views, but to bring us over to
theirs. (He .Sr, hear.) Now, what is the objection to the
word "just' ?" lam told it is objected to by those who are
not Free-traders at all. I know by the cheers of gentlemen
opposite, th At a great many of those hon. members are still
Protectior is ts. Now, if that be the case, we do not expect
them to vat e for this resolution. Those gentlemen will as
much bet- ra y their principles as Protectionists, by voting
for the nc dile lord's amendment as for the resolution of my
hon. frier td. If any man thinks free trade injurious, and
protectior t a sound principle, that man betrays his con-
science an d hi's duty to his constituents by voting for either
of those Erne-trade resolutions. (Hear, hear.) But the
great ques ti on now is, whether the act of 1846 was just to-
wards the great body of the people, or whether it was a
law which' only served a small fraction of the people,
latter be tb a effect of the law, then we have a right to
anrogate it, but if the former, it' should be maintained, and
no claim f
hon.t hn elyrle
ghlive en0;10(
inju„ No_ ?el • compensation should be allowed, because the
h the law would inflict on the few would be
nopoiy.
01'11 %sum of the injury perviously inflicted by mo-
how the c orarnenl
he many, and instead of granting compensation,
I be the best possible claim for restitution. But
who objected to the word " just," forgot
was
pass
ea.
theraew of 1815 had worked. When that law
of the pc sapl, ) that wyZ suchii a protest from the great body
work ? -.1 lave you forgotalothe vices i vith armed troops.(gear.) How
the Housbs of Par-
liament(
, )f the injurious effects of g
thel e rge
years 181 7, it 318, and 1819? [lVh h
quoted fro ill a, work, written by a ;or 9n*
a descripti ono corndidduntbnagt law
price
of
conienonrndtlelemia.w.agsn.
Willis,Thne
3st. a quarter; that the results, generally speak-
ing,those, that; the average
yWeriarsterwSagta teem
jaupteVamong the tenant-farmers, popular
were bai , gucencuariflM, destruction of tbxeithing ma.
disturbasceo, i