The Sun.
London, England, 1852-11-26 00:00:00

resolution. Did his hon. friend doubt his devotion to
free trade ? He did not believe that any could venture
to do so. Did he say that he (Sir W. Clay) did not be-
lieve the measure of 1846 was wise, just, or beneficent,
when it was recollected that nine years before that period
he proposed the repeal of the corn-laws in that house ?
(Hear, hear.) Unless his memory deceived him, the
consistent and honourable career of his hon. friend was
commenced by seconding his motion on that occasion.
His (Sir W. Clay's) objection to the present resolution
was, that it called on men of honour to express in terms
that they were wrong at a given time. (Cheers from
the Ministerial benches.) Was such a course, he asked,
consistent with common sense ? In private life, what
did they do ? If they were joined in the pursuit of a
common object, they did not ask those who differed
from them that they should eat up every word they
uttered. His noble friend, the member for the city of
London, said it was justifiable to raise a discussion upon
the meaning of an abstract resolution, but it was not
that he objected to such a course that he was for its
withdrawal, but because it was impossible to get the
assent of a large majority, to pledge the house to its
adoption. His honourable friend, the member for the
West Riding, said it was not sufficiently clearly ex-
pressed, that measures would not be brought forward
for compensation to the landed interest. Now, he had
read the resolution of the honourable member for
Wolverhampton, at least twenty times, and defied his
honourable friend to find any words which prevented
compensation being brought forward at any future time.
It was beyond the reach of human intellect to lay down
a priori some general proposition to meet such a
case. The difference between him and his honourable
friends was, that he objected to their inflicting a mor-
tification on their political opponents, for which there
was no occasion. He, on the contrary, should welcome
them with joy. He should be delighted to have there
advocacy in the future development of free trade, and
would not do anything which would prevent such a
wished for union. He was sorry his hon. friend had not
thought fit to accede to his proposition ; he believed he
would have done wisely had he done so, and he did not
know what course the Government would take ; he, of
course, avowed that if his:hon. friend pressed his motion,
it was impossible for him not to support it. He would,
however, take that course with deep regret, because he
believed a union of all parties would best promote the
success of those great principles to which they were all
so much attached.
The SPEAKER reminded the house that the debate
was hardly in order. The question before them was,
that the house do adjourn, but as, according to strict
rule, that was a day when motions had precedence of
orders of the day, they must proceed accordingly.
Mr. BARROW believed he had a right to address the
house on the question of a motion for adjournment. He
rose principally that no mistake might arise as to his not
having uttered his opinions. He was sent to that house
because he had a strong opinion on the question of Free-
trade policy and its effect on the labouring classes, and
more especially on the occupiers of land. He maintained
that that policy was injurious, and not only injurious,
but unjust, and that it therefore could not be " wise,
just, or beneficent." He believed the right free trade
would be, a free trade with moderate duties—(a laugh)
—and certainly, if they were to have a competition at
all, it should be an unrestricted competition, and a re-
moval of those burthens that now pressed on the occu-
piers and owners of the soil.
Mr. STANHOPE had mixed much among the farmers
of his county, and could assure the house that a great and
permanent injury was sustained by the agriculturists of all
classes since the year 1846 up to the present time. Labour
had become cheaper and more difficult to procure, and
what, he asked, did cheap food do for the people, when they
had no employment ? and, if they had such employment,
received low wages ? He was sent to that house by the
independent freeholders and tenant-farmers, and not by
any of the great landed interest, and he would not sup-
port any of the motions then before the house.
Sir J. GRAHAM then begged leave to withdraw his
motion, and it was withdrawn accordingly.