The Sun.
London, England, 1852-03-16 00:00:00

I take steps Owen/kV tigating the injustice under which the
owners and occupidr.- of land in this country were suffering.
I did not bind my,elf to any specific measure ; but T did
state that I would not take office on any other condition
jthan that of endeavouring, bond fide, to give effect to
tray own conviction of the necessity of legislating for the
relief of that class of her Majesty's subjects." And a few
sentences further on the Noble. Earl proceeded to say:—" I
cannot, as an honest man, abandon the attempt to relieve
the existing distress by retracing the false step which has
been taken, and to remedy the wrong done by the imposi-
tion of a moderate import duty upon corn." That was the
declaration of the Noble Earl last year, ;And protection
having been made the lever by which the opposition had
acoeded to office, it was right to ask the Noble Earl whether
he intended to adhere to his expressed opinions or not.--
(Hear, hear.) If the Noble Earl adhered to the opinions
just quoted hu(Earl Grey) admitted that he was justified in
saying that he could not bring forward such a policy in the
present House of Commons. But if he intended to adhere
to that policy, and propose it to another Parliament, it was
only natural that the precedent of 1841 should be followed,
when the Government having been placed in a minority,
were told they ought at once to take the sense of the coun-
try upon the question at issue. Upon a subject of such in-
tense interest as that now before the country—a subject
of moment with all classes, and considered of as
vital consequence by the Free-traders, he thought
the Noble Earl was bound to follow the course
adopted in 1841, and at once to take the sense of the country.
on the question of Protection. If he did so no obstruction
would be offered by either House of Parliament; but, on the
contrary, everything would be done to facilitate the business
of the year, in order that the dissolution might speedily be
brought about. The Noble Earl said that responsibility
would rest on, those who offered obstruction to those great
measures which it was the duty of Parliament to consider;
Without denying the inconvenience which might arise from.
delay, be (Earl (Irey) was still of opinion that such inconve-
nience must be incurred in order that the opinion of the
country on the all-absorbing question of free trade inight be
expressed. In 1841 Sir Robert Peel had said that when the
days of a Parliament were numbered it was not in a condi-
tion to consider important measures, and he recommended
dissolution and the formation of another as soon - as-possible.
In that opinion the Noble Lord at the head of the late Go-
vernment concurred, after his constitutional scruples were
removed ; so that there was a precedent set for
taking a similar course at the present moment. ff f
her Majesty's present advisers meant to bring for-
ward the question of protection, they ought to follow the
course taken in 1841 and dissolve Parliament. If thy
meant to abandon protection, they were bound frankly and t
fairly to announce such to be their intention. Whatever
reproaches their followers might cast on them for deserting
their opinions and disappointing the expectations of their
friends, such reproaches would not be lessened, but might
be calculated to give infinitely more pain if the Noble Earl
evaded the course which his followers had been led to expect
from him. Let their Lordships reflect upon the extraordinary
position in which the question was placed. The Noble Earl
had stated to-night that although he retained his views with
regard to protection, he would not attempt to impose •a
duty upon corn without the full concurrence of the country
—that it was not to be carried by a bare majority—that the
consciences of supporters and constituencies should not be
violated, but that he would leave the question to be settled
by the clear and deliberate voice of the country. Now was
there any man of common understanding who did not see
that this was giving up the question? As had been said
with reference to some bygone subject, could it be settled
by such rose-water support as this? Did anybody believe
that even with all the vigour which the Noble Earl might
bring to bear the re-imposition of any duty on corn could
be accomplished without great difficulty? He (Earl Grey)
thought that the good sense of the country would reject the
reversal of a , policy which had been triumphant for six
years. If the Noble Earl meant to give up protection, why
did he not say so ?—( Hear, hear.) But the fact was the
Noble Earl canvassed the counties in one way and the bo-
roughs in another. The Right Hon. Gentleman now Chan-
cellor of the Duchy of Lancaster canvassed the electors of
Linconshire pledged to reverse the policy of 1846 ; whilst
another Hon. Gentleman canvassed Macclesfield as a deter-
mined opponent to the corn-laws. In fact, the Noble Earl
desired Protectionists to canvass counties, and Free-traders
boroughs.—(Hear, hear.) When the friends of the Noble
Earl found their expectations falsified, would their com-
plaints be diminished by a review of the conduct of the
Noble Earl and his party during the last five years? Would
his supporters in the country be less inclined to complain
now they found the qUestion left open? The Noble Earl
and his friends had been severe upon the conduct of the late
Sir Robert Peel. Now, if Sir Robert Peel was
amenable to any blame with respect to the corn-
laws, it was because prior to 1846, and during
the previous discussions, he had withheld his
change of opinion. It might either be said that the
withholding of an earlier admission' of his conviction of the
unsoundness of the corn-law was a want of foresight or a
want of candour. Prior to 1846 that was the only charge
that could be brought against Sir Robert Peel. Looking at
the sacritizes which he made in 1846, at the personal and
private ties which he levered, it could only be held that the
Right Hon. Baronet was actuated by a sincere desire to act
for what he believed to be the good of the country—it might
be added, the safety of the country. No one would now
deny that this was a correct judgment upon the motives and
conduct of Sir Robert Peel. If the Noble Earl (Derby) were
at this moment to abandon protection, if he were to tell the
farmers that they had been all along under a delusion, that
they had better awake from their dream and adopt other
means for ensuring their prosperity—that protection was an
impossibility—did anybody believe that the holding of such
language would be inconsistent with the Noble Earl's real
opinions? By boldly holding such language to the country
the Noble Lord would make the best amends for persistence
in a contrary view. The only reproach to which the Noble
Earl would be obnoxious now—and to a far greater ex-
tent than Sir Robert Peel—would be, -that for five years he
had knowingly used protection as a political instrument,
knowing that ultimately the restoration of protection
sapid be impossible. With regard to the Noble Earl's con-
victions on this subject, he (Earl Grey), looking at his lan-
guage at public meetings, and to the whole course of his
conduct with regard to his party, thought it would be diffi-
cult to prove a want of foresight. It would be easier to
show a want of candour. The presumption against him was
increased when he said he abandoned the idea of restoring
protection to the farmer, and yet shrunk from adopting the
course taken by Sir Robert Peel. If atter five years up-
holding of protection the Noble Earl now left the matter in
doubt he would stand convicted in the estimation of every
man of common sense in the country. He (Earl Grey)
protested against such wanton playing with the dearest in-
terests of the country; and ,he_said further, that by thus
wilfully and deliberately keeping up the quarrel of protec-
tion between different classes 'of the community, when the
Noble Earl must know in his heart that the contest was
really at an end, he was incurring a fearful responsibility;
and if the Noble Earl persisted in such a course he (Earl
Grey) must express his firm belief that the whole Parlia-
mentary and political annals of the country would not afford
such another instance of public interests being sacrificed to
party feeling.---(Hear, hear, from the Opposition.)
Lord ABINGER urged that the loss which had accrued
to the landed interests by the financial alterations of late
years had amounted to not less than thirty millions a year,
or about three-fifths of the whole revenue of the country, a
vast sum to abstract from one interest. He had privately
arentionstrated with Sir R. Peel against doing such an injury
to so large a body of the people. It was impossible to
deny that ',the Blass of labourers in some districts had
received benefit by the change, but it was not the less a
confiscation because it enabled the people to eat cheap
food at the expense of the capitalist. Some evils were so
great that it was impossible to remedy them, and in this
case all that could be hoped for were palliatives. He would
advise the farmers not to promote agitation, but to en-
deavour to lessen their expenses and meet the evil as they
best could.

The Marquis of CLANRICARDE said that the remarks
of the Noble Lord who had just sat down had pleased, as
much as the speech of the Noble Earl (Earl of (Derby) had
pained him. The Noble Earl must excuse him for saying
that a more unstatesmanlike speech had never been de-
livered by any man holding office. The Noble Earl's
advice to the country was to agitate this question to the
full extent on the one side and the other, and then he
promised, no matter what the result might be, to act
upon the decision to which the country might come.
He (the Marquis of Clanricarde) had understood the Noble
Earl to say that unless he bad not only a majority in Par-
liament, but a very general concurrence of the country, he
would not attempt a protectionist policy.
The Earl of DERBY—The Noble Marquis has misunder-
stood me. I said as to the question of a duty on corn I
do not think it a question which the Government ought to
propose, unless satisfied not only that they would be able to
carry it by a large majority, but that they would have the
gener.,l concurrence of Parliament —( Hear, hear.) I strictly
confined it to the duty on corn ,• I did not at all apply the
observation to what the Noble Marquis calls " protectionist
policy ;" or the doing of that which, under any circum-
stances, whether of a majority or a minority, I am bound to
do, to endeavour to mitigate the distress of the agricultural
interest.—(Hear, hear.)
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE said, he considered the
declaration .equivalent to an abandonment of protection,
as it was not at all likely that in favour of its restoration
such a general concurrence of opinion would be obtained
in and out of Parliament. For his part he deprecated any
revision of our commercial or financial policy, which, of
course, could only mean an alteration and reversal of it,
believing that it had raised the prosperity of the country
to an unprecedented height, the result of which was per-
fect tranquillity; and that he could not at all understand
what those perilous circumstances were to which the Noble
I
Earl had alluded as a reason for not resorting to a dissolution
although, no doubt, Parliament would cordially concur in
he
any proposition to improve the defences of thae
revival
lhy
When,
ahen, however, the Noob—ulelddEidaiale vawesikpsehlen for them?dwtl;eraenwre
thef
o a,
mpeti-
tioignhstagrosaitnsatspsroorteedcthioonw?
an agitation which he (the Marquis of Clanricarde) did not
desire to see restored. The best precedents in eur constitu-
tional history were in favour of a prom
occeasatioohnanogfe
oaf
policy.chan SuchofGovhearndmbeenetni,‘ dissolution on the
by Mr. Pitt in 1784, by the Duke of Portland in 1801, and
by Lord J. Russell in 1835. The present Government
unquestionably held opinions as to our commercial policy
utterly opposed to those of their predecessors,
change of Government really compelled
taken, instead of encouraging on which the verdict of the country ought to be at once
so that the
a change of policy,
playing fast and loose with
the an. agitation neither credit-
able nor successful, for
and the Noble Earl had incurred
course, country would not bear
for surely he could
most mischievous incurred the responsibility of a
of suc-
cess,• that the people
would relinquish the benefit they had received from our
present commercial policy. The Noble Earl had ridiculed
an import duty on corn as of comparatively trivial and
not Negic.rtoehnaoteueti questionsvaany
y chance
im-
portance. But the Noble Lord (Abinger) had estimated
its result as no less a loss to the landlords than 30,000,000/.
annually, all of which had
one into the pockets of the
masses of the people and did the Noble expect to per-
suade them to giveit up? There could be no rational
prospect of that policy being overthrown, and the Noble
Earl would have done well to avoid the revival of a use-
less agitation by a frank abandonment of Protection,
which would have redounded as much to his own honour as
the advantage of the copntrv.
The Earl of HARROW ifY expressed his belief that if
the Nobler Lord at the head of the Government attempted in
any degree to put a duty on foreign corn he would damage
his Administration. Let the
a tax en the food of the people would
duty be great or small, the
It was utterly
,that, for the sake of one class in impossible, constituted
veryabse tritli
iifsna
otosoufuttior7h,pwiomsas
imposing
parti-
cular, all the other classes were to sutler the loss and incon-
venience of having the price of corn raised again. if the
farmer could be relieved from those burdens which no doubt
pressed uufairly on the landed interest, then let the Noble
Earl turn a favourable and intelligent eye in that direction.
and the country, which always leaned to the side of justice
and fair play, would go along with him, but it would not
go with him if he proposed a tax on the
food pt the
people.—(Hear, hear.)
Let the Noble Earl speak out
plainly on the question and he will lose nothing by it
Let the interests of the country
be placed on no false