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

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER, 26, 1852.

carrying out free-trade principles? (Cheers.) The hon.
member for Cambridgeshire, in a manly and straightfor-
ward speech (and it was a comfort in those days, to hear a
straightforward speech), stated that the calamities more
dreadful than had ever been recounted, had resulted from
free trade. According to him the farmers were annihilated
by hundreds, and the peasantry expatriated in shiploads.
and yet he stated, in the conclusion of his discourse, that
he had come to the resolution to support a Government
which had determined to carry out that policy. (Loud
cheers from the Opposition.) The right honourable gen-
tleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer said he was willing
to bow to the decision of the majority, but surely it was
not by bowing to the decision of majorities that any great
statesman made his way in this country. He (Sir
William Page Wood) belonged to a family some members
of which sat in that house for twenty-eight years, and
during the whole of that time were in a minority. They
never bowed to majorities, but adhering to principle, they
at last found themselves in a powerful majority. (Hear,
hear.) He would tell that hon. gentleman to whom he
referred that if the policy he bowed to was fraught with
the mischief he had described—if ruin and beggary fol-
lowed in its train—if under it the farmers and agricultural
labourers of England sunk down broken-hearted—did he
think himself fulfilling his duty to his constituents by sup-
porting a Ministry who now promised to maintain it ?
What was the position in which they were placed with re-
ference to the resolution before them ? That resolution had
been met by an amendment proposed by the right honour-
able gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had
finally adopted the resolution suggested by the noble lord
the member for Tiverton (Lord Palmerston). As far as
the resolution was concerned, he could state that the
greatest pains were taken of making it as little offensive as
possible. (Laughter from the Opposition.) After the
course which the right hon. gentleman (the Chancellor of
the Exchequer) had thought proper to pursue, he (Sir P.
Wood) did feel surprise at the resolution being treated as a
factious movement. It did appear that, by some means, a
resolution was procured in Downing-street, and it was said
it was then resolved to adhere to the resolution. (No, no.)
Yes, it was understood that it was agreed to accept the re-
solution. But then three odious words were added, and
these were, that the measure was just, wise, and beneficial.
(Hear.) Now, they had heard that night that these words
were proposed by the noble lord (Lord J. Russell) long be-
fore the resolution came into the hands of Government.
Now, if they had had the noble lord's resolution (Lord Pal-
merston's) with the addition proposed by the hon. baronet
(Sir James Graham), the house might have adopted it.
They had, however, to choose between the two before
them, and by rejecting the resolution of the honour-
able member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Villiers), because it
contained the words professing the measure of free
trade to be just, wise, and beneficial, and adopting the
amendment, they would be deciding that the policy which
they accepted by the amendment was not just, nor wise,
nor beneficial. (Ministerial cheers.) Besides, the noble
lord's resolution, which had been adopted by Ministers,
went on to say that free-trade policy should be extended—
so that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, by that resolu-
tion, not only adopted free trade, but had consented to ex-
tend it—(hear, hear)—and in that way had agreed to ex-
tend a policy which he believed to be neither wise, nor just,
nor beneficial. (Ministerial cheers.) The only argument
he (Sir P. Wood) had heard used against the adoption of
the words in question was that it was not gentlemanly.
(A laugh.) Now, his lordship's (Lord Palmerston's) gen-
tlemanly demeanour was known, by means of his diplo-
matic intercourse, throughout the whole of Europe ; but
they were not met to bandy compliments when they were
assembled there to discuss a great public question. (Hear,
hear.) He held it to be a matter of great importance
that a legislative assembly should have a high character
for integrity, and a Government also ; and at the present
time :it was a matter of the highest moment how
public men conducted 'themselves. It had been at-
tempted to tell them that no such thing as a Protec-
tionist party existed since 1816. Were all the meet-
ings and speeches since that time to go for nothing ?
(Hear, hear.) They were told they were to go for nothing,
and that they (the Ministry) were about to adopt a policy
which they had previously reprobated. (Hear, hear.) Now
there was great danger to the character of public men by
the exhibition of such conduct. (Hear, hear.) The Go-
vernment came into power in consequence of their being
so active—as a great united party, banded together on one
great point, namely, protection. Their whole energies
were directed to obtaining such majorities as made
it impossible for the late Ministers to carry on the
Government. They knew it would never do to propose
measures to do away with free trade. They singled out
individual members of the Government. If a member
sat in one house he was attacked in another, when he was
not present to answer. Who would ever forget that in that
way they attacked the noble lord (Palmerston), that in that
way they attacked Lord Torrington. and that in that way
they attacked the late Lord Lieutenant of Ireland ?—(hear,
hear)—and in that way they contemplated an attack on the
noble earl (Earl Grey), which did not come on. But the
object was to force individual members out of the Govern-
ment. But what did these hon. members do when
they came into office ? One noble said he had no
principles at all, but that he had confidence in the Earl of
Derby. Now at what time had he confidenec in that noble
earl? Was it when he was a member of the Reform Go-
vernment in 1832, or was it at the time he sat with Sir Ro-
bert Peel, or when he left that ministry ? In 1851 the
noble earl was still a Protectionist, and when he came into
power ho said he would go to the country and see what the
country would say. Was that conduct for a minister go-
verning a great country. (Hear, hear.) He (Sir P. Wood)
had no objection to go to the country, but a Government
should be able to say what principles they were prepared
to carry out. Instead of that they found a continual mis-
leading of the public mind. The hon. and learned gentle-
man then referred to the speech which the noble earl at
the head of the Government made at the Mansion-house,
for the purpose of counteracting the damaging effect of
speeches made by members of his party elsewhere, and
said it was important, in consequence of the notions
entertained by some of the agriculturists, that the
question before them should be directly met. (Cries
of " Question, question, divide.") He thought he
was speaking to the very essence of the question. He
was not sorry that the question was brought to this
point. He believed that one result of a compromise would
have been that the people of the country would have felt
that they were net honest on the question of free trade.
(Heir, hear.) They ought to show that they had no com-
munity of feeling with her Majesty's Government on the
subject of free trade. They were there upon the requisi-
tion of honest men, and it was their duty to act in a straight-
forward and manly manner upon the great question in re-
ference to which they were called together. (Hear.)
Sir J. PAKINGTON rose amids cries of " Divide." He
claimed the indulgence of the house while he addressed
them, and he could assure theni he would only do so
a few moments. (Hear, hear.) He should not have
done so had it not been for• the observations addressed
to him by the honourable gentleman who had just sat
down. He had nothing much to say on the question
before the house. After what had taken place between
the noble lord the member for Tiverton and the Govern-
ment, and after the course pursued by the noble lord the
member for London, he could not address the house in the
language and with the spirit which he should have done if
he had spoken before these proposals were made to the
house. The discussion as it stood was not creditable to the
house. (Hear, hear.) There was, in fact no question
before the house. The only object honourable gentlemen
seemed to have was to try how they could cast more or
less vituperation on that side of the house. (Hear.)
They appeared only anxious to secure the insertion of
words in a motion which might give pain to honourable
gentlemen who differed from them. The Government
met them fairly and frankly, they admitted that the
country was against them, and if they were contented with
the admission of the fact, they would have adopted the
amendment of the noble lord the member for
Tiverton. (Hear, hear, and cheers.) Although
he entertained strong opinions upon the policy of free
trade, he yet bowed to the opinion of the country respect-
ing it ; but when pressed upon this point he could not
agree that free trade was a wise, a just, and a beneficial
measure. (Opposition cheers.) It was very easy to judge
of a subject after the result. But on a general question of
commercial policy, it was a difficult matter to decide as to
its value when first brought forward for consideration.
(Hear, hear.) Honourable gentlemen on his side of the
house said that if the corn laws were passed there would
be no gold left in the coffers of the Bank. (A laugh.) And
yet there was now more gold in the Bank than was ever
there before. (Hear, hear.) Well, but the advocates of
the abolition of the corn laws made some equally extra-
vagant assertions. He mentioned these things to show the
lifficulty which existed in arriving at a correct conclusion
on questions of commercial policy. (Hear, hear.) In 1846
byy
to
he was
be received
was in favour of a fixed duty, but that proposal would
politiciansclasssayofthadtitha
n naotttphratodtuiniceed.
it -
s a
absurdan (Hear.) However right the abolition of the corn laws
might be,
distress to some parties. The
to certain interests, sugar uties. had caused dis-
tressand the abolition of the corn
laws had caused distress among the • •
agriculturists, for he
knew men who had been comfortable farmers
who were
now glad to find employment as day labourer s
hear.) His friends treated the Free-trade question n (gear,
hear.) a
labourer's question ; and he admitted that they wereemis-
taken in the views they had taken on the subject. (Hear,
hear.) But even admitting that the labourers were bet-
tered by the success of the Free-trade policy, it was still a
gnostical whether the labourers were to be benefited at the
expense of other classes. licssourabla gentlemen on the
opposite side of the house could not fall back upon their
constituency in respect to this question. He had fre-
quently gone into the lobby with the right hon. baronet in
support of protection, and up to 1841 Lord John Russell
was in favour of a fixed duty. Although he opposed Sir
Robert Peel in 1846, he always respected that distinguished
person. He challenged any one on the opposite side of the
house, or anywhere else, .to point out what he had ever
done or said inconsistent with what he now stated. (A
voice—" Sugar.") He knew who was interrupting him ;
but he could tell that honourable member that he would
find, when the time came, he was never more mistaken in
his life than he was as to what were his intentions in
regard to that system. He was now, however, speaking
about the corn laws, and he had always held that after the
change which had taken place, it would have been im-
possible to have retraced their steps, unless they set them-
selves up as indifferent to the voice of the country. The
hon. and learned gentleman who last addressed the house
alluded to the noble earl at the head of the Government in
terms which lie was sorry to hear him use. (Hear, hear.)
The hon. gentleman that the noble earl acceptedpower
without said
could only treat such a declaration
without a principle. He .
) He thought it
(Loud cheers.
as an absurdity in itself.
unworthy of the hon. and learned gentlemen to have used
it, for he did not believe that ever any statesman enun-
distinct—(laughter from the Opp°.
dated principles more
sition benches)—or more worthy of his high and noble
character, than the Earl of Derby. (Cheers from the
Ministerial benches.) Then the honourable and learned
gentleman had asked, but he thought
he would have with
greater propriety put the question to those behind him,
why had such a resolution been brought ferward ? Now,
the noble lord, the member for London, hacl said that the
ambiguity of the Queen's Speech, in respect to the free-
trade question, justified the introduction of such a resolu-
tion, but to his mind nothing could be more intelligible than
the paragraph of her Majesty's Speech in reference to that
subject, and therefore there was no need of any such reso-
tion. He had his fears, however, that there were other
reasons for the introduction of that resolution at the present
time, and ho had his suspicions that it was the same reso-
lution with which the present Government was threatened
in April last, and that it was now brought forward for the
purpose of combining the four distinct parties on the oppo-
sition side of the house against the Government, this being
the only subject on which they could be combined for such
a purpose. (Cheers and laughter.) The great object was
to get such a resolution brought forward before Govern-
ment enumerated their measures, but he was glad to say
the good sense of the House of Commons had deprived the
party who introduced it from affecting the Government in
that respect, and he had no doubt that it would be re-
jected by the house by a large majority. (Cheers.)
Mr. MILNER GIBSON then moved the adjournment
of the debate, which was adjourned to this day (Friday.)
The house then adjourned at a quarter to one o'clock.