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

being exempt from serving who were under 60 years of
age, other than her Majesty's Cabinet Ministers.
SIR HENRY BULWER'S MISSION TO ROME.
In reply to a question from an honourable member,
Lord STANLEY said, Sir Henry Bulwer went to
Rome to investigate the case of Edward Murray ; and
while he was in the holy city the honourable baronet
had several interviews with members of the Papal Go-
vernment on other subjects of interest to the country ;
but as these interviews were of a private character, he
did not feel himself justified to lay their results before
the house.
THE CASE OF EDWARD MURRAY.

gentleman commenced by saying, that he was to give an
account of the conduct of his party in respect of the
question of free trade, since the passing of the act of
1846, and that such account should be distinguished for
faithfulness and accuracy ; but so full of inaccuracies
was that statement that he confessed he felt not only
surprised but at the same time grieved. (Hear.) There
were many gentlemen sitting on the opposite benches
with whom he had long been connected in political
matters, and although now no longer connected with
them in that respect, but knowing their respectability,
it was not without pain that he heard statements
made, and a course of action pointed out, which laid
these gentlemen open to be convicted of misrepre-
sentation of the deepest die. (Hear, hear.) They all
knew what had taken place between 1846 and 1852 in
respect of this question. (Hear, hear.) Had there been
no agitation throughout the country? (Hear.) Were
there not protection societies established everywhere for
the avowed purpose 7of abolishing the free-trade system
(cheers)—and still in full operation ? (Hear, hear.)
As to the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, he ac-
quitted him of any misrepresentation in the matter, for
he confessed that he never believed anything that he
pretended he believed on this subject. (Laughter) All
that time his mode of action was, to make it appear that
hebelieved what he did not believe. (Renewed laughter.)
But, as to the others, he must say that he felt pained
for them. The noble marquis, the member for Leices-
tershire, a man of honour,—unfortunate, he must say,
in his principles, but still honest and honourable in the
maintenance of them—(hear, hear)—he still manfully
stated that he was a Protectionist, and that he would
maintain his principles by every honourable means in
his power. (Hear, hear.) In the country the farmers
had been told that they were to Oie relieved, and that
protection would be restored to them. But what would
be their feelings when they heard what was taking place
up here ? (Hear, hear.) The noble marquis, however,
repudiated this charge, and he commended him for
his candour, He was at one time one of the leaders of
the party, and knew something about their actions, as
well as did the Chancellor of the Exchequer ; for there
was a time when the leadership of the party was put in
commission, and it was for a time managed by a trio,
namely, the noble marquis, the right hon. gentleman the
member for Stamford (Mr. Herries), and the Chancellor
of the Exchequer. But now let him for a moment re-
vert to the time the party was formed, and see what was
the excuse set up for its formation. Now, several gen-
tlemen had read extracts containing the former opinions
of those who now formed the Government and some of
their supporters. Now he wished in any extract he
might read—and they should be few—he wished it un-
derstood that he was not going to taunt any one for
changing his opinion ; he felt all along that those who
held Protectionist opinions must, before a long time had
passed, even give up their dogmas ; for, from the com-
mencement of their operations, he was of opinion that
protection was a great bubble which only required
to be kicked out to burst. (Hear, hear.) But now,

of his country, and he (Mr. S. Herbert) would say that
of any man more than he had changed his opinion,he
needs but look to the other side of the house. (Hear

hear, and laughter.) He would, then, upon the grounds
he had stated, give his support to the amendment of the
noble viscount. (Hear, hear.) He rajoiced to think
that a large majority of the house were about to give
their vote on that question. They should not be un-
mindful how much political disturbance and social evil
had been avoided by the passing of the repeal of the corn
laws ; and he must now say, that in their future legis-
lation he would suggest that they should so legislate as
not to give any specific exemption from burdens to any
class of the country. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. H. DRUMMOND (who was very imperfectly
heard in our gallery) said that he felt it was very neces-
sary to have a very large supply of the Dantonian
quality, referred to the previous evening by the hon.
member for Middlesex (Mr. Osborne)—that quality
which was sometimes translated as "modest assurance"
in rising to speak from that (the Ministerial) side of the
house—for on the Opposition side sat all the talents of
the house with the solitary exception of the Chancellor
of the Exchequer. (Great laughter.) Once before upon
a time " all the talents" were arrayed on one side ; but
at that time they were on the side of the Crown and
government, while this time it was just the other way.
(Laughter.) But notwithstanding all the misfortunes
of standing at that side of the house, he could not
consent to be silent ; for he, for one, would not be
mystified, or dragged through the dirt by any party.
He had a duty to perform to those who had sent
him into that house, and also, to those who had no
hand in electing him, the labourers of the district
he represented ; but he also owed a duty to him-
self, and he would endeavour to clear his way
through this complicated debate. As to the question
itself, it seemed to him merely a difference be-
tween hocus and pocus—(laughter)—the difference be-
tween twice three making six and three times two making
six. But if importance was to be attached to words, let
hon. gentlemen be careful of pinning the words arranged
by others to their own sleeves. He was not puzzled
himself, as to his choice ; for it was 25 years ago that he
had first advocated a free trade in corn—that being a
time when, of the ardent free trade party now living by
the principle, those opposite had been suggesting fixed
duties, and those on the ministerial side were announcing
that the men who thought of abolishing protection were
mad. (Laughter.) Now they were all concentred to a
common point ; and it was desirable that if all their in-
tentions were the same they should make no mistake in
the expression. As he took it, some such motion as this
was absolutely necessary. (Hear, hear.) And he thought
the words selected by the hon. and learned gentleman
(Mr. Villiers) were the proper words. (Cheers from the
Opposition.) If the party on his (Mr. Drummond's) side
would take his advice, they would accept that motion,
and so confess their delusion boldly. He could not un-
derstand the reproach of inconsistency, nor the shame
of allowing an error ; and, as regarded the convenience
of that house, he heartily wished that " Hansard "
was at the bottom of the sea ' • he was sure it was
heavy enough to sink. (Great laughter.) To
hear people talk one would have supposed that the his-
tory of England began in 1846. Gentlemen who called
themselves independent members—that is, who talked
independent nonsense—(laughter)—had spoken of re-
sisting a reversal of the policy of 1846, and the phrase
was current too, at that (the Ministerial) side of the
house. This just showed that hon. and enlightened
members had not a notion of what the former policy of
the country was, or of what the present policy was.
Why, the measure of 1846 was no commencement of a
policy—it was the apex of a policy—it was the key-stone
of the whole arch. (Hear, hear.) The policy they were
now swearing fealty to began at the conclusion of the
war ; and people might as well talk of restoring the
heptarchy as of reversing this policy. He thought he
could explain this clearly to the bucolic mind—to the
biggest Boeotian behind Ministers. (Great laughter,)
They had only got to right notions of their national
interest very lately. The fact was, they must admit
the Anglo-Saxon was a supremely stupid fellow. (Great
laughter.) When the French first did us the honour
of coming into this country—(laughter)—they were
then called Normans —they found the Anglo-Saxon
so astoundingly backward, that he couldn't make
steel breeches. (Much laughter.) Hence the im-
portation of artificers in armour, who were called
smiths—a circumstance which accounted for the large
family of Smiths at this day. (Laughter.) This was the
beginning of our commercial system ; and it went on in
the same way. The Anglo-Saxon never could do any-
thing himself, and was perpetually in need of clever fel-
lows, such as the Flemings and the Lombards, to teach
him civilisation, and who always made the condition of
their settling here, that they should have a monopoly.
Our commercial history was a history of monopoly, up
to the time of the wars occasioned by the French Revo-
lution ; and in the course of that war, the Anglo-Saxon,
by this time largely adulterated, and getting keen, found
out that though Europe was closed against him, he got
all he wanted in raw material, and in fact, rather im-
proved his trade, in proportion to the strictness of the
customs exclusion of him on the continent. ' Free-traders
owed something to Adam Smith ; but a good deal, too,
to the smuggler. Napoleon taught us that monoplies
and protections were dead for ever ; but we were slow
to learn the lesson. When Louis XVIII. got his throne,
Baron Louis, his Minister, at once proposed to give to
the Government of this country a free trade with France
—that was to say, an ad valorem, duty of 10 per cent, on
both sides. But no one, except Huskisson, appreciated
the value of the offer—and Huskisson, at that time,
was kept down in a subordinate office ; and his colleagues
did not back him. But Huskisson stuck to his idea, got
it into some favour at last ; and, from that moment,
England had gone on removing her prohibitions ' • and
now, at last, we had got to the only wise, just, and poli-
tic course of perfect free trade, which was to leave every-
thing to unrestricted commerce. (Cheers.) When,
therefore, he heard men talking of "reversing" that
policy, he asked, were they ready to jump back to Wil-
liam the Conqueror's time ? (Cheers.) It was said,
however, that these words in the hon. and learned gen-
tleman's (Villiers') motion were offensive. But at least
they were not new words for the party : he held in his
hand an address printed by the Anti-Corn-law League in
1842, and there he found these identical " odious "
words. (Hear, hear.) As to the question of compen-
sation, he was ready to consider it ; but the compensa-
tion he meant was not what country gentlemen meant.
What he wanted to set about was a reduction in the cost
of production. (Cheers.)
Mr. MUNTZ said he was in the difficult position of
not approving of either of the resolutions. He was one of
the earliest opponents of the corn laws, but he was little
prepared to say that the repeal of the corn laws
was just. All he said of the present Government was,
that if they proposed good measures for the country he
should support them ; and if not they should have his
opposition.
The Marquis of GRA-NBY
agreed with the hon.
member who had just sat down, that it was impossible
for him to agree with either of the resolutions, but he
must disagree with him so far that he was unable to
vote for either of them. His reasons were threefold.
He could not agree that the prosperity of the country
was as great now as it had been under a different and a
wiser system. In the second place, admitting the
prosperity, he thought it Was to be accounted for by
other causes than recent legislation, and unlimited com-
petition. The reason was that, supposing that that
prosperity was owing to recent legislation, that legisla-
tion was not stamped with the principle of unlimited
competition. For these two reasons he found it quite
impossible for him to consent to either of the resolutions.
The noble lord concluded by reiterating his determina-
tion to vote neither for the one resolution nor the other ;
for, to his mind, the one was hocus and the other pocus.
(Great laughter.)
Mr. FITZROY wished to explain, in a few words,
the line he intended to pursue, as an independent mem-
ber of the house. Undoubtedly their position was one
of great difficulty ; for they all wished to take a course
that should at once be satisfactory to his conscience and
the public, and to those friendly or party associations
which clung almost to every man.
Under the circum-
stances, and from gratitude to the distinguished man
whose policy they all now approved, he should give his
vote most decidedly for the motion of the hon. membtr
for Wolverhampton. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. N. KENDALL (the new member for East Corn-
wall) said he saw no reason for changing his opinions.
It was his conviction that, but for the operation of other
causes apart from free trade, not only the working
classes themselves would very probably have demanded
a reimposition of the import duty on corn—but another
class, a more dangerous one, those who represented the
manufacturing interest, would have pursued the same
course. (Laughter.)
Mr. BLACKETT said he should vote for the original
' motion, rather than for the amendment.
Col. SIBTHORP said—The prosperity of the country,
which was so much spoken of, Was
owing to the dis-
covery of Californian and Australian gold. He believed
the poor man would not be compelled to leave his own
country, if he were only properly treated at home. But
they introduced exhibitions and such things to encou-
rage the foreigner, at the expense gf the home producer,
and the result of which was, that there never was so
much disease in the metropolis as since the day it
opened. (Laughter.) The resolution of the noble lord
Palmerston was a mere trap to it
catch the unwar
wns a composing draught for her Majesty's Government—
—(laughter)—a compromises as it was called. He de-
tested all compromises. (Laughter.) He would not
vote for anything—and would walk out of the house
when the question came to a vote. (Laughter.)
Mr. WARNER (Norwich) said he should give his
support to the resolution of the hon. and learned member
for Wolverhampton.
Sir J. GRAHAM—I shall promise not to occupy long
the attention of the house, which has now debated for
several nights a question merely turning on the use of
words, and must be anxious to have the discussion brought
to a close. I am the more ready to promise this, because
I have already, almost unwarrantably, trespassed on the
indulgence of the house—if strictly within the rules,
still in a manner I should blame, if I had not thought it
called for by the circumstances. The hon. member for
Cornwall says nothing is se painful as to swallow the
opinions of another. I
must tell him that there is an-
other thing not very agreeable—having your own words,
in the shape of a \notion, suddenly brought upon you
when you least expect it. A great deal has been said
about old stagers, and a great deal of advice has been
given to young members. I am afraid I must consider
myself an old stager, and as such I will give those young
members one piece of advice—never to supply the words
of a motion for which they were not responsible, nor to
endeavour to frame one which should please everybody.
I must tell you that this is utterly impossible : and,
peLhaps, the predicament in which I stand this evening

In reply to Lord DUDLEY STUART,
Lord STANLEY stated that the life of Edward
Murray had been saved, and his sentence commuted
by the Papal Government from punishment of death to
banishment for life.
THE NEW FOREST.

In reply to a question,
Mr. HAMILTON stated that a report on the sub-
ject of the New Forest would be laid on the table to-
night, while the claims of those parties to compensation
on account of the removal of the forest were now under
the consideration of the Government.

when the history of a party was to be ascertained,
perhaps the principles on which it was originally
founded were the most conclusive as to the ends
and objects of the party, for while men might
change they would remain. Now, he found those
principles laid down on the occasion of a de-
monstration got up in favour of the late Lord George
Bentinck at Lynn, soon after the passing of the act of
1846. In a speech delivered by the noble lord on that
occasion, he found a statement to the effect that the
great end of the party then forming was in the first
place to restore protection, but failing that to endeavour
to pass measures for the purpose of relieving agriculture
from the burdens it bore ; and the noble lord went on to
say, "As you, the farmers of England, must do your
own work, you must not trust to your landlords," a
warning which, from the conduct of those now in office,
would seem to have been well timed, and one which
the farmers of England will now perhaps recollect. The
noble lord was followed by others on that occasion, who
reiterated the same sentiments. Among these was the
present Chancellor of the Exchequer, who asked where
was now the great agricultural interest. Let them
come out in their defence, for he could not believe that
this nation—and by the nation he meant all classes
of the community—would submit to be governed by
words, whilst their rights and interests might be de-
generated into a mere distinction between hoens
and poens. (Laughter.) If, however, it was not the
policy of the party in this house to disturb the policy
of 1846, in the other house it was the avowed object
of the leaders of the party there, and such was held by
Lord Derby up to 1851. He did not, however, as he
had stated, refer to those matters for the purpose of
taunting honourable gentlemen opposite. He confessed
he was himself in 'no position to do so. He had passed
through the ordeal himself, and he had to do so because
circumstances had altered his convictions, and holding
at the time a station of responsibility he considered it
would be wrong in him to hold those convictions and
not act upon them. (Cheers.) But since 1846, the
Protectionist party had proposed a fixed duty on corn.
The honourable member for Stamford did so in that
house, and the Chaneellor of the Exchequer supported
him. True, it might be that they did not divide the
house upon the question, and for that there might be
reasons. A division, however, might be taken, but,
perhaps, some friend hinting to the right honourable
gentleman that there was but a thin house—that there
were scarcely any members in the smoking-room, he did
not know whether there were any in the library or not—
(laughter)—he might have seen the propriety of letting the
motion drop oil the paper as quietly as possible. (Hear.)
But what of that ? Mr. O'Connell carried on the agita-
tion for the repeal of the union after bringing forward
motions in that house for the repeal of it ; but no
one ever heard him say that he was carrying on that
agitation to maintain the act of 1840. (Hear, hear.)
Well then, it was said this question must go to the
constituencies, and the Government gave out that as
they decided so would they. The appeal was made, and
answered unmistakeably in favour of free trade. Then
came the Speech from the Throne, where it was to be
hoped an avowal would be made that it was the inten-
tion of the Government to maintain and extend that
system of free trade. But no such avowal was made,
There was a paragraph, it was true, in reference to the
subject, but it was simply in effect : "if you feel some-
thing which you don't, perhaps you will do something
which you won't. (Laughter.) Now that could not
have been satisfactory to the house or to the country.
(Hear, hear.) And the confessed lie was 'much disap-
pointed with the statement. If there had been any
technical difficulty in putting words into her Majesty's
mouth which would have had the effect of satisfying
the house on the subject, there could have been, cer-
tainly, no difficulty in putting them into the address.
But that not being done, what course was the house
to adopt ? They could not test who were Protec-
tionists and who were not, without a vote of the
house, and, therefore, the resolution of the honourable
member for Wolverhampton was now submitted. A
counter one was put by the Government, and therefore
they stood equal, but he must say that the discussion of
them had not: impressed him with much love for abstract
resolutions. (Hear, hear.) He considered the amend-
ment of the Government was bad, for by the very terms
of it, it should have been put before Parliament was dis-
solved, and he must say that in dissolving Parliament
and going to the constituencies to get their opinion as to
a system Of established legislation, was to him a new
principle, and one which he was afraid, if often had re-
course to, would operate prejudicially, and was there-
fore calculated to give alarm. He therefore preferred
the words of the hon. member for Wolverhampton. So
far as those words, which had been the subject of so
much debate, the words " wise, just, and beneficial "
were concerned, it was impossible he could refuse to give
his assent to the fact that the measure of 1846 was "wise
just, and beneficial." (Cheers.) He apprehended that
Government would hardly declare as they did by the re-
solution of the noble lord the member for Tiverton, that
they would extend the system if it was otherwise than a
wise; just, and beneficial one. (Hear, hear.) He did not,
however, think that it was politic to put these words
into a resolution, the object of which was t gain the
support of as large a portion of the house as pos-
sible, as he confessed he thought the words had a ten-
dency to hurt the feelings of honourable gentlemen oppo-
site. He confessed that 'he considered generosity the
best policy, and more particularly when regulated ac-
cording to the strict rule. The whole history of this
country was full of instances in which parties had found
reason to change their opinions. It had been said that
they were influenced by a species of propagandism; and
all that was true ; and he confessed that he should be
glad to see that every party who saw reason to change
his former opinions, should be at liberty to'do so, with-
out being subject to humiliation in the opinions of those
who differed from him. (Hear, hear). He recollected
an exceptional case wherein religious missionaries of all
denominations had made proselytes, with the exception
of the Jews, and in explanation of that exception, it was
said by a party, that such was not to be wondered at,
for who would like to commence his religious conversion
with a surgical operation. (Much laughter.) He felt
that he would not be right if he were to blame gentle-
men that came to his opinion, and state to them that
they must commence their penance for change of opinion,
in "white sheets," In his opinion, the resolution of the
noble lord the member for Tiverton (Lord Palmerston),
was not so strong now as it was at the commencement. It
stated, " That it is the opinion of this house that the
policy, firmly maintained and prudently extended, will,
without inflicting injury on any important interest, best
enable the industry of the country to bear its burdens,
and will thereby most surely promote the welfare and
contentment of the people. That this house will be
ready to take into consideration any measures, consis-
tent with these principles, which, in pursuance of her
Majesty's gracious speech and recommendation, may be
laid before it." He (Mr. S. Herbert), said with
regard to the repeal of the corn laws, that it was in the
first instance an act of justice ; but he would now ex-
press the opinion that he first formed that if any one
class in the country were to receive more than they
were duly entitled to, it could not be done without in-
justice to other interests. He said that of the class
to which he himself belonged—the landed interest. He
must say, that he objected to anything that could
have the effect of tending to bind the country to any
course that had a tendency to enhance prices, to the
prejudice of other interests, whether for fiscal pur-
poses or otherwise. The resolution, to his mind, em-
braced the whole question, and applied to all articles
that had been cheapened. (Hear, hear.) Some com-
memoration of Sir Robert Peel was necessary, and he
might say of him, that his fame stood on a pedestal
which no revolution could disturb. (Hear, hear.) He
admired Sir Robert Peel, and had followed him as a
political guide, and loved the man, believing that he
was actuated by just principles. (Hear, hear.) He sat
behind him when the vilest language was addressed to
him—(hear)—and when he was accused of the meanest
of crimes. But Sir Robert Peel was a man of a generous
nature, whose memory deserves to be revered, and
whose course was worthy of the highest vindication.
(Hear, bear.) His menwry was embalmed in the opinion

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER, 27, 1852.

may be a warning to some new members.

Now, I

should like to state to the house that the result of this dis-

cussion has been very painful to me, because of our having
to discuss the comparative merits of the original motion, and

of the words with which I have already stated my con-
nection. The Chancellor of the Exchequer complained
of the epithets in the original motion, namely, that the
_ _

repeal of the corn law in 1846 was a just, wise, and
beneficial- measure. He designated these epithets as
odious. Now, if any epithets are to be applied at all, it
is my idea that the English language supplies none so
apposite as those in the original motion. The right hon.
gentleman perhaps naturally demurred to the proposition
that the repeal of the corn laws was just and wise. Then
how shall I tell you my astonishment at the words of
the amendment, to which I understand her Majesty's
Government are now parties ? These words assert
broadly that "it is the opinion of this house that the
improved condition of the industrious classes is mainly
the result of recent legislation, which has established the
principle of unrestricted competition, has abolished taxes
imposed for the purpose of protection, and has thereby
diminished the cost and increased the abundance of the
principal articles of the food of the people." But am I
wrong now ? Did I not understand the right hon. gen-
tleman to make some reservations with regard to sugar ?
Is not sugar a part of the people's food ? Has not un-
restricted competition been admitted, or is it not in pro-
gress of being admitted by- a descending scale of duties.
I do not wish to refer to speeches at the late election,

but I may remind the right honourable gentleman that
at his own election he stated, in reference to what I
had said with respect to the Government opposite having
risen to power by the ladder of protection, and having
thrown that ladder down, content to do in office what
they had found fault with in opposition—to this the right
hon. gentleman gave an unqualified denial, and said that
with respect to sugar, he still maintained all the prin-
ciples he had ever entertrdned. He thought the West
Indian colonies had been ruined and unjustly treated by
the removal of protective duties, and he maintained that
opinion as strongly as ever. The house will recollect
what took place in June last. The descending scale of
duties was about coming into operation on the Ist of
July. The right hon. gentleman then said he maintain l
all his opinions, and that it was only his being in a hope-
less minority which prevented his attempting to enforce
them. Well, if he maintain his opinions, why does not
he say that he will not vote for the amendment of the
noble viscount ? I see, in. a work of political biography,
a most graphic description of what took place in refer-
ence to this very question. of the West Indian colonies.
It appears the West Indian interest did not take a very
decided part in resisting the repeal of the corn laws, and
a proposition was made to the late Lord Geo. Bentinck
that, in consequence of their not having supported the
Protectionists here, his lordship should be a party to no
longer supporting the protection which the West Indian
colonists enjoyed. Lord George replied, " No ; we exist
only by our principles ; we are not priiir councillors, but
we are honest men. We must stand by our principles, and
we must protect the West Indian interest." "Now, sir,
gentlemen opposite have abandoned the principle of pro-
tection. Shall I draw thJe inference ? If so, I say I
should be unjust in the emreme. I am not prepared to
say that this change of opinion on the part of hon.
and right hon. gentlemen on the Treasury benches is a
dishonest change. I recollect an admirable speech made
by the noble lord the member for Tiverton, on the repeal
of the corn laws, in 1846, in which speech he, with his
own most powerful mann e r, and with the utmost brevity
and succinctness, stated the whole arguments in favour
of free trade, and illustrated them with his usual clear-
ness. He had, indeed, one passage which I thought
heterodox—that in which. he advocated a fixed duty on
corn ; but with this one exception, all was admirable,
and has proved correct. "If," he said, "the force of
circumstances should ever place these gentlemen (includ-
Lord G. Bentinck and others) on the Treasury bench, I
am satisfied six montlig will not elapse before their
opinions will undergo a great change and modification."
The noble lord went on to say that certain climates
were specifics for certain diseases, and that if you took
any case of protection, I et the fever be as inflamma-
tory as you pleased, and :placed the patient in Downing-
street for six months, he would undertake to say that his
opinions would undergo a change. In this opinion I
agree. Put any Protectiocnist in that position, and he will
find the value and the t.!uth of the information of the
facts collected by the lato Mr. Porter, whose loss I most
sincerely deplore. It is hardly possible to persuade gen-
tlemen that our exports ?have increased seventy millions,
our imports a hundred millions, annually ; and that,
returning to sugar, whilo, the duty was diminished 100
per cent., the quantity bu.ported increased one-third, and
the retail price fell one-h; d.f. All these things seem in-
credible. But there is irt,y right hon. friend the Presi-
dent of the Board of Trade, capable of sifting the facts,
and responsible for the. documents whence we derive
them. I have no doubt he has investigated them fully
before giving his signatu re, and, as the result, supported
a resolution in which the: *benefits of free trade are recog-
nised as broadly and ope nly as could be desired. There
is another topic on whi.:•ll I desire to say just a word.
The righ- hon. gentlemaa the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer, rather commented: last night on the use of the
word " oomponoation." woo -bhp+
that word had ever been, used by him ; that possibly I
might find it by hunting among election speeches ; but
that in the house no su rh word had ever been used by
him. Now, I am not dis posed to go word-catching at this
time, but I cannot refrai t from expressing the surprise
with which, whilst listerring to the speech of my gallant
friend the member for Mil ldlesex, I heard him read a cer-
tain passage in which that , word and the name of the right
hon. gentleman occurre c I. As the hon. and gallant
member for Middlesex In w said, the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer took advantage o f Mr. Grantley Berkeley's mo-
tion, in May, 1850, to sv,y, " I ask you to protect the
rights and interests of la k our generally; in the first place,
by allowing no imports from foreign countries which
meet you with countermi ling duties, and, in the second
place, with respect to ag r icultural produce, to compen-
sate the soil for the bun I ens from which other classes
are free, by an equivalent duty." A good deal has been
said about bowing to p riblic opinion. Now, I would
first of all observe that th e repeal of the corn laws was
not carried by bowing. But in the next place, with re-
ference to the use of strmag language, I would ask, whe-
ther those who supported that repeal were always treated
with the exact courtesy or Parliament—whether the ex-
pressions used with refers nce to such persons were what
we hear in society? The: hon. member for the West
Riding has referred to wl :at he called the Christian for-
bearance of the friends a nd colleagues of the late Sir R.
Peel ; and he expressed soi ne surprise that they should have
been so moderate in their language, and so forbearing in
their retaliation. Now, sir, I said last night, and said
truly, that in framing these resolutions I endeavoured
to frame them in the spirit and in the temper with
which I believed my rig ht hon. friend, had he been
now alive, would, under present circumstances, him-
self have framed them_ And, sir, the term used
by the hon. member LTA' the West Riding, was a
very happy term. He used the term " Christian for-
bearance.' Now, I know my right hon. friend well; the
right hon. member for South Wiltshire (Mr. Sidney
Herbert) has paid him an eloquent but a just tribute
this evening : and of all his characteristics, I should say
his Christian temper and forgiveness were perhaps what
most distinguished him; and, sir, I say also that he al-
ways regarded what in th e circumstances of public affairs
it was politic to do in reference as well to the good of
the house and of the cows try as to the maintenance of a
great cause. The hon. member for Surrey has referred
this evening to the ancient history of this country as far
back as the Anglo-Saxons. Perhaps I may, without
pedantry, go back still further, and refer to a passage in
Liv, commented upon by Machiavelli. I refer to that
passage where a portion of the Roman army having
suffered great disgrace at the hands of the Samnites, and
being brought to the Favees Caudince, the question arose
how they were to be treated. The first advice given was
that they should be set at liberty ; the next, that they
should be exterminated.. Ultimately, they only passed
under the yoke. Now, I do not accuse honourable
gentlemen opposite of anything unworthy in the course
which they deem it their duty, from a sense of necessity,
to take. I do not wish to stigmatise them by asking
their consent to that which their honour may refuse. I
think it is enough to sustain this great cause by words
which, whilst they have nothing offensive in them,
cover all the principles for which I have contended,
and for which I shall be ready to contend when
the measures of the Government are brought forward.
There is no gentleman 5n any part of the house more de-
termined than I to reject the doctrine of compensation
to land, and no one by whom any measure founded on
that claim will be more earnestly resisted than by me.
On the whole, I am not surprised that the Ministerialists
object to saying, in express terms, that the measure of
1846 was wise, just, and beneficial • and I, for one, shall
not depart from the words which I admit are, verbatim
e; literatim, what I myself prepared. Though it is most
painful for me to vote against the proposition of the hon.
andt
r gentlemen
l ylearnedagree,
with
should memberw for
h
o m
thi
ninkprinciple
myself Wolverhampton,on
entirelythis a n r
ad
unworthyta those
Io other
en-
tirely
f
the confidence of any part of my
.fellow-countrymen if I
did not abide by that which I sincerely meant and in-
tended. (Cheers.)
Mr. J. H. PHILIPS,amid a storm of cries for a
division, which rendered his remarks perfectly inaudible,
stated his reasons for offering his support to the amend-
ment of Lord Palmerston.
Lord J. RUSSELL—Sir, I now entertain the hope
from the appearance of the house, that there exists a
strong desire to bring this discussion to a close to-night
—(cheers)—and I ant sure that the exhausted state of
the debate would well justify us in not prolonging the
debate so as to extend it into another week. (Loud
cheers.) But, sir, I have borne too large a part in
these discussions, and I have been too frequently re-
ferred to in the course of this debate, not to ask the in-
dulgence of the house whilst I make some brief obser-
vations on the state of the question now under our con-
sideration. My hon. friend the member
for
(Hear, hear.)
n, inr.)
a speech remarkable for its
ability, V
ilitly,ivb eutrilm
w(aHer
hicit was confined very much to the ques-
tions on which he had to treat—those questions of econo-
nomical and commercial policy which have been for so
many years under the consideration of Parliament—moved
certain resolutions, the first of which went to affirm the
bcoeunnefitrt,y, and pa
benefits which
erseceecnilltleygislation had conferred upon this
the second, the extensiounpoonf tfhreee trade, as industriouso classes ;
opposed
dto
protection, would be the best mode of enabling the pro-
perty and industry of the country to bear its burdens ;

and the third, that the house would be ready to consider
any measures which her Majesty's Ministers might lay on
the table on these subjects. (Hear, hear.) Now, sir, if
there had been anything of a party character in the
speech of my hon. friend, the right hon. gentleman oppo-
site (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) might have been
justified in saying that the object of his motion was t)

displace the Government and make the matter
entirely a party question. But my honourable friend gave
no opportunity for any remark of that sort. (Hear.)
His impartiality was rather the subject of comment. He
said that Governments had such a family likeness to

each other, that he did not much care whether the Go-
vernment of the day was formed from gentlemen on this
side of the house or from gentlemen on the other side
certainly no very strong party declaration on the part of
a person who has been said to have brought forward h
resolutions solely from party motives, and with a view
to the displacing of the Government. (Cheers.) How-
ever, the right hon. gentleman chose to consider the
question in that light, and instead of making any answer
to the statements of my lion. friend, instead of contro-
verting any of his arguments, he entered into statements
as to the conduct of the party of 'which he has been the
leader for the last few years, and declared that it would
be dishonourable for them to accept the resolution of my
hon. friend. Now, sir, as the right hon. gentleman has
chosen to bring that question before the house— although
it was not before the house formally—l shall not refrain
from making a few observations on his statements.
(Hear, hear.) But I think it is due to the question
itself that I should state my view of the resolutions now
under consideration. My hon. friend had proposed these
resolutions. I understood they had been assented to by
most of the hon. gentlemen who have taken the lead on
the great question of free trade. I understand that my hon.
friend, acting as I think it was his duty to do, in order to
conciliate all parties, has consulted various members of
this house ; amongst others the hon. member for the
West Riding and the hon. member for Manchester, who
had a right to be consulted, the noble lord the member
for Tiverton, the right hon. gentleman the member for
the University of Oxford, and the right hon. gentleman
the memhc.-- for Carlisle_ I—uudernaall,
professing to know their individual sentiments, my, hon.
friend had the full concurrence of those hon. members.
However, the right hon. baronet the member for Car-
lisle, made a statement last night, with respect to an-
other form of resolution, of which evidently the noble
lord the member for Tiverton had heard, and of which,
" for the sake of greater accuracy," he had obtained a
copy. (Laughter' and cheers.) 'The noble lord, in the
speech which he addressed to the house, asserted that
gentlemen on the other side of the house could not agree
to the resolutions before them, and stated various
grounds for changes of opinion, and observed that the
house had nothing to do with the private opinion of
public men, in which remark I cannot say that I concur
with him—(hear, hear)—and the noble lord concluded by
proposing certain resolutions which appeared to please
hon. gentlemen opposite, and give them immense relief.
(Laughter.) Those resolutions, whilst relieving the
minds of hon. gentlemen opposite, caused a great divi-
sion amongst hon. members on this aide of the house,
who had before been united. (Opposition cheers.) Such
being the state of the question, I have to consider what
course I ought to pursue; and in the first place I must declare
that both sets of resolutions are exceedingly well framed,
that both seem to me to go generally to the same object.
(Hear, hear.) Each is divided into three parts. Each
affirms in the first place the benefits which our commer-
cial legislation, during the last few years has conferred
upon the country and upon the working classes—each
affirms that it is necessary to maintain and pursue that
policy—and also that the house will be ready to listen to
the measures that may be brought before the house.
Therefore, sir, it would appear to me that the resolutions
which were first produced by a member of this house, in
whom all those who value free trade principles could
confide—(cheers)—are entitled to precedence, and it
would ill become my sense of duty to give a vote which
would set aside those resolutions. (Loud cheers.) That,
sir, is the question which you will have to put at the end
of this long discussion, for you will have to ask the
house whether the words proposed to be left out shall
stand part of the question, or in other terms, whether
those words are to be at once rejected, and not put to
the house as the main question for consideration. (Hear,
hear.) Now, sir, I own I should have been disposed to
say that if the resolutions proposed by the noble
lord the member for Tiverton, drawn by the right hon.
gentleman the member for Carlisle, had been proposed
in the first place, and the resolutions of my hon. friend
the member for Wolverhampton had been moved as
an amendment, I should have pursued the same
course which lam now taking. I should have voted
for the resolutions of the-noble lord standing part of the
question, and against the resolutions moved as an amend-
ment.
(Cheers and laughter.) They appear to me to be '
very nearly the same. Ido not mean to say that they
are the same in the views of hon. gentlemen opposite.
But a.s they both coincide and concur with my senti-
ments, I think it my duty to prefer that which was first
proposed to the house. (Cheers.) But, it is said, there
are words in the resolution of my hon. friend which give
csir.r. t.-gentlemen oppoolin ...<1 that, being an assem-
bly of gentlemen, we ought not to ask them to concur in
that which is offensive to their feelings and degrading to
their honour. (Hear, hear.) I certainly do not wish
any gentleman to agree to that which he thinks contrary
to his honour. I am only speaking of my own senti-
ments and views, and I certainly could not ask lion-
members to Concur in resolutions to which they attribute

that effect. (Hear, hear.) But I do not see why I
should make my vote depend upon their feelings.
(Cheers.) But let me ask what is it that gives this great
offence, because I own it does appear to me that they are
more sensitive than the case naturally calls for ? (Hear.)
The words objected to are that the repeal of the corn
laws in 1846 was " wise, just, and beneficial." (Hear,
hear.) Well, as I stated last night, hon. gentle-
men have no hesitation in declaring that that
policy which rendered corn cheap—which provided
for the admission of foreign corn, and thereby made the
food of the people abundant and cheap, as the noble
lord declares in his resolution—they have no hesitation
in saying that Parliament was " wise" in enacting the
law, but they will not say that the act was a "wise act."
(Laughter.) That seems to me to be a very remarkable
refinement. (Cheers.) Then with respect to the word
"beneficial." You have no hesitation in declaring, ac-
cording to the resolutions of the noble lord for which you
are all going to vote, that the improved condition of the
country, and especially of the working classes, is owing
to recent legislation, and also that that policy should be
further pursued. When gentlemen admit that great
benefits have flowed from that policy—that the food of
the people have been improved thereby, and that great
benefits have been conferred on the great body of the
people—l do not see why they should deny that that
policy has been beneficial. (Cheers.) Ido not see why
they should say—" Here is a measure which Parliament
in its wisdom has enacted, and which has conferred great
benefits on the people, but yet we will never say it is
either wise or benefical." (Cheers.) The right hon.
gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies (Sir J. Pak-
ington) has no objection to admit the wisdom of
Parliament, or the benefits that have flowed from the

measure ; but as to saying it is " wise and beneficial,"
he declares that he will oppose the expression, and
that nothing shall make him consent to it. I con-

raider this to be a very fine scruple, and it reminds me
of a remark made by Lord Plunkett with reference to
one of the scruples of Lord Brougham—that it wal
more fit for a novel, to be called " the delicate distress'
(Laughter.) Now, with respect to the word " just.',
I do not see why that word should be any great stumb-
ling-block to honourable gentlemen opposite. I had
al-
ways considered the corn laws as laws not imposed for
the benefit of any particular class, or to be continued on,
that ground - but as being, in the first pl ace-r-ien har-
mony with the general policy of the country, w hih was
the protection of native industry—the protection amongst
other producers, of the producers of corn. And in the
next place, understood the question to be one of public
policy, and that it was considered desirable to raise
within ourselves, within our own soil, sufficient food for
the sustenance of the people. These were the public
reasons for the maintenance of the corn laws. But the
moment Parliament decided that it was not wise to
keep up the system of protection—that it was not wise
to diminish the food of our own people, and make the
food dear in order to obtain the advantage of having it
all produced within ourselves—from the moment such a
declaration was made these laws ceased to be just, be-
cause they could only be considered just when justified
on the ground of the public welfare. So soon as Par-
iament declared that they were not for the public wel-
are—that none but a certain class, such as the owners
fof land, could profit by them, and that the great body of
the nation were not benefited by them—the laws at once
ceased to be just, and were stamped with the mark of injus-
tice. (Cheers.) Now, willing as I should be to see a reso-
lution to which the whole body of Free-traders in the
house will assent, yet I own I cannot say that the ob-
jections stated by the hon. gentleman opposite are
to
reasonable that I ought to alter my vote, and refuseeunt
vote for the motion of my honourable friend,,,
of the difficulties which have been raised.
may be said
There is, however, another reason why itel
of the corn
on(ulclceers..,)
some injustice was attached to the P
laws, and that is that the repeal was d ustly, and that
been said that the sudden repeal acte J
sroeinsue. dden. It has
a great body of the most deserving
But if that be so, I do not
class were thereby
exposed to great hardships.
my
eea
year
last
18n4i0g,lit proposed, I had see that I am at all to blame in uthat respect, because, as
the right hon. gentleman redntndtehde
in the year 1841, and indee
the
change might be more
an Bs. duty, in order that
gradual. (Cheers.) And even in 1845 I still proposed
a fixed duty with a similar view. But honourable
gentlemen opposite would never listen to such a change
as that. And altiniotuVirtnalrepeatedly told, amongst other
present
persons, the p
Prime Minister, Lord Derby, that
if lie would not consent tq such change he would find
himself at last deprived of all protection, he still went
on obstinately refusing any such change. (Hear, hear.)
The change occurred as I had supposed. It swept
away the whole of the corn laws ; and Lord Derby,
who treated me as the greatest enemy of the farmers
in 1845, and said that Bs. was no protection at all,
endeavoured in 1851—but endeavoured in vain—to get
some member of the house to propose a duty of not
more than ss. (Cheers.) I mention these facts,
because I was placed at that time in very painful cir-
cumstances. I was held up in 1841, as the great enemy
of the farmers, as wishing to destroy their prospects and
their interest, and every effort was made to render me
odious in their eyes. (Hear.) Certainly it is some satis-
faction to me now to see that the very measure for which
they held me up to odium is aboon which they own to be
unattainable, and which they would be very glad to de-