The Sun.
London, England, 1852-11-03 00:00:00

man in connexion with this toast. It was where he said,

what you expect from us is that we should bring this
question of Free-trade and Protection to a speedy set-
tlement. (Cheers.) Now, gentlemen, I confess to you
that, so far as Free-trade is concerned, in this meeting
to-night, it appears to me that that is almost the sole
object we can possibly have in view. It does not appear
to me that we meet hero to discuss the question, when
all the arguments relating to it have been worn thread-
bare by means of discussion; it does not appear to
me that it requires we should convince ourselves or con-
vince others of the superiority and justice of; Free
trade as opposed to Protection;; but what me must
ask ourselves is this:—How is it that, when un-
doubtedly 19-20ths of the population of these realms are
in favour of Free-trade—when in all our commercial
cities you cannot find a sane man who is for Protection
—(Loud cheers)—when, I verily believe, in the whole
metropolis you could not find a score of individuals out-
side of Bedlam who would commit themselves to Protec-
tion—(Cheers and langhter)—when the whole agricul-
tural labouring population are vehemently in favour of
Free-trade, how is it, I ask, that in such a state of things
as that it can be necessary that we should meet here, in
this not very temperate atmosphere or very salubrious
room, again to protest against a Protectionist Govern-
ment ruling this country? Why, gentlemen, the reason
is this—and although I am as little apt to infringe the
rule of a Free trade meeting by introducing extraneous
topics as anybody—the truth is this, that our House of
Commons is a pecked House of Commons. (Loud
cheers.) It is a House of Commons where the intellect
and the wealth and the power of the country are so
unequally and unduly represented, that, instead of its
being a fair exponent of the opinions of the country, it
seems to be little more than a machine where ingenious
jugglers, like Signor Blitz himself, can shuffle the cards
and play their game, and win the stakes in spite of the
opposition of 19-201hs of the population of this
country, (Cheers.) Now, gentlemen, I still think
that if the Free-traders who were sent to Par-
liament at the last election are, as I believe they
will be, true to their principles, we may bring this
question to a close, as we are bound to do, in
my humble opinion, before the next Christmas.
(Cheers.) Now, as you have shown that you are in
favour of the immediate settlement of this question, and
as I am sure the Free-trade members of the House of
Commons would be glad to have your sanction, or to in-
quire the opinion of a body so influential as this—so
powerful and socially so influential in all parts of the
kingdom—as to the mode by which we should bring
this question to an issue, I ask your opinion on the plan
which I humbly submit ought to be followed by the
Free-traders in Parliament. (Cheers.) We want to
make a Government declare its opinions. (Cheers and
laughter.) We want to know what are the opinions of
the Government, in order to know whether the Govern-
ment be in harmony with the majority of the House of
Commons and the vast majority of the population of
this country. Have we not a right to know the opinions
of our Government upon the question which,of all others
at the present moment, concerns the welfare and the
happiness of the people of ,this country ? Then, I say,
when Parliament meets we have a right to know what
are the views of the Government upon the question of
Free-trade and Protection. When I had tiae honour
of meeting you in Manchester in March last I stated
that I had had a conversation with Mr. Villiers
urging him to put a notice on the paper of the House of
Commons, pledging the House to withhold its confi-
dence from any Government that was not pledged to
carry out the principles of Free-trade. You are
aware that when we met again, after the short
recess, and after tho Ministers had been re-elected, that
motion was altogether evaded by a declaration from Lord
Derby, and his representatives in the House of Commons,
that the Government did not expect or propose to carry
any measures in the House of Commons, knowing they
were then in a minority, but intended at the earliest pos-
sible period to take the sense of the country on their
policy. Lord Derby told us at the same time that he
would call Parliament together before Christmas, in
order that we might come to a decision on the commer-
cial policy of the country. (Hear, hear.) Well, gentle-
men, we have had that election, and, defective as is our
representative system, still there is a considerable ma-
jority of the House of Commons pledged to free trade.
(Cheers.) I have a very high authority in these matters
with the Government, Major Beresford, as for the fact.
(Cheers and laughter.) Well, now, gentlemen, all I
stipulate for is, that when Parliament re-assembles we
should know whether the Government be now Protec-
tionist or Free-trade. Is there anything unreasonable
in that? Why have we had a general election but to able
that question? Why do we meet cow before Christ-
mas, but avowedly, by Lord Derby, to settle that ques-
tion? I propose, therefore, to follow out that view which
seems so much in accordance with your sentiment; I pro-
pose that the Free- trade Members of the House of Com-
mons should bring Lord Derby's Government to a deela-
'on of their principles on this question. Now, I say
ration
if the Queen's Speech does not contain a distinct
renunciation and recantation of Protection on the pert
of this Administration, then I think the Free-trade
majority, if they are true to their principles—as I
honestly hope and believe they are—are bound, either
by an amendment to the Address, or by a substantive
resolution in the House, to declare that no Government
will have the confidence of the House of Commons which
does not avow—mind I say avow—(Loud cheers)—its
determination to adhere to the policy of Free-trade, as it
has hitherto been adopted, and to carry it out in every
practicable way. (Cheers.) I sas the House of Commons
should call upon the Government to avow its opinions,
because I draw a very great distinction between a decla-
cation of the Government or the intimation—the mysti-
ral intimation—from the Government, that they don't
intend at present to interfere with free trade, and an
avowal of the Government that they have changed their
opinions, and they are honestly in favour of Free-trade.
I say that, having nlneteen-twentieths of the population
of this country, and a large majority of the House of
Commons, in favour of a certain policy, our constitu-
tional system is a farce unless you can have a Govern-
ment in harmony with that majority. (Loud cheers.)
It is not enough to satisfy you, I am sure, that those
who have been the inveterate enemies of the principles
which you have met here to support, should be left in
possession of the Executive power in this oountry, and free
to damage the progress of those principles, or to prevent
their extension, and if possible to bring back a return
of Protectionist principles. That will not satisfy you
nor satisfy the country. But why I wish a determinate
and specific course to be taken by the Free-traders is
this, that nothing short of that will ever settle the ques-
tion in the agricultural districts. (Cheers.) The great
home of this delusion of Protection is in the dark cor-
ners of cur agricultural districts. (Hear, hear.) It is
there that still survives this (faith; in a Ministry which
promises one thing at the market-table and talks in an-
other tone at the clubs and coteries of London. I need
not tell you how rife is this faith in Protection in the agri-
cultural districts. We have seen almost every agricultural
county, swayed as they all are by aristocratic influence,
owing to the system of voting in this country—we have
seen them nearly all carried in favour of Protectionist
candidates; and, in fact, some of our best and ablest men
sc ardetdo
among the agriculturists themselves, such aswMe rh-aPveas Nor.
noy
and some of our Liberal aristocracy, like Lord
reys, in Oxfordshire, for merely. saying
faith in this delusion;" and eminent men, like Mr.
Cornewall Lewis, in Herefordshiref,hraavnedof leaningdi
been
solely on the ground of speaking for
Free-trade opinions. And who encourages this? The
political party who have crept into power on the faith
of this delusion. And you cannot put an end to this de-
lusion in the agricultural districts by any other process
than that which I have alluded to—by carrying this
theory to an immediate issue in the House of Commons,
and compelling the Government either to avow itself
Free-trade, thereby opening the eyes of these deluded
people in the agricultural districts to the delusions prac-
tised upon them, or else declaring themselves still for
Protection, and then going, as they must honestly go,
into opposition to advocate their principles. Now, I
don't blame members of Parliament, and members of a
party, for advocating, perseveringly and continuously,
say, if the mem-
principles in which believe. I
bars of the present governorent are still of the same
opinion that they were when they were in opposition,
let them avow it, let them go into opposition again.
They are in a minority, but you have seen that when
you have faith in your principles, and belief in those
principles being true, you may make a minority into a
majority, but that is a process to be done in op-
position and not in the Government. (Hear.) Now,
the agricultural districts of this country have been kept
for the last six or seven years in a state of suspended
animation by the course that has been pursued by the
political landlords of the country. They have prevented
men from devoting themselves to their pursuits, and re-
lying entirely on their own energies; they have beenoli-
looking to those members of Parliament and those p
tical parties to do something for their interests, which
can only be done by their own individual and united
efforts. The agricultural constituencies, in the way in
which they hale been standing agape at those political