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

FEES AT THE GENERAL ELECTION.

On the motion of Mr. PHINN, a return was ordered
of all fees, disbursements, or expenses charged by any
returning officer or his deputy, or by any sheriff, under-
sheriff, sheriff clerk or sheriff's officer, clerk of the peace
or town clerk, to any person returned to serve in the
present Parliament for any county, division of a county,
city, borough, district or place, or to any candidate seek-
ing to represent any county, division of a county, city,
borough, district or place, in the United Kingdom.
Also a return of all sums received by any returning
officer or his deputy, or by any sheriff, under-sheriff,
sheriff clerk or sheriff's officer, clerk of the peace or
town clerk, in respect of such fees, disbursements, or ex-
penses, from any person so returned, or from any candi-
date so seeking to represent any county, division of a
county, city, borough, district or place.

ST. PAUL'S.
In reply to Sir DE L. EVANS,

Lord'J: MANNERS said that he did not feel him-

self justified in calling upon the Dean and Chapter of
St. Paul's to extend the period which had already been
fixed upon for opening St. Paul's to the public with the
funeral fittings.

OUR COMMERCIAL POLICY.—THE AD-
JOURNED DEBATE.
On the motion for resuming the adjourned debate,

Mr. M. GIBSON said he wished to say a few words
on the subject of the resolution proposed by his honour-
able friend the member for Wolverhampton. He repu-
diated the notion that the original resolution was in-
tended as a vote of want of confidence in the Govern-

Lent, and insisted that its object was to perpetuate the

principles of free trade.

He, therefore, found fault

with those who had ventured to character-
ise it as a vote of want of confidence. No

one, it would seem, could dispute the affirmation of
the resolution that the law of 1846 was a just
and wise measure, and he was at a loss to un-
derstand how any one could object to it, or take
exception to it on the ground that he had already stated.

But he took exception to the views of those who
affirmed of the principles propounded in 1846, simply
because free trade had produced cheapness of provisions.
He could not consent to that mode of dealing with the
question. Such a mode of argument would justify
confiscation, for confiscation might, under some
circumstances, produce momentary prosperity, but
he must contend that, looked at from every point of
view, free trade had been just and righteous, and he
could not possibly bring himself to the amendment of
the noble lord the member for Tiverton. It would seem,

however, that the object of the noble lord was to save the
feelings of hon. members who supported the Govern-
ment, but he for one was at a loss to understand
how the Protectionists could agree to the amendments,
and yet not accept the original resolution. The amend-
ment called upon Protectionists to affirm not that the
free trade policy of 1846 was wise and just, but that
under all the circumstances it had been sound and
politic, and for the life of him he could not see why the
one, as well as the other should not be equally accept-
able to honourable gentlemen. Well, then how were
they to choose between the two ? Why in this way
—they were both pretty similar in spirit, though not in
detail, but the one proposed by the hon. and learned
member for Wolverhampton, would be more acceptable
to the country than that of the noble lord the member
for Tiverton. They would not do their duty to the
memory of Sir R. Peel if from any mistaken morbid
sentimentality, they refused on this solemn occasion to
record that the measure which he advocated was not a
wrong, nor a great public mischief, but was founded on
the eternal principles of justice. This was after all a great
question, and it was absurd to agree to the proposal of
the noble lord, for the purpose of showing a general
unanimity which it was well known did not in fact exist.
They wanted to shew the world that the policy of free
trade was not based on low considerations, but
on the principles of civil right and justice. If the
house shrunk from declaring that the policy was
wise and just, the people would be induced to be-
lieve that the Trouzc of Cluunnoxtz -vver3 somewhat rotten.
After all, the House of Commons long laboured under
the influence of the landed interest, on the question of
protection. If there was an appearance of rottenness
now in the house, they might depend upon it, that no-
thing would strengthen so much the cry of Parliamen-
tary Reform, for the general opinion would be, if the
words in question were omitted, that the representation
was not a reflex of the public opinion, and that
some covert attempt might be made to restore
the nefarious system of monopoly. (Hear, hear.)
He therefore: hoped that hon. members would rally
round his hon. and learned friend, for neither the noble
lord (Palmer. ston) nor the Chancellor of the Exchequer
had any cairn to take the quostion out of his hands.
Let every honest free-trader vote for his motion, and he
would undertake to say that their constituents would
approve of their conduct. (Cheers.)
Mr. M. G.A.SKELL thought the allusion of the right
hon. gentlenr►an to the question of Parliamentary reform
was the best explanation that could be given of the na-
ture of the motion proposed by the hon. and learned
member for Wolverhampton. (Cheers from the Govern-
ment benches.) He was convinced that so far from as-
serting a great public principle, there was no reason
whatever for the motion. (Cheers.) There was a very
serious difference between the two resolutions for
whereas while the amendment simply affirmed that free
trade had succeeded in producing the present prosperity
of the country, the other went on to add that the conduct
of those who opposed Sir Robert Peel in 1846
was unjust and uncalled for. The arguments of those
who opposed the amendment were somewhat strange ;
they declared that the Earl of Derby had no principles
whatever, and therefore his friends ought to abandon
him. Now it was somewhat strange that those who held
this line of argument were not quite settled in their own
minds as to their own policy. (Hear.) He should be
the last -man to impugne the motives of the
late Sir Robert Peel in passing the repeal
of the corn laws, but he must be allowed to take
exception to. the manner in which that measure was
carried, for the Parliament of 1842 was returned
to support, and not to reverse, protection. It
was therefore unjust at that time to adopt free
trade without an appeal to the country, and
to that exte at he took exception to the conduct of the
late Sir Robert Peel. (Hear, hear.) But the House of
Commons now met under very different circumstances—
it was returned to affirm the principles of free trade,
and he for one was quite willing to bow to the decision
of the country upon that great question as it was enun-
ciated in the amendment of the noble lord the member
for Tiverton, though he was not prepared to throw that
blame and censure upon the country party for their
conduct in 1846, which the original resolution of
the hon. :and learned member for Wolverhampton
implied, if it did not in fact distinctly affirm. (Cheers)
No doubt there were conflicting opinions on that side of
the house aa to the effect of the repeal of the corn laws,
but no man doubted of the intentions of the Government.
(Hear, hear..) The real question at issue was between
a Government prepared to carry out the commercial
policy of 1816, and a set of gentlemen who were agreed
upon this pocint, certainly, but between whom, on other
points, thero was irreconcileable, endless, and vital diffe-
rences. (Loud cheers.)
Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT said he trusted the house

would give lim an opportunity of stating the course he
intended to take on this question, and the reasons which

had induced. him to come to that decision. Let him in
the first plane assure the hon. gentleman who had just
sat down, :as well as the hon. member for Manchester,
that in coming that decision he had kept out of view,
and out of mind altogether, what effect the vote would
have on the present Government. When a threat was
held
questionout by.wrwhich
nmight Government
ght bthat ife pending, de f d
e defeated on any certain
would
resign,
that was a matter which no doubt would have weight
with parties whose interest it might be to keep them
in office ; tut with with respect to those independent
of them, 'lt was not whether Government should go
out or st2by in, but whether they would be justified
in doing so. They had been told that the resolu-
tion submitted by the hon. member for Wolverhamp-
ton was one of non-confidence in the Government ;
but shores, awkwardness and bungling never suggested
a resolution of non-confidence which concluded by say-
ing that its supporters would give every consideration
to the measures which the Government might propose.
tah rnlua not
t in io
an
(Laughter...) To revert to the commencement of the
the debate.ho n rlaeterf
originallynr c commenced
m e ned
Wolverhampton,
ment of the Government. Now between these two he
could not lave had one moment's hesitation. (Hear,
cwith
and tehso
hear.) Re saw a resolution moved by a gentleman who
originally brought this question of free trade under the
consideration of the house. He knew that he had
fought that battle with great skill and constancy, and
brought the question to a successful terthination. In
opposition to that an amendment had been moved, which,
on this question at any rate, did inspire confidence, and
he could ha ye, therefore, had no hesitation in voting for
the resolution. (Hear.) Then how did the debate go on?
After the hon. and learned member for Wolverhampton
concluded his address, the Chancellor of the Exchequer
rose ; but he confessed that his speech, impressive as
it was in. point of delivery, and ingenious in point of
argument, he confessed that it left a very unfavourable
impression his mind. (Hear, hear.) The right hon.