The Sun.
London, England, 1839-02-20 00:00:00

Members cold be induced to eeme here and attend, certain
I am that they could not be induced to come here day after
• *lay, and hear the evidence. For the first day, perhaps, we should
hare a very full aterndance—great excitesnent would exist on
, subject,
bjelet, and ive should have three or four divisions regularly
and C
creetested, as to whether an Hon. Member, the
reePresentat...iee of a manufacturing town, or another HeM. Mem-
bth th" eepeesentative of an agricultural county, should' have
t.l".ecestkrice in examining a witecss. No doubt, great ex-
:l...Anent would prevail at first. While that excitement con-
atzkv,d, is it likely we should' make much progress in the inves-
tigstion of a subject of such a complex nature as this was.
While this state of excitement continued, how can we hope to
make much progress in imparting instruction to Hon. Members
On abstruse points of po!itical economy. After a while this ex-
citement must fail. Hon. Members, the representatives of the
manufacturing and the agricultural interests, having come to an
understanding as to who should have precedence in the ex-
enenetion of evidence, the House would very soon after settle
dawn into the ordinary mode of conducting business.
—( Hear, beer.) I can picture to myself the ap
pearance which this House would present in the evening.
say about half-past seven, we should find our worthy Chair-
man in the Chair, but whether he would be listening to the
evidence, or writing verses—( A laugh)—or indulging in re-
Tose, it is not for me to say. Other lion. Members would be
I:`,‘lng to their various engagements, and the official Members
would gladly embrace the opportunity of accepting engage-
ments to dinner. My Right Hon. Friend the Member for
Manchester having presented petitions most numerously signed
on this subject, might perhaps deem it a duty he owed to those
petitioners to attend at the House during the whole time of
the investigation ; but he would very frequently be the only
Occupant of the official bench. I ask whether Hon. Gentle-
men will not agree with me, that this picture which I have
now drawn is a correct representation of what will take
fPiece should the House agree to the motion of my Hon.
riend the Member for Wolverhampton. To use the fine len-
gnage of my Hon. Friend, the petitioners hope that they shall be
heard at the bar of this House, and not condemned to the seclu-
sion of a Select Committee, my Hon. Friend brings forward
as a sound and unanswerable argument in favour of the course
which he proposes to adopt, that gentlemen, now living, who
were examined at the bar of this House against the Orders in
Council, have told him that at that time Hon. Members of this
House would come to them, and say—" You have informed us
of facts with which we were previously unacquainted ; you have
enlightened us on the subject, have induced us to change eur
opinions, and have secured our votes." I am not surprised,
considering the time which has elapsed since the issuing of
those Orders in Council, that these Geneereen, referring to the
dim recollection which they must necessarily have on the sub-
ject, are inclined to attribute to their own evidence a much
larger share of importance than it is justly entitled to or than
it received at the time. But what yeas the case of the Orders
in Connell ? it was an entirely new case; these Orders were
issued in accordance with the policy of the then Go-
vernment ; of the reasons for which they were issued, the
generality of persons were in ignorance, and the facts upon
which those reasons were founded were not known. This was
a reason for the House proceeding in the way it has done, but is
this the case with the Corn-laws at present? Is there any new
faet, or any new reasoning with which we are unacquainted? For
the last twenty-one years, ever since the year 1815, the Corn-
laws have been constantly and perpetually the subject of dis-
cussion both in and out of the House. All the facts relating to
them—all the arguments from those facts—and the whole state
of the case may be made known to any gentleman who will
take the trouble to investigate the subject. There was
nothing but facts and arguments with which they were already
acquainted to be brought forward on this subject, and these
facts and arguments could be far more efficiently brought
forward in the course of debate. I know that Honourable
Members have recurred to the large number of signa-
tures which had been attached to petitions which had
lieen presented to the House praying to be heard by
evidence at the bar. I should be the last person in the world
to treat these petitioners with want of consideration, or to dis-
pute the fact that these petitions arc entitled to great weight.
But it is our duty as Members of this House to exercise our
deliberate judgment on the prayer of the petitioners, and if, in
our deliberate opinion we should, by granting the prayer of the
Petitioners, not promote but defeat the object which the peti-
tioners have in view ; then it is our duty to refuse to grant the
Prayer of the petition, and no considerations should induce us
to grar.t their prayer against our deliberate judgments. We
puseess means of forming judgment on subjects of this nature,
'which constituencies cannot possibly possess. It is hardly pos-
sible that persons totally unacquainted with the business of this
Ilouse, ehould be able to form a correct opinion on these
subjects. Our duty to our constituency is, if they have
been misled on any subject, not to betray their real in-
terest, by seceding to their expressed wishes ; this is our duty,
this is the correct course for us to pursue, and from this we
should not be induced to swerve by any considerations of popu-
larity.—(Loud cries of s. Hear, hear.") I have no further
reasons to offer to the House, but I must say that I consider
this motion as most ill-advised for forwarding the success of
that cause in which the petitioners take such interest. I am not
surprised that they should have endeavoured to force this
course upon their representatives, but I am surprised at the
course which their representatives have adopted. They have
but ground ,if complaint against those Members who, having
Parliamentary information, knowing the ground upon which
Parliamentary decisions are founded, have suffered themselves
to be misled into the adop ion of a course whieh is detrimental
to the ultimate success of the object which they have in view.
must ever deeply regret that the first. debate and first devi-
slots on this subject should have been brought forward
rn such a manner that all who disapprove of that manner
and yet wish well to the object which the petitioners have in
view should feel compelled to divide against this motion.
The sense of what is my duty to the House, to my constituents,
and to the country, compels me to give my vote against the
motion of my lion. Friend, the Member for Wolverhampton.
and I regret that I should be compelled to give my vote to
swell that mejerity which in popular estimation will be regarded
as a majority in favour of the existing Corn-laws. It is not my
fault that I am compelled to voiein this manner, but

it is the fault of these who have exhibited such a want of
judgment in the manner of bringing this question before the
Howse.—( Cheers.)
Mr PRYME (who rose amidst loud cries of " Question,"
" question," " divide," " divide.") said that having given notice
to move, an amendment to this question, he would
give the House his reasons for not pressing it now
(Laughter, and cries of " Order.") He thought his Hon.
Friend the Member for Wolverhampton would have gone into
the general subject of the abolition of the Corn-laws, and as
amendment would be brought forward more appropriately
/rnen the general discussion arrived, he would defer bringing
it forward until that time should arrive.
Mr. WARD highly approved of the manner in which his
Honourable Friend the Member for Wolverhampton bad brought
this question before the House, and would state a few obser-
vations in reply to the speech of the Noble I.ord. He had heard
that speech with mixed feelings of pain and pleasure ; he felt great
Pleasure in libter.ine to the manly avowal of hostility to the existing
gystern of
,Corn-laws, and that he agreed with him in opinion that
the Corn laws were injurious to the manufacturing and agricultural
interests. There were other parts of the speech of the Noble
Lord to which he had listened with feelings of the deepest regret.
He could not by any means admit the justice of the Noble Lord's
arguments. 'fhe Noble Lord objected to bearing evi-
dence at the bar of the House on the ground that all the
facts of the case were already before the Hon e. It was
*tie that Honourab:e Members had access to the official returns
It was true that they might be acquainted with the bald and discon-
nected facts of the case without any knowledge of those arguments
which have a tendency to dispel. They had been told this
evening of the manner in which the British manufacturers
Were suffering from foreign competition, and one of the
agricultural Members agreed with the Hon. Bart. (the Member for
South, Wilts) admitting the depressed state of British manufactures,
I
nt there was a dispute as to the cause, they denied that
this depression was at all connected with the Corn.laws
teries of Hear, hear)—they said look at the Peace—consider
the effect which that must necessarily produce on the great
nations of the Continent, and how it has compelled them to
become manufacturing nations. The manufacturers took a
contrary view of this subject, and attributed the increase of
Zeigtk competition in a great measure to the operation of the
i-
-4:4-la.ws. What they ask is to be permitted to bring forward
9'e, hest evidence on this subject that can be produced. The
rigenee of men who have closely watched and studied the ef-
fects which they have produced on ourmanufacturing industry.
!h°, Only asked to be allowed to prove their case, and to show,
they believed they could, that all their grievances might be
traced to the Corn.laws ; and if the House refused that prayer,
they would show a determination to act on a foregone conclu-
'on of their own—a determination to come to a judgment with-
° enquiry.—( Hear, hear.) As to " wasting the time of the
Ilse," that was wasted quite enough already.--( Hear, hear,
from the Opposition.) He did not know the meaning of that
' heer—if it meant that lam wasting the time of the House ?
(Hear, hear, and laughter from the same quarter.) I am
r!IY entreating the House to pause and to enquire before they
Russell)
Hear, hear.) The tone of the Noble Lord (Lord J.
'thssell) was unworthy a Minister of the Crown, when he ridi-
culed the idea of an inquiry into this question by a Committee
Of the whole House, and talked of the Chairman writing verses,
'l'l4 Members dozing. and the attendants dwindling away dur-
ing the inquiry—such observations only tended to convince the
country that the House was incapable of adjudicating on
adllY reat national uetion. The Noble Lord said the preee-
'cut g
of the Orders in s
Council was in print, but it was a new
Case. Was it not a new case we should be driven out of neutral
markets—(Hear, hear)—and all that was asked, was to inquire
into the causes of this unparalleled result. The Noble 1.,,rd
had talked about those Members who supported the motion,
voting against their better judgments, and cringing to their con-
stituents from a desire of popularity. But when his (Mr. W.'s)
constituents represented to him that they were being ruined by
the Corn-lawe. and th tt all they wanted was to be allowed to
prove that fact--could he refuse to support their request?—
(Hear, hear.) He entreated the House not to be misled as to
%lt effect which the refusal to hear evidence, would produce
throughout the country. The House must not think that they
could with impunity refuse to investigate such a great national
.question, upon,such pretexts as their own convenience and the
!lumber of days likely to be cousumed.—( Hear, hear.) This
Tquiry was a necessary preliminary to the fair discussion of
the Corn-lawe, and sooner or later it must be undertaken.

, THORNELY said, so long ago as 1812 numerous pet.
`4l)ns were preiented against the Orders in Council, representing
that they had produced great distress amongst the manufac-
turing interests. This the Government of that day denied,
_but ;Mowed evidence to be heard at the bar in support of the
'"egations of the petitioners. That evidence was heard, ar.d
there was none of the difficulty about it which was apprehended
itt this case—(Hear, hear) ;.—and although there was no divi-
sion as to the rescinding the Orders in Council, the late Mr.
Babington, Chairman of the Committee of the whole Home,
declared, that though before the evidence he did not believe
the manufacturing distress was produced by the Orders in
Council he had, after hearing the evidence, completely changed
his opinion—and the Minister, upon his own responsibility. re-
Pealed the Orders.—( Hear, hear.) He would not go into the
general question further than this, that though he had no inte •
rest lit manufactures, and little in commerce, he believed the
prospect` of the manufacturing interests were most appalling,
rd that the systemmust be changed, and not only the Corn-
ws be repealed, but the principles of free trade, adopted as to
r!ery article of importation, or the manufacturing superiority
of this country was gone for ever.—(Hear, hear.) He was
glad to see the President of the Board of Trade in his place—it
Was unnecessary to remind that Right Hon. Gentleman how
many articles the people of this country were compelled to buy
a, dear markets, which otherwise they might procure at cheap
markets._( Hear, hear, hear.) And the manufacturers
efuf this country were called upon to do an impossibility,
frthey were were expected to export their manufactures
om a dear to a cheap country, and to compete with the manu-
t
urers of that cheap country, who were able to procure the
it,ecessaries of life at a much lower rate. Mr. Huskisson long
ago had stated this to be impossible, and had stated that the dif-
ference in price must be reduced from profits of capital or wages
labour,. and it the system of the Corn-laws was not repealed
1 thguisis country, the profits of capital would be nearly ext in-
he aud the wages cf labour greatly redueed.—( Hear,
near. l rr
trade Ale system must be. changed, the principles of free
e,t must be adopted. He should certainly support the mo-
tion for hearing evidence at the Bar of the Heuse against the
'resent system.
Lord WORSLEY said that considering the present applica-
tion for hearing evidence at the bar was got up when the ma-
rfacturing towns were clamouring for a repeal of the Corn-
-4,3", be was convinced the object of this motion was to obtain
.e abolition of those laws.—(Loud laughter, and cries of
" Hear, hear.") Now he had made up his mind that the repeal
tehf tehe Corn-laws would be most prejudicial to the interests of
empire, and he thought that during the repeated diserssion
upon this question every Honourable Member must have
had ample opportunities of making his mind upon the
up