The Sun.
London, England, 1849-07-07 00:00:00

CIE ientan 42;4M,

LONDON, SATURTMA, JULY 7, 1849.

The fate of the important motion that was intended
" seriously to damage, if nat effectually to destroy,
the Ministry," is at length decided. A division took
place at three o'clock this morning, when the " free-
trade policy" was affirmed by a majority of 140, in
a House consisting of 452 Members, the numbers
being—for the appointment of the Committee, 156;
against it, 296. The hands of the Government have
thus been materially strengthened, and the feeling
of a large majority of the representatives of the
people against a retrograde policy has been
most unequivocally expressed. The fallacies of the
Protectionist journals, of the orators who so recently
declaimed on the boards of Drury lane Theatre, or on
the Parliamentary stage, that a reaction had taken
place in the public mind, have thus been exhibited in
the strongest light. The Premier has been well
rewarded for the courtesy that induced him,
even at this advanced period of the session, to
relinquish two of the Government nights to
perhaps the most powerful opponent of his
Ministry—the most brilliant and effective orator
of the ultra-Tory party. The nation owes a debt; of
gratitude to the Honourable Gentleman the Member
for Buckinghamshire for having elicited so deeided a
manifestation in favour of a liberal and unrestricted
commercial policy, and for having produced the
admirable address of the Right Honourable Baronet
the Member for Tamworth, who vindicated the
justice and expediency of the abolition of protective
imposts in one of the most masterly and effective
orations ever delivered within the walls of Parliament.
That brilliant speech is, indeed, worthy of a clear and
attentive perusal. Ifany lingering doubt could still exist
in the mind of any cairn and unprejudiced inquirer—
if for the moment deceived by the specious fallacy of
"protection to the British labourer," he could ima-
gine that the condition of the labouring classes could
be improved by being compelled to pay higher prices
for food, in order to swell the incomes of the privi-
leged few, that difficulty would be removed by a con-
sideration of the lucid and unanswerable reason-
ing of the ex-Premier. The real question
at issue was distinctly explained. It was
" Shall the Government be displaced, for the
purpose of subverting the commercial policy OD
which it has acted:' The industrious classes are un-
questionably suffering deeply and severely. The
Excise returns for the quarter ending
ending on the sth of
July instant afford the strongestana
of th
evidence of the pri.
vations they are undergoing, the absence of
become
almost comforts which, from long usage, have
almost necessaries of life. But would the
acknow-
ledged evil be remedied by the adoption of a different
commercial principle, by the attempt to protect every
class in the country against every other? Can these
difficulties and sufferings be in any degree ascribed
to the free-trade policy, erroneously stated to have
been introduced in 1846, the foundations of which,
however, were laid at an early period ? It was in
these points that Sir ROBERT PEEL was most happy.
He seized the admissions of the Honourable Gentle-
man, as to the comparative prosperity enjoyed by
all classes and interests in the latter end of the year
1845—and he clearly traced the causes of that
prosperity to the fiscal changes introduced three
years previously by the alteration of the tariff, and
the substitution (although to a limited degree) of