The Sun.
London, England, 1841-09-25 00:00:00

luxury at his expense ?—(Cheers.) Was it unnatural
to come to such conclusions ? He did not think it was,
but he would not impute any motives. But the Noble
i Lord would say. '• Yes, but this tax increases the de-
mand for labour in the agricultural districts, and it there-
fore raises the rate of wages in those districts." His
(Mr. Gibson's) answer to that was, that those very agri-
culturists employed a Mr. Muggridge as their agent, for
the express purpose of transferring the agricultural la-
bourers to the manufacturing districts, and were sub-
scribing to get rid of them.—(Loud cheers.) He an-
swered by facts, but he could not answer by reason
also.—(Hear, hear.) It was impossible for a limited
country to produce sufficient food for a conti-
nually increasing population. Misery and dis-
tress to a large amount would follow the ap-
plication of such a principle. He was afraid
he was detaining the House.—(Hear, hear.) But it was
not only the poor, but the middle classes and capitalists
who suffered. They would no longer endure to live by
sufferance, and to have their food doled out to them,
that the landed proprietors might have their tables splen-
didly spread out before them.—(Hear, hear.) Why
should not they who had no land be allowed to produce
corn in the cheapest way they could by the medium of
exchange ?—(Cheers.) The landed proprietors had no
right to the exclusive privilege of giving bread—of
being the licensed victuallers of the country.—(Cheers.)
The commercial world would not consent to be a mere
secondary class in society. Distress or no distress, they
were entitled to the full and fair reward of their indus-
try.—(Hear, hear.) Let all make the most of what
they had—the agriculturists of their estates, the capi-
' talists of their capital, the labourer of his labour.—
(Cheers.) There was nothing improper—nothing du-
bious in this doctrine, that each class should be satisfied
with his own, and with what Providence placed within
his reach.—(Loud cheers.)
Mr. PARKER called upon the Right Hon. Bart. not
to leave the country in doubt:and uncertainty as to the
measures he meant to propose. He did not require any
large exposition of his propositions, but he did not think
it right that he should keep entirely concealed the mea-
sures he intended for the removal of the acknowledged
distresses of the nation. He thought the Right Hon.
Bart. was bound to say more than that he would make
some slight alteration in the averages, and should make
a small development of his views on the subject of the
Corn-laws.—(Hear, hear.) The country would not be
satisfied with such obscurity. The country generally
attributed its distress to the Corn-law. He himself
believed there were other causes besides, but there was
no doubt the Corn-law was instrumental in creating that
distress.—(Hear, hear.) He wondered how the Right
Hon. Gentleman who had been learned in politics could
come down to that House and meet the distresses
of the country with a blank sheet of paper.
It had a right to know the policy of the Right Hon.
Gentleman on the subject.—(Hear, hear.)
Sir R. PEEL rose and said—Sir, if the Right Hon.
Gentleman who has just set down demanded of me
a fuller exposition of my views, which he seems to think
necessary, I do not think it would be more unreasonable
than the demand of the " little development " which he
has made.—(Cheers and laughter.) I see no great ad-
vantage to be derived from that little development. The
course I take is a more rational one than his.— <Hear.)
It was the position I assumed on being called on, with
my colleagues, in the administration of public affairs,
to repair some of the enormous embarrassments—(Lond
cheers)—in which his party has involved the country,
as far as its financial policy is concerned. The course
I pursued was to ask from the House of Commons and
from the country sufficient confidence to take compre-
hensive views of the condition of the country, and a
short, a comparatively short, period, when I think of the
importance of the question, to mature our policy, and
submit it to the consideration of Parliament. And that
seems to me to be a more rational course than to make a
little development. Why, what should I say on the subject
of the Corn-law—on this demand of a " little develope-
ment" of my views on the subject. Was I, after sayiug
the Corn-laws should be considered, and announcing the
plan and intention of Government on the subject, to
submit them at once for consideration? Could there be
any advantage in going into details and postponing the
consideration of them? It was only the other night I was
told from the other side that nothing could be more un-
wise than to discuss the Corn-laws without taking into
simultaneous consideration the question of the Poor-law.
; I was told that these two questions were closely and in-
I timately connected together, and was advised, on no ac-
count to develop what the views of Government were on
the one question without explaining my views on the
other.—(Hear, hear.) And what was I told last Session?
Why, that the Corn-law was essential to a comprehen-
sive system of finance.—(Hear.) If the finances were so
intimately connected with the Corn-law that they could not
be separated, what fair demand could be made on the Go-
vernment to bring them forward now ? If they be so
essential to the finances of the country, as stated by the
other side, what claim can be made on me to produce the
plan of Government with respect to them when the
finances are yet to be considered.—(Hear.) I stated last
Session that I would not be forced, in case our opposition
to the late Government was successful, into a premature
declaration of the intentions of Government.—(Hear.)
I made that statement repeatedly. The sense of the
country was taken, by means of an election, under the
auspices of the late Government, since I made that de-
claration of my intention, and the opinion of the country,
as evinced by the late elections, was clearly in favour of
the course I pursued. I stated at the time that if succes-
ful in opposing the measures of the late Government
I would ask for a temporary means of repairing the deti-
ficiency of the country, and would not bring for-
ward any general plan.—(Hear, hear.) I stated
that before the general election the constituen-
cies were aware of my intention, and the consequence
of the general election was, that her Majesty's late Go-
vernment were left in a minority, that made it impos-
sible for them to carry on the Government. The Hon.
Member for Manchester says I maintain reserve. Well,
the country was aware of that reserve, and the country
demanded no more explicit declaration than the one I
gave ; and notwithstanding that reserve, her Majest) 's
late Ministers were left in a minority that obliged them
to quit office.
Mr. HAWES—By means of the county constituency.
Sir R. PEEL—Yes; but that county constituency was
left by the Noble Lord, the author of the Reform Bill—
(Cheers.) But this is always the mode of reasoning
when a party is deprived of public confidence. That
confidence was lost to them, be it recollected, notwith-
standing the Reform Bill. They say the real opinion of
the country is with them notwithstanding their defeats.
Why, since the change of Government there have been
nearly thirty new vacancies in the Administration, and
those thirty Members appealed to their constituencies,
and the returns have been entirely in their favour.—
(Cheers.) Nay more, with the exception of that for-
midable opponent with whom I and my Noble Friend
had to contend—(Laughter)—not a single member of
that Administration had been opposed.—(Loud cheers.)
The Hon. Member for Manchester was therefore right
to make the most of that opposition of Mr. Acland. I
am not surprised at his dwelling on him with so much
exultation.—(Laughter.) He had been proposed and
seconded

Mr. GIBSON—The show of hands in his favour was
equal to that on the part of the Noble Lord.
Sir R. PEEL—Yes; but ho had not, i: appears, suffi-
cient confidence in that show of hands.—(Cheers.) Now,
with regard to my silence, I can assure the Hon. Gen-
tleman that there was no intention of showing any in-
dividual disrespect, or any want of a just appreciation of
the importance of that subject, in me or my colleagues
forbearing immediately to follow Hon. Gentlemen oppo-
site; but I think, after the decision come to the other
night, that it is not quite fair to take this opportunity of
again referring to the subject before they went into a
Committee of Ways and Means. This discussion
would lead to no result, and I thought the Hon.
Gentleman did not intend to provoke a general
debate of the subject, but would confine him-
self to the unfortunate circumstances in his own
locality. I considered he felt a deep sympathy in the
distresses of his constituency, but I was surprised that
he had time to concoct that series of very bad jokes on
musical instruments for which he hoped to attain the
character of a wag, and, by his jocosenesa, to re-
commend himself to his constituency.—(Hear.)
Sir, the Hon. Gentleman convinces me also that, not-

withstanding the prominent position which he occupies,
his counsel as an adviser under the present difficulties
is not altogether to be followed. For the Hon. Gentle-
man says he attributes a great part of the defects
which exist in the present constituencies to the retention
of freemen in the boroughs ; and yet the Hon. Gentle-
man was resolved at first to maintain the rights of the
freemen, and he has no better reason for justifying the
part which he took against his own conviction, than the
personal obligations which he owed to these people for
hnving returned him four successive times to Parliament.
Therefore the Hon. Gentleman clearly proves to us, that
whatever course the temporary interests of his consti-
tuents may require him to take, those interests will pre-
vail in his mind against his more enlarged views.—
(Hear, hear.) So far does the Hon. Gentleman carry
this principle, that having to repair the vessel of the
State, which he says was in danger from the rottenness
of its planks, he purposely inserted a rotten plank in
the vessel of the Constitution.—Mear, hear.) The Hon.
Gentleman will permit me to detract considerably from
his authority after that candid declaration. Sir, I have
said before, that I do sympathise with the distress
which exists in certain parts of the country. But it is
most important that those upon whom the duty is imposed
of laying:the foundation of a remedy for those evils
should not be driven to hasty and precipitate measures of
relief. lam certain that the good sense of the country
is in favour of giving to those who are entrusted with
the administratiou of affairs, time and opportunity to
investigate the causes to which the distress is really attri-
butable.—(Hear.) Why, I have heard those who are
now the most active in the Anti-Corn-law repeal—l have
heard them attribute that distress mainly to a cause
which we are now ridiculed for alluding to, namely, the
artificial stimulus applied to production by means of an
excessive issue of bank notes. That very Chamber of
Commerce, of the town which the Hon. Gentleman re-
presents, distinctly stated that manufactures, and the cot-
ton manufacture in particular, were in a state of great pros-
perity- up to the year 1836.—(Hear.) That prosperity
was co-existent with the present system of Corn-laws.
But the Chamber of Commerce declared that in conse-
quence of the misconduct of the Bank of England, fol-
lowed by the misconduct of
Joint Stock Banks, the most
extravagant stimulus was given to manufactures ; ad-
vances are made by Joint to Banks to manufac-
turers, cotton mills are built, machinery is placed in those
cotton mills ; the machinery and the building are con-
signed as security for the issue ; then comes a revulsion
in trade, and then a demand for money; the mills are
stopped, the security is of little worth, the mills and the
machinery sell for a comparatively small sum on account
of the nature of the security ; and then it is said that
the Corn-laws are the cause of all this distress.—(Hear,
hear.) Now I say it is material to ascertain
to what extent other causes operate and produce that
distress. The lion. Gentleman with his opinions upon I
free trade, and the iniquity of the Provision laws, asks me