The Sun.
London, England, 1841-08-25 00:00:00

when last they argued the great question together, was con-
vinced that the present system was the best. The way in
which his Noble Friend made out his proposition was most us-
satisfactory. He (Lord Brougham) objected to the mode in
which his Noble Friend took the averages. Suppose one month
the price of corn was 603., another month 80s., and another
1003., and so on, all those sums might be added toge-
ther and divided by twelve, and the sum obtained
by that division might, if they chose, be called the average
price for the year ; but it was not really so.—( Hear, hear. )
The price was ene fluctuating between 605., 80s., and 100 s.,
and not the sum found by the division. Let his Noble Friend
cast his eye on the paper containing the list of averages for
the last six years-1835, 1836, 1837, 1838, 1839, and 1840.
He (Lord Brougham) was then adopting his Noble Friend's
own principles, which he knew to be false. His Noble Friend
would find, that during the first three years the average price of
corn was about 435. The average fur the last ihree years was
635. or 645. ; thus the fluctuation, taking the two periods,
was neither more nor less than trom 435. to 635. or 64s , or
no less than 50 le r cent. upon the averages themselves, through
the ministration of this perfect sliding scale, which was so cal-
culated to produce steadiness of price. lie unfeignedly re-
joiced when he found that, at length, the Government had re-
solved to grapple with that important question--the repeal of
the Corn-laws. He was not satisfied with the extent
to which they were prepared to go ; but the Government's
taking up that question appeared to him to be a prodigious
gain for it,—a gain which not only opened a prospect, but
seemed to give assurance of larger, wiser, and, in his opi-
nion, safer measures being dealt with. With respect to the
sugar duties he had already had an opportunity of stating to
their Lordships that he had but one exception to make on that
question—the exception already made by his Noble Friend who
had spoken from the cross benches. He meant not the negotia-
tions with the slave settlements of Cuba and Brazil, but he
meant the slave-trading Powers which governed Brazil. That
Ministers should have cow selled the Crown to dissolve Parlia-
ment at the particular time which they selected for giving
that advice, he must say was a great error of judgment. He
thought that that error was to be regretted with respect to the
Sovereign—with respect to the country ; and, it was doubly to
be regretted, with respect to the questions them-
selves.— (Hear.) That his Noble Friend, in giving
that advice, were persuaded that the result of the general
elections would be different from what it had been ; that
they entertained, he would not say most sanguine
hopes (for that coull not be a justification, or like
a justification of the course they had adopted) but
that they entertained the most confident expectations of
a favourable answer being returned by the country; that
they advi-ed their Sovereign to dissolve the old Parliament,
and summon a new one, in the almost absolute certainty that
there would he a majority returned in favour of them and
their measures, and not a bare majority—not merely that
thing in which the last Parliament lingered,
rather than lived for the last two or three years
—not merely a majority of one day one or two for
them, and another day as many against them—but a
majority with which they would carry on the business of the
country—what was commonly called a working majority, which
would give confidence to the advisers of the Crown, and com •
mend the respect of the country—that they had the most con-
fident assurance that such a majority must be returnedipon a
dissolution and the elections which were to succeed, he Ws not
permitted to entertain the shadow of a doubt.--( Hear. )
Because upon no other coneeivable expectations had they a
right to counsel the Crown to use the highest privilege of
the Prerogative of the Crown. To counsel the Crown to
have recourse to such an extreme step for the purpose of
attaining a large majority was an advice which no British
Minister ever dared to avow.—(Cheers.) He acquitted his
Noble Friend of any such intention, for it would be degrading
the Crown to the position of a party to a mere political fac-
tious manecuvrer—( Loud cheers)—therefore it was not possi-
ble that any of his Noble Friends could give such advice—
therefore it was that they must have confidently expected to
gain a large, a considerable majority. If it were said that an
aiipeal had been made to the people upon the policy of these
measures, and that it had failed—that the people had returned
an answer hostile to the policy, he would take leave to deny
the proposition; he felt himself bound to deny it by a regard
to the facts of the case, but above all, for the best interests of
the people he felt constrained to deny it. If he cared nothing,
for the questions themselves, but regarded only the party bring-
ing them forward-- if he was wholly devoted to party, and
wanted to make a pretext of those questions fir the
purpose of bolstering up that party, then indeed he might well
say the country had returned a verdict against--not the men—
not the Government—but the measures. The country have
confidence in the men, but pretest against the measures
Such a manner of looking at the late verdict of the country
would tend to do the greatest injury tc the questions—to the
principles themselves, for it would be taken to be that they
were sacrificed in order to prop up a falling power. He
could not admit that that was the construction to be
put on the verdict which the country had returned.
The verdict was upon one issue, while the trial was
upon another. The country had given their opinion
upon the men. The people had given their verdict of nu con-
fidence—(Cheers)—but upon the policy, upon the principles
involved in the questions, they had given no judgment.
As to the questions they had had but scant justice
meted out to them-- first •as to time, then as to shape, and
lastly, as to the measures themselves. Had the Go-
vernment, two and a half years ago, when the
questions—the whole of them, were first submitted
to them, had they then opened their eyes to their
real interests as well as those of the country —had they then
opened their eyes to the exigencies of the case—if then they
had allowed the measures to have been brought forward, and
given them their support —for all he asked then was inquiry,
and he offered to prove every allegation he then made on oath
at the bar, they would now have stood in a very different
position. No doubt they would have had a majority of their
Lordships against them ; but had the Government again
brought it forward, and given it all their weight, they might
again have beers defeated; but suppose that the Government
had been defeated on the Irish Registration Bill, or some
other matter, had they then gone to the country, they would
have found the result exceedingly different to what it now was.
There could be no doubt but that the Government had, in
March, decided upon the measures.—(Oh, oh.) That was
proved by the fact of the letter to the Noble Lord the Gover-
nor • General of Canada,-Which related not only to the timber du-
ties but to the Corn-laws. There could be no doubt as to the
fact, but ut.doubtedly a very different impression obtained
in the country, and every anti-Corn-law advocate or candidate
was met at once with the taunt that the questions were merely
brought forward for the purpose of upholding a weak, a beat,
and tottering Ministry.—( Cheers. ) That supposition was un-
fortunately universal. It was in all places said that they were
brought forward for the mere purpose of regaining the lest po-
pularity to a damaged Ministry.—(Cheers.) That had been
the prevailing opinion at the elections, and if their Lordships
would inquire of any one who had stood at those elections; or
perhaps still better of one of those who hail witnessed the con-
tests, for standers-by generally saw more of the game than those
engaged in it, they would find that with a most extraordinary
unanimity, every one of these impartial witnesses would refer to
that as the ground on which they would account for the re-
sults of the contest. But that was not the only ground. The
shape in which the measures had been brought forward, had
been another serious impediment to their reception. The
measures in themselves were good—the principles on which
they were founded were sound—they were calculated to relieve the
trade of the country. Why had they not been brought forward at
measures for the relief of the trade of the country ? On that foun-
dation they could stand and stand firmly, but they had beer.
brought forward as measures of finance ; that foundation was
rotten, and on that foundation they could net stand.—(Opposi-
tion cheers.) They were well consdered measures, as measures
of commercial policy, but as measures of finance it was im-
possible to listen with patience to the arguments advanced in
their support. The simple statement of the figures would
render it impossible for any man who knew anything
of finance to consider these measures as measures
of finance and revenue. Why, could any mortal living
believe that any part of the revenue could be safely looked to
for a sliding revenue, from a tax which depended upon the sea-
sons ?—( Hear.) Why, let them look to the averages, to their
own papers of prices. There had been three consecutive years
in which not one farthing would accrue to the revenue from the
Bs. duty. In 1834, 1835, and 1836 the prices of wheat were
such that the prices in foreign countries, added to the amount
of freight to the 83. duty, would have rendered it impossible for
a single bushel of foreign wheat to have found its way into
this country. His Noble Friend had stated 56e as an average,
at which no foreign wheat could be imported ; but they might
even go so low as sls , and at that price it would be impossible
that any wheat could be imported into this country from Hotter-
darn, Dantzie, or Hamburgh. It must be equally clear that we
might have years in which me should not import a single
grain—but on that point one argument was enough
It was not to a tax which for three consecutive year-
might fail them altogether that they could look
as a financial measure. It might be urged, on the other side,
that as those years would be years of great cheapness, there
would be an increase in the comforts of the people, and a con-
sequent increase in the consumption of exciseable commodities,
which might be placed as a set-off against any failure in the re-
venue to be derived from tke 6s. duty. But there was one
thing which distinguished a prudent, cautious, and safe finan-
cier, and that was that he always took into his account, that as
in some years he might have a defalcation in his excise duties,
in other years he might have an excess, and he framed his cal-
culations in such a manner as to put the excess of one
year against the defalcation of another, and thus he could
not claim the excess of a good year as a set-off against
a deficienv in the corn tax for that year.—( Hear, hear.)
It was
derne dforfair
impossible to represent this as a finance measure.
tseaiither was the nature of those measures suer as to ob-
thleymettllataiedtsuFpolrnt toohatH
webshoutseheythy meigchotuhidav(e.alml
beeideisocnusssi-
such
questions, but when they appealed to the peoP e, ques-
tions of mere political philosophy were not those which they
could bring most home their
to understandings—they re-
quired something more
timber duties. The Let th ein took at the
tangible.
e proposed measure was an improvement
upon the present system no doubt, but it had this great
defect, it professed to be a
measure
of free trade, arid it
began by. doubling the duty on Colonial timber—true, it
took off nine per cent. from the duty on Baltic timber, but
the people only saw in •
it a measure taking off
a duty of nine per cent. and imposing al dirty of
100 per cent. presented to them as a measure of free trade.
Now, that was what they could not understand. Again. with
regard to sugar, it was proposed to reduce the duty on that all
but necessary of life, ls.
6d• a "t, 6-10ths of a farthing per
lb. Now they all knew, whether they were consumer-, eor
dealers, or speculators, that such a reduction in the duty would
go into the pockets not of the consumer, but of the dealer.—
( Hear, hear.) Then, as to the corn. He considered that the
substitution of a fixed duty for the sliding scale, was a
great improvement. He was against any sudden and total
repeal of the Corn-laws—against any doing away all at once
with protection. He thought it ought to be done gradually,
during the course of a few years, so that at the end of four or
five years they miat leok fur a total repeal—but how was the
I
measure brought before the people ! t was brought forward
as a measure for a free tra le in corn, and it was discovered
that it was intended to impose a duty of Bs. a quarter on
wheat. This measure of free trade was in fact a tax on food.
—( Hear, hear.) Now it was a fallacy to bring forward such
a measure as that as a measure of free trade in corn—che
,P;
br, ad would never come from that quarter. It had no ten-,
.
deney whatever to bring down the price of bread But even
his Noble Friend beside him ( Earl Spencer) agreed with
him ; for he said that not even the total repeal of the
Corn-laws would bring down the price of bread consi-
derably. His Noble Friend had been misunderstood by
Noble Lords who had spoken since. They supposed his
Friend to have said that it would make no reduction. In
truth, what he did say was, that the reduction would be very
*mai He himself ( Lord Brougham) had often said before
them that both agriculturists in their alarm, end the Anti-
monopolists in their sanguine hopes, greatly exaggerated the
ebecte of reduction. He thought, however, that the total
repeal would effect a reduction of 5 or 7 or 10 per cent, in
the price of wheat consumed in this country. If such had
been the measure of the Government they would have a
right to speak of giving the people cheaper bread—not cheap
bread, in the sense in which the word was used at the last

election; but cheaper bread than they had at present. He
entirely agreed with the Noble Lord opposite, that with the
n.easure as brought forward by the Government, there was
not the slightest chance of a reduction of the price of bread.
Still the measure would have been a grant—an incalculable
ben. St to trade and manufactures, and if it would not give the
people cheaper bread; it would give them increased employ-
ment and the means of purchasing mo.e bread. On
the whole, he thought that the result of the
election was a verdict of the people not against the
repeal of the Corn-laws, nor against tree trade, but against