The Sun.
London, England, 1841-08-28 00:00:00

have forced this on me.—(Cheers.) It may perhaps be said
this man is afraid of war, but he would couns,l the other States
to reduce their armaments for these reasons. Let it
be recollected that a great change has taken place
in the public opinion. You cannot now conduct war on
the plan on which it was conducted by Bonaparte. You
cannot row make the conquered country bear the ex-
pense of thej conquest—(Cheers)—and when nations con-
sider all that is to be gained by war—when they consider the
immense armaments which they have to support, for the ac-
quisition of military glory with the cost of which those
armaments will have to be maintained—they will at
once see the necessity for reducing their military establishments.
They came to take calmer and more reasonable views of the
cost and mode of war. The expression of such sentiments is
perfectly consistent with the firmest determination, if occasion
would call for it, to risk everything for the maintainance of
the national honour. Sir, I come now to a point of omission.
I did regret the omission of any notice of the state of our rela-
tions with the United States. lam aware that that omission
was not a casual one ; I am sure that it wasetot an ina :vertent
one. I regretted it for this reason, that I found you had no-
thing very satisfactory to state. Questions were asked of the
Noble Lord by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, to which
the Noble Lord made no reply. The Noble Lord laid down
the principle that we had nothing to do with the
municipal institutions of the United State; that
our demands must be made upon the public organs
of the country, and that their own international laws and regu-
lations could not be applied as an answer to a demand ; and
the Noble Lord read a despatch of Mr. Webster's, recognizing,
if I understood it, the principle for which the Noble Lord con-
tended. I understood the Noble Lord to deprecate the putting
of those questions; I understood bins to say that he lhought it
might be more conducive to the general interests of peace and
consistent withnation (1 honour that those questions would not be
put, and under these circumstances, I for one shall abstain
from pressing the question or seeking any further explanation.
But the Noble Lord will forgive me for saying that the expla-
nation he gave was anything but satisfactory.—( Hear, hear. )
Sir, I will not detain the House by any fnrther observations on
this topic, but I will proceed at once to those great subjects
adverted to in the , Speech and the Address which
had immediate reference to the question before the
House. Sir, in the speech of the Noble
Lord opposite, last session we were called upon, if I under-
stood it, for an express approval of the measures which were
recommended by the Ministers. That speech had reference
to those measures, which are intended to supply the deficiencies
in the public revenue; I mean the measures respecting the timber
duties, the sugar duties, and the Corn-laws. Sir, Ido not
mean to avoid the expression, or, I must rather say, the repe•
tition of my opinion upon the subject of three duties. I
stated before the Session terminated what. course I intended to
pursue, and view I took with reference to those measures. I
was told that the country would disapprove of the secresy
which I maintained ; I was told that it was unworthy of any
person Icokiiig to the possession of power to withhold the de-
velopment of his plans for remedying the financial embarrass-
ments of the country. But I gave an opinion then, to which
I will adhere now—( Hear, hear)—with the greater re-
solution, because it has been supported and confirmed
by the voice of the country. (Cheers from the
Opposition)—that I, who am at present to be regarded as an
individual, am not called upon by any considerations of public '
duty—nay, that lam precluded by my own sense of public
duty from developing the measures by which, if called to power
I would attempt to rescue the country from its present position.
Hear, kear, from the Tories, and laughter from the Li-
berals.) Sir, the Right Hors. Gentleman the President of
the Board of Trade, asked me whether or no if I dissented
from these measures, 1 therefore dissented from the principles
of free trade. Sir, I protest against the principles of free-
trade being tried upon those individual measures.—( Hear,
hear.) I protest against the conclusion—" Because you oppose
those individual measures, therefore you imply an opinion ad-
verse to the removal of the restrictions on commerce—imply
an opinion hostile to the doctrines of free trade.—(Hear, hear,
hear.) Why, Sir, in the first place, if I do profess a general
conviction of the truth of the principles of free trade, I am
not chargeable with any new or hasty adoption of thatopinion.
When I was Hume Secretary in 1825 I was intrusted
with the preparation of a speech from the Throne which
recommended the removal of the restrictions on commerce in a
manner, as it appeared to me, more calculated to promote that
removal, to make it acceptable and satisfactory, than the one
which was adopted by the Government opposite, of trying, the
principles of free trade upon a mere scheme of financial ember-
rassment.—( Hear, hear, from the Opposition.) Sir, in 1825,
with my entire advice and my entire acquiescence, his Majesty
made this recommendation to the House :--‘• His Majesty
commands us not to conclude without informing you that evi-
dent advantage has been derived from the relief which you have
recently given to commerce by the removal of inconvenient re-
strictions. His Majesty recommends you to persevere, as cir-
cumstances may allow, in the removal of similar restrictions,
and his Majesty directs us to assure you, that you may rely upon
his Majesty's cordial co-operation in fostering and ex-
tending that commerce, which, while it is under the blessing'of
Providence, a main source of the strength and power of this
eiterntry, contributes in no less a degree to the happiness and
civilization of mankind." Now these are the words to which,
in the year 1825, I was a party. The Right Hon. Gentleman
has a fair right to say, " But don't content yourselves with
these general declarations in favour of free trade; if the prin-
ciples be good, the onus is thrown upon you of establishing the
exception in this case."' Sir, I may say again, although Hon.
Gentlemen spook as if they had assumed the mantle of Mr.
Huskisson, yet I may say again with truth, that I did cordially
co-operate with Mr. Huskisson in his financial measures ; that
I did receive from Mr. Huskisson the assurance that from no
member of the Government did he receive a more cordial support
than from myself in carrying those measures, and in mitigating
the difficulties with which he had to contend. The Right
lion. Gentleman says, " We have proposed other measures be-
sir'es." It is perfectly true that other measures, founded
upon the principles of free trade, were proposed;
he says other and more extensive ones were contemplated. I
am sure the Right Hon. Gentleman will not expect me to ex-
press any opinion with respect to these which were only in con•
templation.--(Hear, hear.) But with respect to those which
he actually proposed— independent, I mean, of the three great
measures of last Session—the principal which I can call to
mind were a new regulation of the duties on the coffee of Bra-
zil, far the purpose of correcting that absurdity which permits
coffee now to be taken to the Cape.—(llear, hear.) The
Hight Hon. Gentleman met with no opposition from me ; I
am disposed to give him a cordial support, upon the principle
of that measure. Another measure brought forward by the
Right lion. Gentleman was for an equalization of the duties
upon East India produce as compared . with the
West India produce. The Right lion. Gentleman met
with some opposition, I think, from this side of the House—
some slight opposition ; but he will recollect that I expressed
my opinion in favour of the proposed equalization. Another
measure of the Right Hon. Gentleman, was to diminish the
cost of provisions in the West Indies, by permitting the impor-
tation of timber at a reduced rate. The Right Hon. Gentle-
man did not meet with any great opposition from me with res-
pect to that measure.
Mr. LABOUCHERE.—The opposition came from the
Hon. Member for the University of Cambridge.
Sir R. PEEL—Then, Sir, with respect to this passage in the
Speech—" It will be for you to consider whether there are not
some taxes, so small in amount, that they yield not hing to the
revenue, while they are vexatious to commerce." That is a
principle which 1 cannot gainsay. I can say nothing more
than that where there are duties which yield nothing to the
revenue, and are merely vexatious to trade, there cars be no ra-
tional object in keeping them on the statute-book. Then as
to the otherprinciple enunciated in the Speech, " You will con-
sider whether the principle of protection may not be carried to
such an extent as to prove injurious to the best interests of the
country. I cannot contend against- that principle. It has
been publicly stated that the measures of the Government are
meant as fully to meet the exigencies of the present crisis.
With that public notification, I fear that if I acquiesced in the
general words, it may be construed into an acquiescence with
the details of all the measures. I stated before the House se-
parated, with respect to the timber duties, that I would give no
pledge—that 1 would reserve to myself the right fully ere con-
sider the whole policy of the measure. In the present state of
the Canadas, I would like to know whether there may not be
political considerations which may contravene the general
principles of free trade —(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord has
told us that Lord 5) denham said in a ds spatch, that the proposition
relative to the timber duties would greatly add to his embar-
rassment, and thatejust at the moment of forming the union
which the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath predicted
will be productive of so little harmony and satisfaction. I
will ask, too, what are our relations with the United States?
Lord Sydenham said there might be other measures which
might reconcile the Canadas to the alteration in the timber
duties, but to this hour we have never heard one whisper as to
what those measures were.—(Hear, hear.) What is the state
of the Canaries relatively' to the United States? In the news-
papers I have seen a despatch of a public nature—such a
despatch as was never in my time laid before the public
in which it was stated that the Noble Lord had referred a
plan for the fortification of Canada, not to the Master-Ge-
neral of the Ordnance, but to Lord Hill, and that 100,0001. were
to be expended annually upon such works, and this was all
published to the world. With what object? It must be to
show the United States that at whatever risk, we are deter-
mined to preserve the Canadas, or to show the Canadians
that we are ready to take upon ourselves the debt contracted
by Upper Canada.—(Hear.) It may be right so to tranquillize
Upper: Canada—it may be right to hold out this peculiar
inducement for the consolidation of the Union.:lt may be right
to publish the communications with the Duke of Wellington,
but; at all events it indicates a state of public feeling, and rancour
vvhich'justifies Torylreserve,—( Cheers, )—because I did not want
to add to the embarrasment of the country. Sir, with respect to
the sugar question, I am afraid that I must maintain precisely
the same language as I did in the last Parliament, and by so
doing 1 shall compel you to acquit me of the charge, that I
have modified my language inconsequence of the majority which
the country has returned. 1 still maintain the opinion which I
d:d before seeing that you propose to admit the sugar, not
of Brazils, but of Cuba at 12s. duty. But the measure
was so ill consideered, even by yourselves, that you were
obliged to alter it within a week. But I will ask you whether
you made any stipulstions as to the reduction of duty at the
time you abolish slavory. Now, in my opinion, by carrying
out your proposition you will, in the first place, be incurring a
great risk of aggravating the horrors of slavery and the slave
trade, particulaily in Cuba. You took no precaution. You
exacted no condition for those States before propos:ng to give
them the boon which would be given by the Budget. But
above all, you forget that we have a prospect of a perfect
supply from our own colonies, which must, of course, reduce
the price of sugar. It may be said that I cannot adjust this to
the principles of free trade. I admit it. but these considerations,
connected with slavery, weigh in my num! ; and I did trust, ) our
calculating that the supply would be short and the prices high ;
and that' in order to compel a reduction in the price of sugar,
it would be necessary to take it from those slave-holding States,
I do not wish to taunt the Right Hon. Gentleman the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer with changing his plans of 1840 in
1841; I would merely remind him that the grounds urged
,be
him in 1840, with great ability, were very strong, and
that the main one was, that the West Indies were then
tottering under the weight of a great experiment. It
sys_
was stated that 'sugar required a
Partieuaantations
tens of cultivation, and that the loss of lite on suga,trhlor
was much greater than in the production of
anY
;ound ; but I
produce. In 1840 1 voted with them on thit,og
Influenced me
colonial
to take that
have a right to say that other considerationfseat
but the Right Hon. Gentleman Lad a per ew•asright
a prospect of an
course. 1 thought at the time that there as
Right Hon. Gen..
increase of sue ar from our colonies.
butie forgot " Hamlet"—
flexes, entered into various details,
of seear.—(l ear. On the
was 150 s. 111 d., and the.
( A laugh)—he forgot the price
price Of sugar was 58s. 4d. ,
Ist of September, Ib4o, the
on the ter of January,
Iparimncrotprits,
d of British tr
colonial
present average price of sue
s''+ bear. ) I don't y the
setfatfirielge
possessions, wits 365. 3(1. ,al,.Blsii;e iptro uce o
re-
osit.ifvonre
that. my p.redietions. were not 1
ou(rll4:rinlia.l sugart, was
.anysaargument
(ruction in the price of
priceug' uhte
against the admission
trade 'disregard the que
that reduction of price as a proofWill
(Cheers.) the Right lion. Gentle-
very far wrong.—
man allow me to ask why he confines his statement of the con-
sumptionto the first six months
of sugar of the present year ?
—( Hear, hear.) observe,
Iduring these six months, that
there has been a great derangement in the trade in sugar.
The propositions of the Government were then known,
and every one was in expectation that there would be a great
inlet of sugar, and consequently there was a great depression
in the market, and an unwillingnes3 to purchase sugar. Those
circumstances might account for the diminished consumption of
sugar. But is it true, that in the last three months there has I
bowl ? that tree?—(Heart hear.) I have I