The Sun.
London, England, 1846-03-03 00:00:00

S 1-T •14
"74,
(Cries of " Oh, oh,"
4AZATV3
asid the mortehges on landed ees- Le
from the proteettonists)—to the ineumbercEeele.g.''...
property. He hoped that-the tinge
isitor„t..,e;se t[lele,•inzisorrhasensiictliesice.,pteb
epleireotovrsn-mlclze=Lolillsfaillmortreh, '
parni'd, e
nefs t
fi
ordertiat
to
meatsgive rFe"- kVA
Litleenirs I'lecin't'eaniiisr4thae litrtp:etbrti"eals
they were not really. worth. which
teitiuitynth, V'e recollected in one of relekeirs'
°1
Vote o!
for abseacidnieg—otilsmatndplasent‘er,etnlssn,,,enirel
issue7orkds vheer bt
h6l Is'
children." So it was with the landlords,
they wanted high
rents to provide doweries for their daughters.—(llear, hear,) IPhe
question before the House was now exceedingly narrowed—it was
not whether they were to have protection or pot, but whether that
protection was to Le at once abolished, eir to linger on for three-years
more. He did not like to say anything to her Majesty's 3linisters,
because in the speeches they had delivered in the course of the last
debate lie lied witnessed so much of honesty and sincerity in the
course they now pursued, that he felt unwilling to say anything that
might appear as charging them with a falling-off in the duty they •
owed their country; but he mast say this, that the Government had
admitted tiler case, and he believed that there was no man even 041
the other side of the House who conscientiously retained the opinion
Chet the abolition of the corn-laws at the termination of three years
would be superior to the present removal of them. The appending
famine in Ireland was. either a reality, or it was not. The Govern-
ment told them that they were establi hing stores for the acme-
mulation of -corn to be sold at reduced prices. The Right
Honourable Baronet said that he could not come to that
llous anal ask for a vote of public money, while
a duty of Its. or 17s. was leyied on foreign corn, IlMithe (Mr. Bright)
crated, could_ they come to that House, and ask it to vote 500,0001.
or COs,ooel. to relieve the people of Ireland, while imposing a duty
which narrowed the circle from whence they drew theirsupplies, thus
making the price of food dearer? How, lie asked, could the Meuse
vote that numey, and at the same time keep up those restrictions
whin the fool of the people? The Right Hon. Baronet had well said
that lie could not allow the infetier grains to be admitted free of duty
fur the feeding et cattle, while the heavier duty existed on the nobler
grain of wheat, which was properly the 400.1 of man. lie (Mr.
"eight) could not understand how the Right honourable Baronet
reconciled this statement of his with his • present intention
of imposing a duty of from 43. to 10s., especially in
this season of scarcity, when it should (if it ever ought) he admitted
free. lie presumed that one of the reasons wily delay was given was
that the Right lion. Baronet expected in consequence less opposition
to his measure. The 'Right Hou. Baronet would however fine that
this idea of his was altogether erroneous. Even if it had emanated
from the Council of the League it could nit have encountered greater
opposition than it had already done ; and he believed that no etem,
bar in that house was more convinced of the utility of immediate
abolition than were some of the Members on the Treasury benches,.
If it were a farmers' question, as it had been stated to be, why not
Immediately settle it, as the farmers wished it to be done? Few of
them would say that three years was better than immediate abolition.
Did the Right Hon. Baronet expect that he would meet with less
opposition from the Anti-Corn-law League. He, as a man of the
League, would tell the Right Hon. Baronet that that agitation would
not be slackened until the question were finally settled by the abole-
tion of all duty, They were pledged to go on with the agitation, and
still more ware they bound to do it from firmly conscientious mo-
tives. The free-traders in the country were indebted to the Hon.
Member for Wolverhampton for the opportunity he had given the
House of recording their voted upon the question ; and hce eoutt as-
sure the House that as they had began the agitation so would they
continue the good work, until the question were finally and satis-
factorily settled.
Sir PEEL said—l presume it is not the wish of he great ody of
the House that we should continue that debate, which has lasbteffror
twelve days already.—(Hear, hear.) There are many points thnt
arose in that debate, in respect to which I am aexibus to offer seine
explanation ; but I thought it probable that other opportunities
would be found for renewing that subject—the second reading for
instance, and I thought it would be much better to postpone any
statement that I had to make, or any explanation that I might wish
to give, until that opportunity, rather than enter upon it now. i will
theret ire simply confine myself to the question imam/lately before
the House, namely, whether or not it is desirable that the repeal of
the duty should be immediate,,or whether it should centilitre, as pro-
posed by her Majesty's Government, for a period of three years.
Now, Sir, I am boned to say, that if we look singly
and abstractedly to the emergency which exists in Ireland,
I cannot deny that I think that the profitable measure would •
be the immediate suspension of all duties, if we had no other question
to deal with than that. Suppose we take that course which we took
in former years—that is to suspend the duty by Act of Parliament
for a perlon of eight months, until August or September next, There
would be the absolute repeal of all duties, or maintenance only of a. nominal duty; butwhat would Parliament' do its the interim? What
provision ne uld be Made with respect to the period when the suspen-
sion would expire? Those who contend that the corn-law ought to
bon immediately repealed would of coarse be perfectly satisfied with
immediate repeal. It would provide for their permanent object, and it would also provide for the removal of all duties during the eppre-
heeded scarcity-in 'relent. But this is not the universal °Plaices.
There are many who think that the corn-law ought not to be repealed.
Her Majesty's Government having to decide on the 20th Decent eu they
were again recalled to power, thought:there would be as opportunity
at the same time of making a provision for the emergency in Ireland,
and haying the foundation for a settlement of the question. I have
frankly admitted that provision should be made for the present
emergency ; but what her Majesty's Government had to topsider
on the 20th December, when they were recalled to power, was to
provide for the emergency in Ireland, and to lay the foundation for
the ultimate settlement of the question, and in the hope of reconcillare
those two objects, not perhaps completely, but in the best way possi- •
ble, they made the proposal now under the consideration of the
House. With respect to the apprehension of a coming scarcity in
Irelind, we certainly did not altogether remove the duty on corn,
but what we propose is to remove the duty altogether upon
Indian corn—to remove altogether the duty on flee ; bet that,
perhaps, will not immediately effect Ireland. The duty on cattle
and then wilts respect to the corn duty, which at the present moment
is 175., see what that duty is doing—absolutely preventing you froth taking out of bond that superior description and quality of wheat
which is most important for the purpose of misting with the inferior
descriptions of wheat in this country. I have befdre rue a me-
mortal signed by the whole of the millers in the towns
of Newcastle upon-Tyne. They state that generally
a bushel of corn in ordinary years is about 62 er 63 lbs. weight, but
that in the present year the average svefght is sot more than 58elbs.—
that it was of importance that the better quality of wheat should be
admitted for the purpose of mixing with the inferior wheat, and they
pray for an immediate remission of the duty. But the deity at pre-
sent is 175., there being a great quantity of inferior wheat poured
into the market at a price which allows the duty to be as high as 175.,
which operates almost as a prohibition to the taking out of bend that
quality of , wheat which it is of the utmost importance we
should have in. order to produce good food. But the
present proposal of. her Majesty's Government Will net
remove the duty on wheat altogether, but it will reduce the present
duty. It will do more. It will give a guarantee that in •no cage
whatever can the duty rise above 10s., and that there must be a
rapid fall In price—which we cannot contemplate—in order to bring
the duty up to 10s. The maximum duty at present is 20s. The
duty under the present proposal of her Majesty's Governmehtsweukt
be 10s. for the maximum, and It is not probable, even if the oldest
should fall to a t extent which is not likely to occur, that the duty
will rise higher than ss. or Cs: That is what the propoeit
of her Majesty's Government does with respect to wheat.
Now, with regard to barley, the duty on barley was 7s. The proposal
of the Government was merely for a nominal duty, it would Mit
exoeed 2s. Bd, The duty upon peas is Gs., under the proposal of Ger-
vestment it would not exceed 2s. ; but in the case of barley and oats,
however, there is a different guarantee, that the price should not
rise, in the case of barley, above its. and in the case of oats, above *-
The duty onrye, at present Bs. Gd., under this proposal would be
4s. Gd. The duty on beans is Cs. Gd., and it would be nearly the
same under the Government proposal. lam spealeng now wills re-
gard to the apprehended scarcity in-Ireland, but the House will ob-
serve that the proposal of the Governreent is no less perfect than it
would be if that apprehension was removed. In the rresent
state of public feeling, a feelioe that you cannot a ply or attribute to
this abstracted case of security, I think it would be an inconvenient
course at the present moment to propose a suspension of oar corn-
laws for nearly six mouths, far by a mere suspension we could look
to no advancement towards the settlement of the queetioe of the
corn-laws. But I think that a mere suspension for six months
woul„1, in point of fact, tend to render uncertain and unsatisfactory.
the great question, which is, after all, the great question to be con-
sidered, namely, the footing upon which the corn-laws shall
hereafter exist. For my own part, it is my own
opinion, and most decidedly it Is for the public interest
that the corn-laws should tee immediately settled, or that a
certain assurance should be woven On the part of the Government that
at' no remote period the duties or imports affecting trade should be
re-arranged; and I think that the proposal of her Majesty's Govern-
ment satisfactorily gives that assurance: I certainly, however, in-
ferred, from what fell the other slight from Hon. Gentlemen on this
side of the House, that they were inclined to prefer immediate repeal
to the proposal now before the House. I admit, however, there were
seine who were not of this opinion ; hut I think I am right in stating
that the - Hon. Member for Shropshire preferred immediate repeal.
CertainlY I was anxious to arrive at the opii ion of those Hon.
Members, and from their declarations I gathered it would lie more
sdtisfactory had an immediate repeal of the corn-laws been proposed
by her Majesty's Government, Her Majesty's Government, how-
ever, proposed a partial suspension for a period of three years,
partly from an impression that it was preferable in itself to imme-
diate repeal, and partly from the hope that the proposal would be
more satisfactory than immediate repeal to those who were connected
with the agricultural interests. It was under this impression that
immediate repeal was considered by us to be inexpedient. Butes it
is most decidedly the opinion of the friends of tee agricultural
interests and the warm supporters of its prosperity,
that Immediate repeal was preferable to our proposal, we
must have been labouring under a mistake.—(Loud criers; of
"No, no, we are not in favour of immediate repeal.") Why Ives,
tainly inferred, from the general assent that wits given to the 'lectern-
thou of the Honourable Member for Somerset, by those who repre-
sent the agricultural interest and those who are best acquainted with
its feelings, and the best judges of its interests, that they think that
immediate repeal is preferable to the suspension of repeal for three
years ; and I have no doubt that, by uniting with Hon. Gentlemen
on the opposite side of the House, they would be enabled to carry
that proposition.—(Hear, hear.) I must, nevertheless, confess that
usy opinion is not in favour of immediate repeal, and that our para-
mount object ought Tallier to be to lay a foundatioh for the adinstmeat
of that question. Should, however, the House accept tee amend-
silent in preference to the measure proposed by her Majesty's Go-
yernment, I shall have little hesitation in adopting It, The aniend-
theist is now in your hand, and it remains for you to choose
between it and the Government measure At the same timer must
own that my opinion in favour et the original motion remains un-
touched. Now, the Hon Gentleman the Member for the city of
Durham, threatens us wills renewed and continued agitation,
be
n.
mostlam
nerry for It, for I think that agitation on thisdrieinsttitenk mightnn
It will be is
wisely done awey with. I will go farther,i If d this war measure WAS r
their power to continue the hgetatton a
attemptwould be Ma 0 t disturb the settlement
:which it would lead to.
passed, Clint no
ct raim
sorry
o
that the Hon. Gentleman has
held out threats,for If
there' was a general acquiescence in the question,
d agitation by the Anti-Corn-law League,
t
r 'us say that continue
• ere Wl3 a Parliamentary assurance that the duty mem
'iconsldenng t .
corn shou.. 1 ceese at a period of three years, and that during that
period there would be no duty at all, its comparison veith the existing
duties, must say I think further agitation
world
£'
unnecessary. I must, however, admit that if agita-
lion is renewed, I Should not lie able to meet it. The
lion. Gentleman the Member for the city of Durham tells us that
year after year the motion would be enaile, for the absolute and im-
mediate repeal of the corn-laws. Well, It might be made, and year
after year the-time would be approeching when absolute and imme-
diate repeal would take place. I cannot see therefore that muds In-
terest would atta •ch to that motion. Besides, if the measure of the
Goveniment were carried, a great number of persons evotttl withdraw
from the Anti-Corn-law League, and there would be a great number
that would say, is not this motion unreasonable considering the.
difference of opinion which exists upon it, considering that every year
and every day is advancing us towards absolute repeal of the duty
—or at least a reduction of it to merely a nominal amount? I cantle*.
help thinking, therefore, and considering also that at Certain periods,
the duty during the three years would be much lower than it heel
hitherto been, that this threatened agitation would be useless, but air
all events the agitation would net be of that dangerous character•
which it has been. Our measure has met With great opposition
from members of the protectionist Side ; but I can assure the House
tlsat we brought forward the proposal, partly prefbrririg it to imme-
diate repeal, and partly frOm a sincere desire to consult the wishes-
and meet the views of those who represent the agricultural interests. If, however, with their assistance this measure be carried.- that is to
say, if immediate repeal be preferred to the proposal of the Govern.
ment, it is my intention to accept ofsthe amendment. I intend to do
what I cap o promote the success of that measure, but I cannot be
answerable for the success of the measure— it is quite impossible that
I can bee-e(ltear, hear.) It is totally impossible that I should.
alswer for the passing of that measure if the motion for immedirete
repeal is persisted tn. Now I prefer that measure to immediate re-
peal on this ground, that her Majesty's Government has pro-
posed further measures connected with the carrying of this
measure. Now Hon. Gentlemen object to deferred repeal
on
the ground that there will he two tariffs—one now and
one at the end of three years.—(Hear, hear.) But Ido not sea
how there will be two tariffs. I have a very strong impression that,
the price of wheat in consequence of this procrastination will be
somewhat cheaper—every quarter of wheat that is now sold would
be some Is. 6d. or 2s. less than it would be as admitted under the
present tariff. There can be no great amount of supply from any
part of the world during the present year. I cannot help thinking;
that there will be a foreign competition from which the English
fanner need not fear welt. We propose to give encouragement to
the drainage tirta improvement of the land, should this measeresAS.
accepted, If it be accepted there will be an opportunity, with
c !!!
much difficulty, of getting money for the Improvement ; 17"1
be at least as opportunity on more to/our:010 terms of p ring,
help
Meek-
e money for the improvement of indifferent land. I cannot
h that at
ing also that with three years before ins and the knowledgeacompeti,
the end of that period that there is n be
Bon the hands of landed proprietors will be prepared
for the improvement of land, and at
to meet that foreign cone--
tine end of those three,
years, we shall : I, thick, ho Ipa pes itin
petition upon moe,e favourable terms than ne should be In the event
that with respect to Canada
"Sir, r believe
of a very good harvest.
advantage, and more acceptable to that
it would be more fey their
riog. that the repeal of the corn-laws
should be deferr e.
country, and also. Afton;
tit
years than if that repeal
d
(Hese•, hear.) These were the rea-
sons Which Induced
took place immediarely.—
her
Majesty's Governthent to make
leCnnogasink Mkt' there will he that tariff at the
Bee proposition.
end ofyears
which gorse Apprehend. If the foreign grower
thinkshave rue immense advantage after the lapse of three
lithree e
will
years,
mach mistaken. Butt I think if there be that
general impression on the part of {lie foreign growers that that will
measure, the result-will be the
be the effect of theraising of the
ion •
f willslad, and the product Of • coin by the foreign
price o
he increased. Now these were., the
producer
general reasons
• ,
whitil apposMd sufficient to in ace her Majesty's Government
to
mime Ole as Conducive towards the ultimate and enalsettlement
of this 4uestion. They will retain their opinion ; Hist will continue to make their proposals ; they will do all they can for the purpose of
supporting it. Again I say, If another be preferred, they will not in
the ineentime abandon their Measure—(Heine hear)—but will do
that they can to give effect to that measure ; but, of course, this
House is the best judge of the character of the proposition—(Cheers)
Mr. PALMER rose amidst much confusion and calls of ' Divide,
divide." The Hem Member was very indistinct throughout his
Speech, nuderstood him to say that the Anti-Corn-law League
were the robbers of the agricultural interest ; that the agricultural
Interest were deserving of their commiseration and good feeling, alt
that they Shotdd not therefore cry them down as they had done.