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

THE SUN, LONDON, TUES DAY MORN ING MARCH 3, 1848:

(Mr. Villiers) did not wish to provoke any unnecessary hos•
tiiity to the measure proposed, but he must call the attention
of the House to a statement which the Right Hon. Baronet
had made. He could gather from that statement that he (Sir
Robert Peel) did not ervertain much fear from the abolition
of the corn-laws. On the Ist of November he stated that
there was a considerable deficiency of food, and he con-
sidered it necessary in order to remedy it, to abolish the
existing corn-laws. He did not ri collect, however, hearing
from him that his fears were less at the present time than they
were on the Ist of November. He considered then that the
suspension of the laws were a remedy for those evils; his fears
were now, however, as great as at that period. He has satis-
fied himself that the time has come when the trade in corn
should be entirely free; and if the Right Hon. Baronet would
look around him, he would see friends on all sides. If he
looked to Hon. Members on his side of the House, he wou'd
obtain from them their sanction and support. They would
tell him there was no ground for alarm ; they have said, as far
as im eediate abolition was concerned that they are ready
for
,it, and that it might be done safely ; so that
they had it on the best authority that the removal
of these laws would be attended with no evil. If
the Night Hon. Baronet looks to the party on the Opposition
side of the House, at tl e head of which is the Noble Lord the
Member for the city of London, upon whom he may rely for
supi ort, upon the question for an immediate repeal—he has
expressed his opinion upon the subject. What, then, has the
Right Hen. Baronet to fear ? Upon which side soever he
looks, he may count his supporters. He stated that he was
fearful that if some time were not given to the farmer, a
sudden removal would be productive of injury. The Hon.
Member for Somersetshire (Mr. Miles) had, however, allayed
his fears upon that point. lie had told them that there was
no ground for fear—that the farmers were ready—that they had
nd'need of his caution. There could be no doubt that the Right
Hon. Baronet himself was in favour of a total and immediate
repeal. But having shown that there were no difficulties in
the way of his resolution, he would ask if there were no ad-
vantages to be derived in the immediate repeal. The present
year was a peculiar year in its supply of food throughout
Europe and this country; this was a point it was impassible to
Consider. We could not dispense with any supply of food which
should be imported into this country. We have notoriously a
scarcity in consequence, of a deficiency in the harvest, and at
the same time a considerable increase in the consumption of
food in this country ; and there is also a failure of an important
article of consumption of food in the country. Under these
circumstances it was his opinion that the proposed
duty of 4s. might almost amount to a prohibition.
Since the present measure had been under discussion,
there have been several cargoes of wheat destined for thi•
country which have gone to a neighbouring country ; several
cargoes from Odessa, not disposed to wait for the 4s. duty, had
gone to Antwerp, for the corn-laws are repealed there, tin
Belgium and in Holland ; and this country was always
liable to lose its supply of food during the continuance of these
laws in times of scarcity. Since Parliament has met, corn had
been exported from this country for the Rhenish provinces,
where they send their corn down the Rhine to Holland where
it is stored at Rotterdam. Now, however, corn was sent from
Rotterdam to those places beyond the Rhine which had for-
merly supplied both Belgium and Holland with corn.
They had, therefore, reason to fear that there would
be a general scarcity felt in the month of April.
that being the month in which the largest importation into this
country invariably takes place. He did not know who would
be most benefited, or who ought to be most interested, after
ail, in the abolition of the corn-laws; but he did think it was
not worth while that the people should be exposed to the
danger of deficiencies in the supply of corn. —( Hear, hear. )
He thought it would not be just to ovsrlook that part of the
question, for he presumed he stated enough to show that the
measure would have such a tendency. The Government have
secured a certain amount of support for the measure which
they had proposed, but it seemed to him that for a similar
measure withdrawing all immediate protection, they would
win merit' and support also. He believed that some of the
supporters of the Right Hon. Baronet were giving their sup-
port to that measure, because they believed that they would
relieve themselves from the danger which would be
incurred to the measure by their non-adhesion to
him ; but he (Mr. Villiers) thought it just to the
country to bring forward his amendment, in the hope that an
Immediate repeal might take place, for he thought that his amend-
ment would have most important advantages. Before he sat
down, he begged the attention of the House to the considera-
tion of one effect likely to be produced—he referred to a state-
ment made by the lion. Member for Stockport. He stated--
and no man, he (Mr. Villiers) believed, doubted that state-
ment—that they had funds sufficient to procure a repeal of those
laws, and that the day they saw those laws abolished—the very
day afterit the League would be dissolved. Now he (Mr. Villiers)
thought he was not substracting in the least from the great
importance—that society had been to the country if he said its
disssolution would be of great advantage.—( Loud cheers.) .
He believed that society would be long indebted to the grati-
tude and admiration of the country for the great benefits it
had produced. He considered they had done infinite service
to the country, and: that they had gathered round them great
moral talent from coviction alone, without ever giving offence
to any of the classes which they felt it their duty to oppose.— ,
(Cheers.) But, notwithstanding, he believed there was some
danger in such an irregular power existing in any country—
(Loud cheers from the protectionists)—and he thought that
that power should cease ; considering their talent, their great
energy, their unceasing perseverance, it was well worth the
attention of the House whether they should not cease to
give cause for the continuation of their agitation,
for it may be turned to objects that at present were not con-
templated. His Hon. Friends the Members for Stockport
and Durham were pledged in honour not to cease their ex-
ertions, and not to give up a single portion of that energy and
talent which they possessed, until this object was fully achieved.
He did net say that such a resolution ought to be conclusive
evidence to induce the Legislature to adopt their opinions, but
he thought there were sufficient grounds to do so in the promised
prosperity which it would afford. He (Mr. Villiers) therefore,
proposed to leave out all the words in the first resolution, after
the word " of," for the purpose of adding those words as an
amendment, that " all duties on imported corn do now cease
and determine."
The SPEAKER then put the question, when,
Colonel SIBTHORP rose, and said that it was his in-
tention at an earlier period to have occupied the House if he
had an opportunity of doing so, but after what had occurred he
should feel it unnecessary to occupy their attention for any
length of time on the present occasion. It was very
well known what opinion he etertained—(Hear, hear)—
with regard to the measure, and he also thought it was very
well known what opinion he entertained of those gentlemen at
the head of her Majesty's Government, who have dared in
the manner they did—the deceitful manner he would add—to
venture to bring forward such a measure.—(Loud cheers from
the protectionists.) The Hon. Gentleman the Member for
Wolverhampton, he (Colonel Sibthorp) hod no hesitation in
saying, had, during the whole course of his conduct, acted a
straightforward, honest, and consistent part in comparison
with that of her Majesty's Ministers.—(Cheers.) He never
deceived his party—(Cheers)—he had been straightforward in
his declaration—he has persevered in his course, and he was
bound to say that he gave him credit for the manly course he
had pursued, and he wished he could say the same for those who
were once his (Col. Sibthorp's) supporters.—(Loud cheers.)
If it was his good fortune to have spoken on this question at
an earlier period, be would have produced to the notice of the
House some of the speeches made by certain Gentlemen on
protection principles, who now seemed to have altered their
opinions. In the year 1838, at. a dinner which was called the
" Peel Banquet," the Right Hon. Baronet thought it right to
treat with ridicule the conduct of the Noble Lord the Member
for the city of London. At that meeting, among other gen-
tlemen, the Marquis of Chandos, a leading man and a farmers'
friend (then an honourable appellation let him tell them), was
in the chair, and there were present Sir R. Peel, Lord Francis
Egerton, Lord Lowther, Sir Robert Inglis (and, mark this
Gentlemen), Sir James Graham—( Laughter)—Mr. Harris,
and Lord G. Somerset. The Right Hon. Baronet then enter-
tained very different opinions to those which he entertains now,
with his 313 supporters.—( Cheers.) Here the Gallant
Officers read several portions of the speech delivered by the
Right Hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Govern-
ment, wherein he stated that it was pleasant that the rugged
pafh which led to political fame did not prevent him in his
journeys of making many friends, and that for some years past
he had chiefly laboured for the purpose of forming a great Con-
servative party for the purpose of arresting revolutionary
measures.—( Loud cheers from the protectionists.) Such was
the language, continued the Gallant Officer, which was used by
the Right Hon. Baronet in the year 1838, when he was enter-
tained, but perhaps it may be said most truly on this occasion,
in vino veritas.—(Laughter.) He (Col. Sibthorp) had en-
tained ; an opinion of the Right Hon. Baronet of a very different
nature to what he entertained at preseht. Perhaps he wanted
(with great emphasis) moral courage, and thought it was not
expedient to retain those principles-7'enzpora mutantur.
He himself had at one time the most implicit confidence in the
Right lion. Baronet.—(Cries of " Question, question.")
" Oh," continued the Hon. Member, pointing towards the
door, "if you are tired you may just walk out."—(Great
laughter.) The Secretary for the Home Department had also
been once a protectionist. He (Cr 1. Sibthorp) did not know
how many departments he had been in ; he was in fact a Pro-
teus, a chamelion, ever varying its colour, and he would serve
any Government that would receive him.—(Laughter.)
His expression would be. Any port in a storm.—(Laughter.)
He (Colonel Sibthorp) would wish to know on what grounds
the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of the Ministry had
changed his opinions. If he did so on the belief that there
was a deficiency of food, he might not be altogether culpable;
but he considered he had no such reason for changing his
opinions.—(Cries of " Question.") He understood there
would be a division on the present question, and with regard
to which he should say, that though he might be compelled to
go into the same lobby with the Right Hon. Baronet, the First
Lord of the Treasury, to oppose the amendment of the lion.
Member for Wolverhampton, yet it was through no regard,
affection, or respect for him, or any Gentleman on the Trea-
sury bench, that he did so.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.)
But of two evils he should choose the lesser.—(Renewed
laughter.) He could not conclude without cautioning the
Right Hon. Gentleman as to his associates ; and again ex-
pressing his regret that he should break up the party which
was prepared to go with him through fire and water in up-
holding the institutions of the country, the supremacy of the
Throne, and the integrity of their own Protestant Church.—
(Great laeghter.)
Lord WORSLEY trusted that the House would allow him
a few minutes space while he stated the grounds on which he
intended to vote on the present occasion. It had been proposed
by the Hon. Member for Wolverhampton that all duty on
corn should immediately cease ; whilst the Government were
in favour of a sliding scale until the year 1849. Now his im-
pression was, that if it rested solely between the motion pro-
posed by the Government and that of the Hon. Member for
Wolverhampton, it would be much better that the House
should decide in favour of the total and immediate repeal of
the corn-laws than that the country should be kept in a
state of suspense. If the simple question were that, he should
be inclined to vote for the amendment of the Hon. Member
for Wolverhampton ; but then, if he were to vote at that side
on the present occasion, and if the amendment were
carried, he felt he would be precluding himself from
the consideration of other amendments which were to
be proposed by Honourable Gentlemen. —( Hear, hear. )
He thought that the proposition of the Right Hon. Baronet of
a sliding scale from 10s. to 4s. would not answer the expecta-
tions of the people, but he was satisfied that if they were to
have a low fixed duty of ss. on wheat, and 2s. on barley, and
2s. on oats, as proposed by an Hon. Member—this, he thought,
would meet the wishes of all. He conld not support the
amendment of the Hon. Memher for Wolverhampton, though
if it were a question between 'hill:tend the Right Hon. Baronet,
he would rather support an immediate repeal of those laws.
He did not think there was the least chance of carrying the
proposition of the Honourable Member for Wolverhampton,
but he could not vote fur that question, as it would
preclude him voting for the following amendment :
That in lieu of the duties now payable on the importation of
corn, grain, meal, or flour, the product of foreign countries,
there shall be paid a fixed duty of five shillings per quarter
upon wheat, two shillings and sixpence on barley, and two shil-
lings on oats; meal and flour in proportion. This amendment
be thought far preferable to either the Right Hon. Baronet's
measure or the proposition of his Hon. Friend the Member for
Wolverhampton.
Mr. MILNER GIBSON could not but congratulate his
lion. Friend the Member fur Wolverhampton, on the opinion
of his Noble Friend who had just sat down. He could not see,
in accordance with that opinion, how it was that the
Noble Lord could not support the amendment? It would be
said that:the amendment of his Hon. Friend would endanger
the measure of his, the Right Hon. Baronet's. He was of
opinion that the question of endangering the Governuent

measure was not to be considered, when the great principle ",of the Right Hon. Baronet's were only proposed to
be carried out by the amendment of his Hon. Friend.—
( Hear, hear.) He thought the present amendment
was the only one which could meet the views of the First
Minister of the Crown. The Right Hon. Baronet had said
that his first and most anxious feeling was how he could meet
the emergency of preventing a great national calamity. He
said in his speech that nothing less than a total repeal of those
laws would meet the emergency ; and now that it was pro-
posed to have an immediate repeal, which could alone meet the
emergency, how on the ground of consistency could the sup-
porters of the Right Hon. Baronet oppose such a measure ?
He (Mr. M. Gibson) was satisfied that nothing less than a
total and immediate repeal would meet that emergency. If
they were to grant a three years' protection, he questioned
much that the Right Hon. Baronet would be able to meet the
distress which existed, and which by the end of that time
would increase. When, as was stated by the Right Hon.
Baronet, famine was at hand in Ireland, how could he for one
moment think of keeping up a duty on corn ?—( Hear, hear. )
SuppoKng that it were desirable to give encouragement to the
agricultural interest, how could they hope to maintain the duty
to the present extent under the present pressing emergency ?
The duty on oats and barley was 2s. 6d.,
or 10,.. per cent. on
the value of the commodity. That was no small duty ; and the
prices were such that none could be imported into this country
so as to give a profit. Their present duties would cause large
quantities of grain to be sent to the foreign markets when
every grain of corn was necessary to avert the ca-
lamity with which the country was threat-
ened. With regard to the agricultural interest, he
thought that it would be benefited by immediate repeal. He
did not think that the farmers would require any adjustment.
He did not believe that the farmers cared a pin for the corn-
law question.—(Laughter.) It struck him as remarkable that
side.) I
be Nvyifeedtl I
h i
eh theyat
withdrawal
the d
farmersifler ed
of on
wouldp thatrotebeet pi
oon i n,
the tenant-farmer did not seem to care one straw about the
matter with respect to its influence on them, but he believed
they were interested in it as a political matter.—(No, no, from '
tt the Ministerial
ar ,
reductionhear.) Hiei
believed
of rent
dt.—
( Hear,
entitledand
when he came to ask for that !reduction the protectional land-
lord would answer and say—" Wait until the Ist of February,
1849."—( Hear, hear, from the Opposition.) The Member ,
for Stockport (Mr. Cobden) had said that he did not believe ;
that prices would be materially affected—and by the Ist of
February, 1849, we will see if their is any necessity for an
alteration. The change that would be hanging over the agri-
tural body until 1849 would cause many improvements to be
postponed which would be carried into effect if repeal were ,
granted at once. If a man were condemned to be executed
that day three years, did they think that he would em- ,
cloy his time in constant preparation for eternity ? '
He believed that he would not.—( Laughter.) The man would
be calculating how he might best avert the sentence.—( Hear,
hear.) The system of protection had been put on its trial ,
befo:e that House, and had been found guilty of high crimes ,
and misdemeanours, and yet all that they asked was rapid and
immediate execution.—( Hear, hear.) Every delay was an in-
justice,
for the measure seemed equal to the most pressing
emergency of Ireland, and, therefore, he supported, and called ,
on the House to support the motion of his Hon. Friend.
Mr. ESCO TT (who rose amidst groans and cries of " Oh, 1
oh") said that he should give his vote according to the prin- '
ciples laid boron by the Noble Member for the city of London 1
on the first night of the debate. If the present measure would
be endangered by the motion of his Hon. Friend the Member
for Wolverhampton, he would not vote for it, for no one could ,
honour the principle more than he did. —(" Oh, eh," from the i
Ministerial benches.) If anything occurred that evening to 1
make him believe that the carrying of the motion of his Hon. '
Friend the. Member for Wolverhampton, would endanger the
success of that measure, he would certair:ly adopt the prin-
ciple
laid down by the Member for London, and in
order to save the measure, he wonld vote against it. The 1
question was whether it was right, under the existing 4
circumstances of this country to raise the price of food to the '
people by any restriction by protection. In November last I
he came to the conclusion.—(" Oh, oh," from the Ministerial I
side.) He begged that Hon. Members would allow him for
one moment. In November last he came to the conclusion
that any measure that would raise the price of food would be
be impolitic. It was at that time his duty to attend a meeting
of a large body of his constituents, and he:told them that his opi-
nion was that the only cause of the ports remaining closed was the
fact which he supposed to exist. That there was no Govern •
ment responsible for the affairs of the country. The statement
of his Right Hon. Friend, made in that House, the other night,
fully justified what he bad said on that occasion—there was
actually no Government responsible for the welfare of the na-
tion, and the ports could not be opened.—(" Oh, oh.") He
asked, had anything occurred since November which would
make the opening of the ports of more benefit to the country.
The necessity of opening them had increased since that time,
and it was in consequence of those circumstances that he would
vote in favour of the motion of the Hon. Member for Wolver-
hampton. He would only say one nerd more, with respect to
what the farmers said. Hon. Gentlemen below him might
hoot as much as they pleased ; but he would continue his state-
ment, The farmers said that they wished to have done with
agitation ; there was only one way to get rid of agitation, and
that was repeal—immediate and for ever of the corn-laws—and
it was a mere delusion to tell the farmers anything else. That
course would be for the interest of the people—wanting more
food—for the interest and the peace of the country, and for the
credit of the House of Commens.—(Laughter.)
Mr. R. COLBORNE said, that as he had not occupied the
attention of the House on the debate which had previously taken
place on the subject of the corn-laws, he would venture to
trouble them for a short time. He would give his support to
the amendment of the Hon. Member for Wolverhampton. He
did not intend to discuss the policy of the change in the corn- 1
laws, for he thought it fair to own that enough had been said
already. He would address the House on the amendment.
He had given his support to the Right Honourable Baronet, not
because he had read speeches of the Right Hon. Baronet,
and had heard the able and reasonable principles on which he
had clearly proved the efficacy of free trade. He had, however,
reserved to himself the perfect right of voting against the
Right Honourable Baronet on any measure. He had heard
many arguments brought forward in favour of free trade, and
in favour of an immediate and total repeal of the corn-laws.
He had heard a dissolution of Parliament spoken of, but he
believed that if such a circumstance took place, it would
strengthen their ranks to the injury of the business of the
country, If the business was now settled it would be a great
advantage, as it would pot an end to the agitation that would
continue to exist if they retained the duty for three years longer.
He could not forget that unless a total and immediate repeal
was to take place, the question would be agitated with ten
times greater force than before.—( Hear, hear.) Besides, be-
fore the three years they would have to elect anew Parliament,
and the question would create great excitement —( Hear,
from the Conservative benches)—therefore he wished it settled
at once ; not that he feared the supporters of protection would
seand in a better position than they now did, but that the
country must be saved the uncertainty, delay, and excitement.
It was impossible not to remember the elections that had lately
taken place.—(Hear, hear.) They could not forget that the
electors of Dorsetshire had turned out a Noble Lord of great
character, and whose benevolence and integrity were well
known. It was impossible to forget that the electors of South
Notts—( Loud cries of " Hear, hear," from the Conservative
benches)—had turned out a Lord of unblemished character
and the greatest talent. These were indications of the
proceedings that might be expected if this question was kept
, alive ; and the only probable chance of putting an end to such
a state of things was to make the repeal immediate and total.
The battle, if fought in a general election, he was satisfied,
would terminate in favour of the free traders.—(Hcar, hear.)
But he was desious of avoiding that battle, and for that reason
he considered this House should totally and immediately re-
peal the corn-laws.—( Hear, hear.) With every desire of
acting with the Noble Lord (the Member for the city
London (Lord John Russell) he must give his vote in favour of
the motion of the Hon. Member for Wolverhampton. There
was another point to which he would refer. It had been men-
tioned in a newspaper that he was an apostate to the principles
which he formerly professed. The editor had since made a
handsome apology ; still he (Mr. Ridley Colborne) would state
that he had never advocated protection. He considered that '
protection
' affected landlords alone, and that if there was any
loss from the present measure, they would have to bear it.
This he believed they were ready to do.—( Hear.) He for-
merly voted in favour of a fixed duty, and it was still
his opinion that a fixed duty could be carried out,
but under the circumstances, rather than keep the question in
abeyance, and keep the agitation on it alive, he would support
total and immediate repeal.—( Hear, hear.) He had heard it
stated that it would be inconsistent to repeal the corn-laws un-
less they applied the same principle to other things. He did
not see this, and he was of opinion that if free trade measures
did away with duties on all other kinds of articles as well as
corn, so as to meet all our public burdens by direct taxation
alone, it ought to be opposed. He for one in that case would
be totally opposed to it. But there was another way In which
the benefits of free trade were to be obtained—it was by relax-
ing the duties on the comforts of the poor.—( Hear, bear. )
This had been done already to some extent, and it had led to
an increase of revenue, and his only regret was that the relaxa-
tion did not go far enough, and include other articles, such as tea,
coffee and sugar. They ought to legislate for the labouring man,
for the toiling artizans for the poor men who were working
at the loom ; and on this account ne was desirous, of supporting
the repeal of the corn-laws and the relaxation of protective
duties generally.—( Cheers.)
Mr. GORING, who commenced his address in a tone of
' voice that was almort inaudible in the gallery, was understood
to oppose the motion ' under consideration. He considered
' that the Noble Lord, the Member for the city of London (Lord
' John Russell) must attribute his failure in carrying. out the
I business of the Government to the bold manner in which
I

he stated the measures which he intended to bring
forward. But the Right Hon. Baronet had taken a different
course. He had adopted more cunning tactics, and by a kind
of mesmeric influence, he had brought many of the once inde
pendent members of that side of the House to be little better
than his body-guard. The Right Hon. Baronet the Paymaster
of the Forces, and the Right Hon. Baronet the Vice-President
of the Board of Trade, had stated that this was a mere land-
lord's question. They now put it to the landlords to make this
sacrifice.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.) If this were
the reason why they supported the corn-law so long, he him-
self, if he had supported it for the same reason, would have been
measure ; but it was the
mortgaged-(lronical
ronical
thoroughly ashamed of himself. It was not the large landed
proprietors who would be injured by the measure; they, by
aged—(l
the extended use of machinery, by not employing so many
labourers, and by not keeping so many buildings (for that,
after all, was the real source of expense), would be enabled to
meet l thlaeoddilffiorcdusltiewsheorseeateedstabteys erthwismsu
e
cheers from the free-trade benches)—and the small farmers
who would be swept from the face of the earth. The Right
Hon. Baronet the Secretary of War, stated that if.the land were
properly cultivated, they might still produce plenty to make up
the deficiency ; but how would an increased produce at decreased
prices affect the tithe-owner ? His interests would be alto-
gether overlooked in the arrangement. He would oppose this
measure to the best of his ability, and they who, with himself,
did so, would have at least this consolation, that they would
know, that nothing had deterred them from doing what they
conceived to be their duty. They would not blame themselves
with supporting a course which would ultimately ruin a farmer ;
and this consolation was also given them, that by no folly or
cowardice of theirs would the British labourer or the agricul-
turist be compelled to the misery and degradation of earning a
wretched subsistence in the manufacturing towns.—( Cries of
" Oh, oh !" from the Liberal benches.)
Mr. BRIGHT would Wish to make one or two observations on the
speech of the Noble Lord, tte 31ember for South Lincolnshire, with
respect to the imposition of a ss. fixed duty. The Noble Lord had
the other evening amused the House by reading long extracts from
the former speeches cf Members of the Government on this question.
Perhaps the Noble Lord would have no objection that he (Mr.
Bright) should treat the House with an extract from a speech of his,
delivered to his constituents of South Lincolnshire. " But you state
that something they call compromise can be effected, I say that that
d ty has gone bye, the only final settlement of the question will be
when agitation is stopped. Some have supposed that is the listen-
Von of Sir Robert Peel to impose a duty of 55., gradually
getting less, but I say, that nothing but the abolition of all duty will
lead to the settlement of that question." He (Mr. Bright) fully
agreed wills the Noble Lord when he said that there would be no
cessation of the agitation of this question, until all duty on corn
had been abolished, and the man that could think differently must
have formed but a very indifferent idea of the force of public
opinion. The Hon. Member for Shoreham who had last spoken,
referred, and, as he (Mr. Bright) thought, with very bad taste).—
(Cries of " Oh, oh," from the protectionists)—to the incumberances
and the mortgages on landed property. lie hoped that the time was
not yet come When landed proprietors could come to this House, urg-
ing as a plea for assistance, their own extravagance and imprudence,
and justifying by that means their demand of a law to raise the
price of food in order to give OM rents for the properties which
they were not really-worth. He recollected in- one of Dickens'
works—he believed in the election of a beadle—that placards were
'ssued over the the town, with " Vote for Scroggins and seven small
thildrou." 6o it WO With tkti landlord", they wood Igo

rents to provide doweries for their daughters.—(Hear, hear.) The
question before the House was now exceedingly narrowed—it was
not whether they were to have protection or not, but whether that
protection was to be at once abolished, or to linger on for three years
more. lie did not like to say anything to her Majes'y's Ministers,
because in the speeches they had delivered in the course of the last
debate he had 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 must say this, that the Government had
admitted their case, and he believed that there was no mart even on
the other side of the House who conscientiously retained the opinion
that the abolition of Use corn-laws at the termination of three years
would be superior to the present removal of them. The impending
famine in Ireland was either a reality, or it was not. The Govern-
ment told them that they were establi,hing stores for they accu-
mulation of corn to be sold at reduced prices. The Right
Honourable Baronet said that he could not come to that
House and ask for a vote of public money, while
a duty of 16s. or 17s. was levied on foreign corn. How, he (Mr. Bright)
asked, could, they come to that House,'and ask it to vote 500,0001.
or 600,0001. to relieve the people of Ireland, while imposing a duty
which narrowed the circle frpiu whence they drew their supplies, thus
snaking the price of food dearer? How, he asked, could the House
vote that money, and at the same time keep up those restrictions
upon the food of the people? The Right Hon. Baronet had well said
that he could not allow the inferier grains to be admitted free of duty
for the feeding of cattle, while the heavier duty existed on the nobler
grain of wheat, which was properly the food of man. He (Mr.
Bright) could not understand how the Right Honourable baronet
reconciled this statement of his with his present intention
of imposing a duty of from 4s. to 10s., especially in
this season of scarcity when it should (if it ever ought) be admitted
free. Ile presumed that one of the reasons why delay was given was
that the Right Hon. Baronet expected in consequence less opposition
to his measure. The Right Hon. Baronet would however find that
this Idea of his was altogether erroneous. Even if it had emanated
from the Council of the League it could not have encountered greater
opposition than it had already done and he believed that no Mem-
ber in that House was more convinced of the utility of immediate
abolition than were some of the Members on the Treasury, benches.
Wit were a farmers' question, as it had been stated to be, why not
immediately sett:e it, as the farmers wished it to be done? Few of
them would say that three years was better than immediate abolition.
Did the Itight lion. 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 filially settled by the aboli•
Lion of ail duty. They were pledged to go on with the agitation, and
still more were 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 he could 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 IL PEEL said—l presume it is not the wish of the great body of
the House that we should continue that debate, which has lasted for
twelve days already.—(Hear, hear.) There are many points that
arose in that debate, in respect to which I am anxious to offer some
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
therefore simply confine myself to the question immediately before
the House, namely, whether or not it is desirable that the repeal of
the duty should be immediate, or whether it should continue, as pro-
posed by her Majesty's Government, for a period of three years.
Now, Sir, I am bound 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 perion of eight months, until August or September next. There
would be the absolute repeal of all duties, or maintenance only of a
nominal duty ; but what would Parliament do in the interim? What
provision 'would bemade with respect to the period when the suspen-
sion would expire? Those who contend that the corn-law ought to
be immediately repealed would of course 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 appre-
hended scarcity in Ireland. But this is not the universal opinion...,
There are many who think that the corn-law ought not to be repealed.
Her Majesty's Government having to decide on the 20th Dec.,when they
were again recalled to power, thoughtthere world be an opportunity
at the same time of making a provision for the emergency in Ireland,
and laying 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 consider
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 reconciling
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
Ireland, 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 rice ; but that,
perhaps, will not immediately effect Ireland. The duty on cattle—
and then with respect to the corn duty, which at the present moment
is 175., see what that duty is doing—absolutely preventing you from
taking out of bond that superior description and quality of wheat
which is most important for the purpose of mixing with the inferior
descriptions of wheat in this country. I have before me a me-
morial 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 wefght is not more than 58 lbs.—
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 daty at pre-
sent is 178., 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 bond 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 not
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 case
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 Government would
be 10s. for the maximum, and it is not probable, even if the price
should fall to an extent which is not likely to occur, that the duty
will rise higher than ss. or 6s. That is what the proposal
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 not
exceed 2s. Bd, The duty upon peas is 65., under the proposal of Go-
vernment it would not exceed 25.,; but in the case of barley and oats,
however, there is a different guarantee, that the price should not
rise, in t he case of barley, above ss. and in the case of oats, above 4s.
The duty ou rye, at present Bs. 6d., under this proposal would lee
4s. 6d. The duty on beans is 6s. 6d., and it would be nearly the
same under the Government proposal. lam speaking now with re
Bard to the apprehended scarcity in Ireland. but the House will ob-
serve that the proposal of the Government is no less perfect than it
would be if that apprehension was removed. In the present
state of public feeling, a feeling that you cannot apply or attribute to
this abstracted ease of security, I think it would be an inconvenient
course at the present moment ,to propose a suspension of our corn-
laws for nearly six months, for by a mere suspension we could look
to no advancement towards the settlement of the question of the
corn-laws. But I think that a mere suspension for six months
would, 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 upou 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 be immediately settled, or that a
certain assurance should be given 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 night 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
same who were not of this opinion ; but I think I am right in stating
that the Hon. Member for Shropshire preferred immediate repeal.
Certainly I was anxious to arrive at the opinion of those Hon.
Members, and from their declarations I gathered it Would be more
satisfactory had an immediate repeal of the corn-laws been proposed
by her Majesty's Government, Her Majesty's Govewinient, 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. But as it
is most decidedly the opinion of the friends of the agricultural
interests and the warm supporters of its prosperity,
that Immediate repeal was preferable to our proposal, we
malt have been labouring under a mistake.(Loud cries of
allo, no, we are not in favour of immediate repeal.") Why I cer-
tainly inferred, from the general assent that was given to the declara-
tion 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
my opinion is not in favour of immediate repeal, and that our para-
mount object ought rather to be to lay a foundation for the adjustment
of that question. Should, however, the House accept the amend-
ment in preference to the measure proposed by her Majesty's Go-
vernment, I shall have little hesitation in adopting it. The amend-
ment is now in your hand, and it remains for you to choose
between it and the Government, measure At the same time I must
own that my opinion in faveur cf the original motion remains un-
touched. Now, the Hon. Gentleman the Member for the city of
Durham, threatens us with renewed and continued agitation. lam
sorry for it, for I think that agitation on this question might be most
wisely done away with. I will go farther, Ido not think it will be in
their power to continue the agitation, and if this war measure was
passed, that no attempt would be made to disturb the settlement
which it would lead to. Still lam sorry that the Hon. Gentleman has
held out threats, for if there was a general acquiescence in the question,
I must say that continued agitation by the Anti-Corn-law League,
considering there was a Parliamentary assurance that the duty upon
corn should cease at a period of three years, and that during that
period there would be no duty at all, in comparison with the existing
duties, I must say I think further agitation would
be unnecessary. I must, however, admit that if agita-
tion is renewed,. I should not be able to meet it. The
Hon. Gentleman the Member for the city of Durham tells us that
year after year the motion would be made for the absolute and im-
mediate repeal of the corn-laws. Well, it might be made, and year
after year the time would be approaching when absolute and imme-
diate repeal would take place. I cannot see therefore that mush in-
terest would attach to that motion. Besides, if the measure of the
Government were carried, a great number of persons would 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 cannot
help.thinking, therefore, and considering also that at certain periods
the duty during the three years would be much lower than it had
hitherto been, that this threatened agitation would be useless, but at
all events the agitation would not 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
that we brought forward the proposal, partly preferring 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 of the amendment. I intend to do
what I can to promote the success of that measure, but I cannot be
answerable for the success of the measure—it is quite impossible that
I can be.—(Hear, hear.) It is totally impossible that I should
answer for the passing of that measure if the motion for immediate
repeal is persisted in. 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 be two tariffs—ono now and
one at the end of three years.—(Hear, hear.) But Ido not see
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 much. We propose to give encouragement to
the drainage and improvement of the land, should this measure be
accepted. If it be accepted there will be an opportunity, without I
much difficulty, of getting money for the improvement ; there
procuring
be at least an opportunity on more favourable terms of ij
money for the improvement of indifferent land. I cannot hel7think-
ing also that with three years before us and the knowledge that at
the end of that period that there is
willto be
bee
pcoremppnert:d-
tion—the hands of 'landed proprietour three
for the improvement of land, and at ftohreeisgne
years, we shall, I think, be in a position toissemeeentdthaotf
a envnednat
oftpeition upon more favourable tenyis than
twveitshhorulesdpb:ctintothCe
a very good harvest. Sir, I believe t N
it would be more for their advantage, and more acceptable to that
country, and also to America, that the repeal of the corn-laws
should be deferred for three years titan if that repeal
took place immediately.—(Bear, hear.) These were the rea-
Maesty's Government to make
sons which induced h
this proposition. I thinkcannoterj
that there will 'no hat tariff at the
end of three years which some apprehend. If the foreign grower
thinks he will have some immense advantage after the lapse of three
will be very much mistaken. But I think if there be that
Years, he
eneral gimpression on the part of the foreign growers that that will
b- e the effect of the measure, the result will be the raising of the
price of land, and the production of corn by the foreign
producer will be increased. Now these were the general reasons
which appeared sufficient to induce her Majesty's Government to
propose this as conducive towards the ultimate and final settlement
of this question. They will retain their opinionwill continue
to make their proposals ; they will do all they can for the purpose of
supporting it. Again I say, if another be prefbrred, they will no iii
the meantime abandon their measure—(Hear, hear) —bat will do
what 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 Hon. Member was very indistinct throughout his
speech. We understood 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, and
that they should not therefore cry them down as they had done.
He was opposed to the abolition of the existing duties tinder
any circumstances whatever, and he would not therefore
consent to become his own executioner by supporting the
amendment of the Honourable Member for Wolverhampton.
The Right Hon. Baronet gave protection to woollen and other
articles, and he (Mr. Palmer) was at a loss to know why corn should
not be protected also: The agricultural interest was no
trifle.—(Cries of " Oh, oh.") The country required the agriculturist,
and he did not see why one-fourth part of the population of the
conntry should be called monopollata.—(Conftuslon.)—(Here the Hon.

Member proceeded ,to read some statistical returns, showing the
taxes paid on an acre of laza, and nicking an average from that of.
the gross taxation on land, but the uproar was so great that it was
impossible to distinctly hear the Hon. Members remarks.) • He con-
tinued to say that the measure would throw land out of cultivation,
and that the country would have to depend on foreigners for food,
but nevertheless he feared, from the unnatural coalition which had
taken place, that they had nothing else to expect. It appeared that
the proposition for a total repeal of the corn•laws would be sup-
ported by the Noble Lord the Member for the City of London
(Russell), and If such were the case he did not see why a second
coalition should not take place. The Hon. Gentleman concluded his
observations amidst loud cries for " Division" and " Adjournment."
Lord JOHN. RUSSELL said, if• the House will allow me, I will
state what are my views respecting the various questions which are
now under its consideration. I should not be inclined, to vote for any
proposition that would not have for its object the settlement of the
corn •laws. I would not commit myself to vote for a proposition
which would continue agitation, and keep the farmers in a state of
suspense.—(Hear, hear.) Having been told in 1842 that the measure
then passed was a settlement of the question, and having found that,
in 1846, from the authors of that measure, that it was a complete
failure, and that the sliding-scale would not slide ; therefore, while I
I regret that the Member for Lincolnshire did not concur with me on
a former occasion, yet, on the present occasion, I cannot agree with
that Hen. Gentleman. With respect to the proposition of the Go-
vernment for continuing protection for three years, I think it is
liable to some objections.—(Hear, hear.) I come next to the propo-
sition at present before the House—the amendment of the Hon.
Member for Wolverhampton. Now, I must say, that, comparing
both propositions, If made by two Hon. and Independent Members of
the House, I. should consider the proposition of the Hen. Member for
Wolverhampton the more wise, as an abstract proposition.—(Hear.)
I think so because I consider that there has been very abundant har-
r rests, and many others may happen which will materially alter the
view of the question taken by the Right Hon. Baronet—indeed such
may be the influence of abundant harvests, that the prices of corn
might be very materially enhanced ; such for instance as there has
been in Belgium and other countries. I think that that being the
case, if there is to be a repeal of the corn-laws, in an immediate repeal
there will be more safety to the agriculture of this country than
keeping the question open for three years. The Right Hon. Baronet
says that if we were to have an immediate repeal, we would create a
panic, but that a 4s. duty will prevent that. I cannot see that the
taking off all protective duty will cause a panic ; I think the farmers
will app'y their minds to the improvements in agriculture, such as the
science of chemistry pointed out to them, and such appliances will
guard them against anything like a panic. I think the Hon. Mem-
ber's proposition far better than three years of doubt.—(Hear, hear.)
For this reason and others -for there are other reasons which I shall
not trouble this Committee by stating—l think the measure
of the Hon. Member ;for Wolverhampton better adapted to
settle this question than that of tke Right Hon. Gentleman. I amnot
aware what view the other House may take of this subject—l must
listen to what is said by the Prime Minister who undertakes the
settlement of this question. He has undertaken it in a way which
is not entirely reprehensible, but of which, though I voted for it, I
did not entirely approve. He has undertaken it in a way which
in three years will produce the find settlement of the
question. The Right Honourable Baronet has given
the reasons which induced him to snake this proposition.
Ido not think his reason a very good one. It could be more favour-
able to the landed interest, and I do not know what view the land-
owner will tak6, but the farmers do not appear to feel the value of
the proposition of the Right Hon. Gentleman. When the Canada
Corn Bill was brought for ward, the Right Hon. Baronet said that
be was desirous to introdnce a Bill which would give advantages to a
colony which it never had before; and those advantages he was
obliged afterwards to take away. lam afraid that the tact of
ring three years will hardly reconcile the landowners to the re-
moval of that benefit which had been unwisely bestowed from the
Irst. The Ridt Hon. Baronet makes a strange statement, he says,
that although The House were to deeide in Committee by a majority
in favour of immediate repeal, they should have his best efforts to
promote the success of that measure, and yet he says at the
same ;time that he will not answer for the result of that mea-
sure which he himself brought forward. I never think
it right to vote for this or any other measure or resolution of which I
should not think the success desirable.— (Hear, hear.) At the same
time, many gentlemen are in the habit of saying that they wished to
declare their op'nion in the abstract, and that they do not wish the
motion:to be successful. The proper way to consider these things is
to ascertain if they wish the motion for which they are voting to suc-
ceed. In this case lam to suppose that a majority is in favour of
my friend's motion, and my own name is amongst the votes. I give
in terms before the settlement of the question, and yet that would be
on a measure introduced by the Right Hon. Baronet as an organ of
Government, and for which he declined to make himself responsible.
I cannot consent to endanger the measure proposed by the Right
Hon. Baronet, as I sincerely wish it to be carried. Upon weighing
the two questions, that proposed by the Right Hon. Baronet and the
one now before the House, I must say, with all due respect, I cannot
under the circumstances support the motion of the Hon. Member for
Wolverhampton in preference to that measure which the Right Hon.
Gentleman (Sir Robert Peel) has proposed. I believe myself, if the
' House will carry that measure, as I trust it wil, on the third
reading, with as large a majority as it did' the other day, on
the motion for going into Committee, I believe in that case the
House of Lords, respecting the decision of this House, will see the
policy of acceding to the Bill, so that it may be at once carried into
effect. I feel on no other measure so much confidence of its being
carried as the identical measure proposed by the Right Hon. Baronet,
as any other might be considered as the measure of the Anti-Corn-
law League. Ido consider that if the measure could be carried by
the present l'arlamnet without any dissolution, or any conflict of
interest, it would be of the very greatest advantage,—(Hear, hear.)
I believe that though, after the carrying of the measure of the
Right Hon. Baronet, there may be some excitement,but that excite-
ment will gradually subside, and whatever differences that exist
among various sections of society be little remembered in a few
years. That, speaking beside the corn question, is a most important
consideration with me in coming to the conclusion which I have.

It is iinpossible not to see that a great popular agitation carried on
from year to ye.ir may extend itself to other subjects, so as to affect
most valuable parts of the institutions of the country.—(Hear, hear.)
With every avidity to see it settled, and weighing how the present
motion will act upon other questions that may require settlement,
I think, upon the whole, that the way in which I propose to act to
be that most conducive to the end in view—that is. sup-
porting, against the amendment, the proposition of the Right Hon.
Baronet. I do not think that, on any question that may be
placed before the House, it can be shown on any grounds why it
should take the preference of the proposition of the Right Hon.
Baronet, considering time and circumstances—(Hear, hear)—the
general views of Parliament, and the ulterior consequences that may
ensue to the country.—(Hear, hear.) Having said this much, I will
beg leave to refer to a statement that fell from the Right Hen. Baronet
the other evening, when he said that if he had proposed a total and im-
mediate repeal of the corn-laws, this proposition would have failed.
Now I understood him, on a former night, to state that he regretted
that I did not undertake it. I was surprised at that 'statement,
because, altholigh I Sully believe that the Right Hon. Baronet would
have given me every support—would have fairly supported me
throughout any measure that he might consider a good settlement
of this question, yet I think he must have heard objections enough
since he accepted office, statements enough to convince him that those
who would have followed him in that course, and those who would
have susported me if I had been in office and he had been out of
office, would have been a small number as compared with the 112
Members who usually supported him.—(Cheers.) My belief, I must
fairly state, is, that not more than forty, or somewhere about that
number, perhaps fifty, would have followed me on that question.—
(Ironical cheers, and cries of " Oh, oh," from the Tory benches.)
Some Hon. Members may think that this number is exaggerated—
(Hear)—but, at all events, I do not believe that even if all the
members of the Cabinet were going with me, on that; occasion I
would have had a sufficient number to have enabled me to obtain
a majority on the first proposition to go into committee.—(Hear hear,
and cheers from the protection party.)—Au Hon Friend of mine has
stated to-night that he understood me to say that I should be sorry to
see a dissolution of the Parliament because I did not expect that a
dissolution of Parliament, would give-a majority in favour of the abo-
lition of the corn-laws. My Hon. Friend has not rightly understood me.
Mr. RIDLEY COLBOURN.E. made a remark inaudable in the
gallery.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL—The lion Member for Richmond says he
so understood me, Sir, I stated that I did think it desirable that
no dissolution of Parliament should take place on this question. I
think that a statement was also made that this House
of Parliament, this House of Commons is not competent to decide
the question of the corn-laws. This statement is -founded in igno-
rance and misapprehension of the Constitution.—(Cheers.) I con-
sider that Parliament, as enacted, is to provide for the most im-
portant affairs of the county, whether foreign or domestic,
according to the best of hi judgment and discretion.—(Loud
cheers) I cannot conceive any assertion of an opposite doctrine—
any assertion that the House of Commons is not competent to decide
such questions as the present, which would not lead to the doctrine
that it would not be conpetent to decide any question of great im-
portance, unless immediately elected by the people, for the
express purpose of so settling the question.—(Loud cries
of " Hear.") This would lead to the most democratic doctrines
that could possibly be started, doctrines that would lead to au end-
less round of annual Parliaments—which would lead almost to the
conviction that unless elected fo the particular purpose, Members are
not justified in giving a vote upon any subject. Sir, I speak of the
general power of the House of Commons—upon a question on which
no doubt has been expressed, namely, the great question that arose
after the settlement of the house of Hanover, that the Parliament
which was elected for three years were perfectly justified in prolonging
their existence to seven years, thereby • saving the country from
anarchy and contusion. But if that were the case—if lam right in
that, then will any man say that the House of Commons, which was
competent to prolong its own existence from three years to seven
years, is not able to effect the settlement of the question with regard
to the duty on foreign corn ? There are other questions relating to
the union with Scotland and the union with Ireland. With
regard to particular Members—as to the engagements Mem-
bers may have entered into, and what their feelings may
be as to their own private honour, or as to their public
character with respect to their constituents, I• am not meddling
with that question. I am only speaking of Parliament generally
Well, then, it is my view that this House, as at present constituted,
is perfectly competent to settle the question of the corn-laws, and
unless there was a very great public feeling, some great national
feeling the other way, I conceive that there is no person entitled to
contradict that assertion. I think it likewise desirable that there
Should not be a dissolution, and the reason I think it would not be
desirable is, not that there would not be a Parliament which would
give a majority in favour of a repeal of the corn-laws,
as my belief is, that there would be ' a majority, but
my belief is that the majority would be attained
after a great collision of opinion, after every angry feeling had been
excited in the course of the election, and that majority would hardly
after that election, have that weight with the other House of Parlia-
ment which I think the majority of the present House, with the
numbers which I have stated, is likely to have upon the decision of
that other House. I think that the whole question would be made
one much more than it now is of discordance between classes, and
we should be some years in a state of agitation on thatsubject, which
would be most injurious to the country at large. For this reason,
therefore—for this additional reason—l am going to take the only
course which seems to me, after pondering on this matter as seriously
as I could, to be my duty to the country, and I am going to take the
course of voting with Government against the amendment, and against
any other amendments that are likely to be proposed in Committee,
and I shall be prepared to vote with them in every stage of then Hui
ei,
for I think the interests of the country are deeply involved
speedy, tile safe, and the tranquil settlement of this greates question.
o d with regard
Mr. G. PALM Elt said he rose to say a very few
tedfastly
extend the debate upon the corn- .tio whatever to
sMember fcr
to the vote he was about to give,iabwusnt he n
ehofaifdistidzileo:lwii,oicsnah3.
and consistently voted against th! his
intention to give his decided
Wolverhampton, and it we
opposition s
that Hon. and Learned Gentleman.
preference to the measure of the
ouo to
r, the motion oliteion gave o f
a
Mtve ev
Government, for he still cherished a hope that as long
as a party could be found in that House, and so long as
a firm party could be found in another place, and out of that House,
that this measure might be defeated, and it was with that hope
that he stood up to oppose the amendment. He objected in
every point of view to the measure of the Government. Nothing '
he could conceive could be more objectionable ; not even the !neon.-
sisteney which the Right Hon. Baronet had evinced with Zespectt
this question. If they were to have a
corn-
laws, the present was the time to makele
ange in
it, and
could to
the
three
a prosperous state,
years hence, for they were at present
He did feel the greatest possible inclinationheers
and the accounts with tenants had been isntaotisdfaoctao
) Now he would ask
oppose this measure. - (Protectionist
aboutc 1113'h e csoeut
to submit to a great change
any gentleman, supposing he
.Sup-
pose,bout to change all at once frOlnstwo meals
in fact. he were a
la •or suppose he were to
as had been described by the Hwoans Member for Northampton.
undergo some
a-day to only half a meal a-c y ,
lon or labour from morning till night, would he not
h task when he was healthy and strong in pre-
to when his body was rotten, and about to fall by
ferencedecay ?
(Laughter
and cheers.) It was so with the body politic—if we were to
change, for Heaven's sake, let
grarteletrb°und leyrtealteertt e
adopt this US undertake the task when
,uasnudndfoerrgtohethseakgereoaft eevheanryminatet interest,
.h_e(wHoeuarld bheegaro)f
we were in a prosperous condition, and when bread and everything
else was comparatively cheap. He would prefer such a course for the
ope'aletr
It was evident that at the end of
the a a it enoofutseh et
the next three years we should be
placed in a much worse position by the present measure than we were
now; foreigners will have hoarded up a large stock of corn—(Hear,
hear)—and everything would tend to depreciate hereafter the pros-
pects of the farmers of this country. He would have voted for this
measure of the Hon. Member for
Wolverhampton
on the present oc-
casion, but as he had always voted against it on former oecasions, he
was determined to be consistent, and should therefore vote against it
now.—(Hear, hear.) It seemed to him that the measure of the
Right Hon. Baronet had neither justice nor sense in it.—(Cheers.)
He had stated these, his opinions, in order to set himself right in the
eyes of his constituents.—(Cheers.)
Mr. HUME said he hoped that on this occasion the speech of the
Noble Lord would teach those who were now about to divide, the
ranks of those who sat upon his (Mr. Hume's) side of the House, what
course, they should adopt. After that speech he thought that every
individual who was anxious to carry this measure ought to give
his utmost support to the Right Hon. Baronet in carrying this
measure through the Committee.—(Cheers.) lie was for his own
part perfectly satisfied with the measure of the Right Hon.
Baronet, and it was one, which, in his opinion, must be equally
satisfactory to the country. At the same time he must confess
that if the question could have been finally settled without any
further delay, it would have given him much satisfaction But
after what had fallen from the Right Hon. Baronet he thought
it was clear that the voting for the proposed amendment would be
risking the great question, and it was on that ground that he
(Mr. Hume) appealed to his Hon, Friend not on this account to
persist in the amendment.—(Cries of " Hear, hear," and " Oh,
) At any rate after the speech of the Noble Lord, and also
that of the Right Hon. Baronet, he for one would not vote for it.
Mr. P. BORTH VS ICK rose amidst cries of " Oh, oh," and laugh-
ter, to say that he would move an adjournment.
The Marquis of GRANBY did not think that, according to the
Noble Lord's acknowledgment, he could have carried such a
measure as the present by a greater majority than about 40, if the
present Parliament was such an one as could give satisfaction to
the
country upon so important a measure as the present.
The Earl of MARCH rose to order. He stated that it would be
well that the House knew the question that was now before it. The
bad
Hon. Member for Evesham (Mr. Borthwick) moved that Mr.
a
Speaker do report progress and obtain leave to sit
gin.
On a division there appeared . 70
... • •
For the adjournment ...................
Against it ••••••• • •• •• " ...
...... •.•-•157
majoritr“ • •' "

OA)..*_;