The Sun.
London, England, 1846-03-28 00:00:00

tons is incompetent to entertain a measure which is neeesary
• for the public good.—( Cheers.) If you were to admit that doe •
urine, you would shake the foundation welch a Legislature
'mould be based. Why that doctrine was not maintained at
. the time of the union between England and Ireland. It
Vas not maintained in this country by Mr. Fox. It was
slightly alluded to by Mr.. Sheridan, at .the time when
the message about the union was delivered. Parliament
Isis elected without having the slightest ',event to the
principles maintained by the constituencies. Mr. She-
ridan slightly hinted his objection to the competence of Par-
hatnent to deal with the question that came before it, in his
time, respecting leland. But Mr. Pitt met that obj(setion at
The onset—he it in the following manner s—Mr. Pitt said,
the first objection that. I have heard made by the Hon, Gen-
tleman opposite was that the Parliament of Ireland was in-
' "supetent to entertain the discussion of the question, or rather
to act upon the measure proposed, without having previously
'Obtained the consent of the people of Ireland, and the whole
constituents of the Irish Parliamentary representatives. This
point, Sir, of so much importance, that I think, if we did
shot possess the power of dealing with these questions without
Irst appeatthg to the country—l submit that you recognise
,nis principle it would be a most dangerous oneif; indeed a more
li,,!ngerous one could not be adopted in a civilised state.
what a state of things we should have if this principle were
adopted I If that principle be a true one, look to the extent
la which it may be carried. If such an argument be held to
be good, then the dealing of the question of the Principality
')f Wales was not justly carried on, because the then Parlia-
Ment did not appeal to the.sense of th« it • ,nstituents. Indeed
the very law of succession to the English throne was not
"Ibtly made if this principle was a true one." Then, if that
were said of Ireland, what shall we say of the present proposal,
'which is to affect the whole of the United Kingdom ? What
shall we say of that law which was made for the admission of
• Roman Catholics to seats in this House? We made no ap-
Peal to the country. Whatever may have been thought of the
Pl'apriety of the present measure, I never heard it said that it
Would be unfair to discuss such a question without. appealing to
the constituencies of the country. lam sure that no one will
Were
soberly contend that that principle is constitutional. If it
allowed to be a good one, then as Mr. Pitt had very pro-
PerlY said, the right' of succession to the English throne was
oery questionable. Sir, I contend that there could not have
'""tri' "a more ,dangerous example"—( Hear, hear,)—a more
Purely democratic precedent (if I may use the expression)
than that this Parliament should have been dissolved upon the
Potted of its incompetency to decide upon any question'ef this •
nature.—( Hear, hear.) And therefore, Sir, I am ready to
take the responsibility of not having advised her Majesty to
dissolve Parliament for the purpose of appealing to the country
su this measure. Now, Sir, I am not aware of any other matter
relating to this question, in which I am personally concerned,
tuft of which I dare not have given a full explanation. If
there is any point in my conduct which 1 have omitted to ex-
, resin, I shall be quite ready to afford any explanation which may
desired, and answer any question that may be put to me
well now, Sir, I come to the question itself. Is it for the
Istablic interests that under the present circumstances of the
country, and in the present state of public feeling and opinion
"-sits it advisable, I say,' that we should at the present time
Sither refuse to modify the existing law, in order to meet the
!tigresses of the people of Ireland, or that, having modified
14 we should still have a continuance of the present corn-law,
c'e whether it would not be better to adjust permanently and
Satisfactorily the whole questton?—( Hear, hear.) The Hon.
Ileigher who spoke last says you might have dealt with maize ;
that was an article of food fit for the Irish people; you need
°,lly to admit that and do nothing else. Now, Sir, I con-
dder that if Honourable Members wished to undermine
~,t4O existing corn-laws, no better plan could be adopted
than that proposed by the Honourable Member. What !
to hold out to the people of Ireland, suffering under severe pri-
"salon, that maize is food good enough for them—to tell them
that the. law should be altered so as to admit maize, but wheat
tud barley shall not be admitted. Sir, by such conduct, you
:id rouse a storm of indignation against the laws you
With reference to maize? There is at present a duty of eight
illings upon that article. You say that Government ou:sht to
ti.Y maize and remit the' duty on it, so that by supplying it to .
People of Ireland, the Government would lose nothing.
0,01, Sir, our doctrine is that the Government cannot support
people of Ireland. We are powerless—we can
do nothing without earnest, instant, local exertion, on the •
uf the wealthy classes of that country. We say, that the
nties of charity, thou2,h not legally enforced, are imperative
°l all
those classes. The duty of the landlords of Ireland, and
all classes possessing property in that country, i 3 to miti-
'4,t, by all means in their power the evil, and the calamity.
tfnich has befallen their country.—(Cheers.) It is not suffi-
=
.111eht for us, that we should pay the duty upon maize, and
en reimburse the Treaslry the amount of duty so paid. But
,tiaritayr; we to say to those who we are inciting to. seta of
Are we tiv say to themm—the potato crop is failing—
i general distress is felt throughout this country
t. con,equenee, and the food must be supplied,
' !'t You shall pay a duty of es upon all maize which you shall
„)f.'tribute among the suffering poor. You shall pay also a duty
!,es. upon wheat, and there shall be no relaxation whatever
of %e law ?--(Hear, hear.) DO you not think it would be
4)ripno,s:tible in a state of distress, even to the extent which you
deny to exist—would it be possible to vote half a
million of money from the English treasury towards the
-NPPort of the people of Ireland, and to incite the Irish pro-
, Zieln-s to acts of charity, or to the purchase of food-
think relieve the necessities of the people? Do you
in the face of Belgium, Prussia, and Holland
P
admit the necessity of adopting every natural
oeft,aution to remove impediments on the importation
food—to propose a vote of half a million, and to buy
t`Prtl for the people of Ireland at Bs. duty, and make no relaxa.
• Whatever? It would have been impo=sible. The Hon.
ti ember, the Recorder of Dublin ( Mr. Shaw) said he could
dc,ny there was great scarcity in Ireland. I should doubt his
itoard if he said otherwise. He could not deny there was great
reitr, and great danger of the disease, but these were coin-
-I,loln things in Ireland—this is the general state of Ireland.
~Zse are the lion. Member's own words upon the subject t—
oll „large portion of the Irish people are always nearly
tenth--r verge of destitutien—there has been no year
re Isere coction en tsa staments, with
ssitl; nl
t'ec to lle
disease, when
he
id
'might not have been made
truth." Well, be it so. The admission of the
Member goes some distance to mitigate the present
gene Y • but it has been said the present is a labourer 'S
toestin
benefit n. Well then, is the maintenance of protection a
to the Irish agriculturist? And does protection come
b,,e t, 'lts • ) In that part of the United Kingdom it has always
n contended that protection was absolutely necessary to the
merests of those persons who depend upon agriculture. Has
rThotection, then, brought you to this—that the agricultural
ourers, who form so large a portion of the Irish people,
are always living 'on the verge of destitution?—(Cries of
oh," and cheers.) Is it true, also, that there
been no year in the recollection of the
,°,nourable Member when some r atements with
tc:rence to disease might not have been made ?" Be it se
%it This is the permanent annual state of Ireland under
,r`o operation of your restrictive laws. Is not that then a
14,sn argument in favihir of the abolition of the existing corn-

AN Ho sT. MEMBER—Why did you not repeal them before?
Sir ROBERT PEEL—The Hon.. Member asks why I did
befo I •
t before ; I answer that, although we have not done •
o

rote' that is no reason for not doing it now. You are so
eh.°leu by the force of these arguments that you are reduced to
(tnreess:ty of asking us why I did not do it before ?—•
4, efts.) Sir, we have been neglecting our duty in not doing
,fnre ; but that neglect of duty, Sir, is no reason why
4...in0u1d continue to neglect our duty now.—(Cheers. )
sti:re have a great failure of the potatoes in Ireland, which con-
ele`tt_ate the food of a large portion of the population there, and
vs_aanger threatening of having a population of many millions
a 'q are'dependent for their supply of food upon such an article
silelPatatoefs„ subjeet to such a
course
of quantity and dete-
,iiation of quality in the course of Providence we have been
the"ed with in the present year; and hearing, as we have, from
to lion, lion, Member, the .general and permanent rate of the
tsiktrYs is it not, I say, a cogent and unanswerable reason for
k, tug some permanent change in the system ? To do
°tie
ng such a case would be impossible. To modify
ila` existing law, and to prop ,se such a change
I, tau system of the country, as, professed by, the Hon. Mem-
foe southamption, would be merely to excite and en-
' tsuar
,age agitation, lead to no .beneficial result, and
tact' be rejected by the agricultural population—would, in
eg" Would be laughed at and scouted by them. It would
tilat no good. There is; therefore, no alternative, except
adjustment
to lay the loundation of an ultimate and satisfactory
aiJustnaertt of the question. .My firm conviction is—charge
e if yon please with treachery--that the safest and the best
Node •
3,11 t , of settling the question •is that proposed by her Ma-
t/ B.Gove'rnment.—(Linid cheers ) The Noble Lord the
thealher for Newark asked me repeatedly if I proposed to ruin
the agricultural interest? Sir, I attach the utmost importance
W:11C prosperity of that class.—( Cheers and counter cheers).
e,„lt ,Sir, do I not know why I have not as much right to feel as
Ira an interest in the prosperity of that'class as those Hon.
trnbers have who have sneered at and received with scorn
tay .
aittaaluntons upon the subject.—( Loud cheers.) I attach the
se..int importance to it. I think, Sir, for great political
sCu,, ,aat that it is of the utmost importance that the agriculturists
think, a great weight in the government of the country.
• ol with Burke, that land is the safest basis of political
Apwar in any country. He says that all writers-
-4,41,..ta.tie speaking of t'ae Grecian states, and Cicero
kLiag of the Romans—that all writers upon politics
e attached the utmost importance to the landed
kft:Cest. They always considered that it was the
,11 It basis of a sound protective Government. I remain, Sir,
lk ;hat opinion, and deeply should I deplore the day when the
42ued interestSovereigas.—( w excluLoudded fcherom its full share in the coun-
armyners. ) Burke said that it teas
4nte for this country that the landed interest was so pre-
r-tainant as to direct the Government of the country, and the
:non of that was, he said, that the landed aristocracy and
rnprietors have never been a class disassociated from the ge-
oeral cheers.) They had never been
gl)nsed to public opinion—they have always preserved and
fl "a an unity of interest. Now, Sir, this is just the question.
ben3' what means shall we secure a continuance of this just and
ficial power to the landed interest ? Will it
rem 1.3 y maintaining your privileges upon grounds of
rietiveness and exclusion of food to the people of this
itTitry ?-04 No, no," from the protectionists.) Well, then,
ti nal offends the Hon. Members, I will not use the teem ex-
i‘'sion of food. I will say by the imposition of taxes upon the
all Portetion of food. Will it, I ask, more conduce to the per-
p.'acut quiet and legitimate interests of the country that the
sent, corn-laws should be repealed, or that they
la
i should re •
t a'n in tact. My o ,inion is, and I repeat it—accuse me of
irjaanhery if you please—that you will satisfy and maintain the
tbeamlice of the landed interest, by now making these arr!nge-
Nrati rather than, in the present state of feeling arid opinion,
tinaciously contending for the continuance of the existing
tliwt!--tl.at is my opinion. Take, fur instance, the taxes on
ter and b-lean which have not existed for more than
tift,"'Y years, is it safe, I say, to rest the privileges
Let" ariitocrr cy and landed proprietors upon such a foundation?
4%
.egusider the bearing of the corn-law en the land, which
slittritained, as it onght to maintain, a just and legitimate am
the country. We have to deal with a population which,
of ~."'"lng to the census of 1841, consists of about 19 millions
et),°"Ple—l am excluding Ireland. Bat you have in this
\r,ntrY a pnpulation of 19 millions, and how are they divided
i)re4thave of the agricultural interest 1,5)0,000—of landed pro-
at,d ors, of farmers and occupiers, above 20 years, 1,500,000;
1,7c.,0t1 have of labourers employed in other occupations,
enN n't-)0, including miners and quarriers. You have
Lk;'aged in commerce above 3,110,000, and you
bil:0_200,000 belonging to professions, and you have
200,0":, persons of independent property, not including
atet,e-`' Paupers and lunatics ; the rest of the population are
Popui:t. and children. What an immense proportion of that
rest u.,%1 consists of persons who earn their subsistence by
tlioa..!•' I bour—what an immense proportion of persons of all
how'taniust subsist on wages below 30 shillings ! Just consider
People zatinn, apart from food, bears upon that class of the
YOU
raise about 32,000,000/. by taxes, by customs and
tin of Or take the articles which enter into the consump-
tutarn a
here
having leas than 30 shillings a week. I have a
el%
0'; !'e of the articles. which are used by families in that
meat„afe—independent of bread, butter, cheese, a little
Now th-, 'Jot's, lard, candles, soap, and a small portion of tobacco.
t, venteret. is not one of them, which is not taxed. It is from
!'eees,,,r sympathy that you tax them. In my opinion it is
;tldireet that you should raise a great part of your revenue by
no, e taltation, but all indirect taxation is unequal. You
tf •• st4h4shed a great &aim on the confidence and gratitude
b the co,
tlrde I‘trY, that you did take upon property an annual
4ciet4 0,000,000/., not alone that it might supply a
•P de-
that you might relieve the labouring classes of