The Sun.
London, England, 1846-02-13 00:00:00

resent measure should have waited till 1846 before he should
have changed his principles ; and it was stated to be a remark-
able thing on that side of the House, by the Noble Lord (Lord
(J. Russell). He was sure the Noble Lord was actuated by
the most Honourable motives, and he would give the Right
Hon. Baronet the benefit of the same motives. The Right
Hon. Baronet had waited till the disease of the potato in Ireland
was fully proved, and he deemed that that was a good reason
for a change in his principles. He was not attacking this
change of principle, but he was merely stating his opinion of the
Right Hon. Baronet as a statesman. He should not look at this
question as one eminating from a great party—it was no party
question. The Hon. Gentleman who had last spoken said
much of party, but he (Mr. Roebuck) could see nothing of
party principle ; but it was arriving at the right principle atter
a great delay. It was, however, so far as the Hon. Member
was concerned, a principle not to be applied—for he said do not
allow it to come into Committee. He would come to the
principle of the party passed, but now, as avowed, broken up.
The professors of those principles say, de not take off protec-
tion. The Hon. Member for Rutland said, if you take off pro-
tection, all the corn of the world will come into this country.
He aaid if you took off protection corn would fall from 575. tol9i.
The Honourable Member said that it required protection, so
that it would be seen that the people of this country paid, instead
of 195., 575. per quarter. He should look at the party who
benefited by this great cost to the country. Who were they ?
They were the tenant famers and landowners. The Gen-
tlemen who opposed the taking off of protection were very
anxious to maintain wages. But how did they carry out the
principle? Why, by making the labourer pay 575. instead of
19s. per quarter. They say, we are about to destroy the agri-
cultural labourer by taking off protection. How were they
about to do this? Was it by reducing the price of food? Ile
had net heard it attempted to be proved by those who opposed
this question that the condition of the labourer would not be
improved by the measure before the House. They had said
that he would be ruined, but had they endeavoured to prove it.
This was the necessary consequence of such a mode of pro-
ceeding. The Hon. Member had spoken of the injustice and
oppression of those enactments, as some of the consequences of
a long Parliament ; but how comes it that he had taken no
account of the position of the labouring classes. The tenant
-farmer also required to have his condition attended to. The
tenant farmer, by the operation of this law, might still retain
his farm, but the law would materially affect him. The
Honourable Member for Northampton had stated, that
under the operation of the new law, a certain
portion of land would not produce as much corn
under the operation of the new law, as it would at present ;
and if the same argument held good in all such cases, he
would ask if the tenant farmer was to employ his capital in
this way, why did not the Hon. Member argue that people
employed in other branches of business should do the same?
—( Hear, hear,) Let it go to the public then, that the pro-
tectionist party wished to keep up the price of food at fifty-
two shillings, instead of nineteen shillings, per quarter.—(No,
no.) If it was not that, he (Mr. Roebnelt) wished to know
what their object was.—( Hear, hear.) Was it not their object
to raise the price of food?—( Hear, hear.) And for what
purpose was that done, but to raise their own rent-rolls?
(Renewed cries of " Hear, hear.") He had heard a Right
Hon. Gentleman on the opposite benches describe what the
cause was that induced the supporters of the corn-laws
to maintain them, and that was, in his own
words, to maintain his position in society, or rather,
as he (Mr. Roebuck) should translate it, to put
money in his pocket at the expense of the unfortunate people
of the country.—(No, no, and hear, hear.) No, no; why
under pretence of protecting agriculture, was it not the fact
that the protectionists put money in their pockets?—(No, no.)
Why let Hon. Member show him the converse of the
assertion.-(Hear, hear.) It was easy to cry " No, no,"
and make a noise and a fuss ; but let the contrary be proved
to the satisfaction of the House. Hetasserted that it could
not.—( Hear, hear.) He might as 411 take the present
opportunity of stating that it would be beneficial if the Legis
lature, whilst contemplating the relaxation of duty on human
food, would take advantage of the same opportunity to im-
prove the moral as well as the
.physical condition of the people.
—(Hear, hear.) There certainly would be the opportunity of
a greater outlay of capital ; but if care were not taken, the
condition of the people would fall back if the measure should
not be accompanied by an enlarged educational policy ; other-
wise, did they not avail themselves of that opportunity, the con-
dition of the people would be much and seriously deteriorated.
—( Hear.) And when they had provided for the destitute condi-
tion of the people, and had put the labouring classes upon a
fair footing, then, and not till then, would they deserve the
name of Legislators.
Sir HOWARD DOUGLAS rose to move that the debate
should be then adjourned. —( Cries of "No, no," and " Ad-
journ, adjourn.")
Mr. HODGSON HIND E said that, on the first night of this
debate, he had expressed his opinion in a few words. He be-
lieved that it was perfectly competent to speak on the original
question on the motion of adjournment.—(Laughter.) For a
considerable number of years he had enjoyed the honour of a
seat in that House, and he had also the honour of representing
a very large constituency. lie confessed that his opinion was,
that native industry ought to be protected, and, in making
that declaration, he was in a peculiar position, as his con-
stituency was entirely commercial, while he himself was en-
tirely connected with the agriculturist. Pie believed that it
had been said that it was the interest of this country to buy
in the cheapest market and to sell in the dearest one. That
was certainly true to some extent, but it admitted of a modifi-
cation. The true policy of this, and every other country, was
to increase the home supply of food, but he did not think that the
plan proposed by the Right Hon. Gentleman was the one that
would have that effect. It was necessary that we should make
ourselves independent of every foreign nation for our supply
of food. We hadcentrived to do so when every other nation was
opposed to us during the war, but the system at present was such
that our shipowners could not compete with foreign countries.
If the Right Hon. Gentleman would repeal the duties on co-
lonial produce, it would be calculated to do some good in se-
curing their prosperity, but the present plan would fail in ac-
complishing the objects for which it was to be carried. He
would refer to the Hon. Member for the West Riding of
Yorkshire (Lord Morpeth), who said, that great benefit would
arise from the meaeure in unfavourable seasons. That when
there was an unfavourable harvest in Northern Europe, there
would be, in all probability, a favourable harvest in Ame-
rica, and vice versa. Would not this take place
by extending the advantages now proposed for the
benefit of foreign countries for the colonies alone? In that
ease they would not be dependant on the caprice of foreigners
The Hon. Member for Liverpool, and another Hon Member
who had addressed the House, had expressed themselves in
disapprobation of the measure, yet said they would vote for it,
because it would avoid the greater evil, of the Noble Lord the
Member for the City of London coming into office. He (Mr.
Hodgson Hind) could not take this view of his public duty.
Was the Noble Lord (Lord Sandon) so blind as to suppose
that if he supported the Government, in its present measures,
that Government could remain in office?--( Hear, hear. )
Could be suppose that after the events of the present
session, theresent Ministry could continue to rule the
_p
country ? The Government, in proposing their measures,
he believed were greatly mistaken. He denied the assertions
that the Conservative party depended on the Right Hon.
Baronet any more than the Right Hon. Baronet depended on
the party. Without that party the Right Hon. Baronet would
never have come into power. Therefore he should not now
exert his influence to defeat the objects though that party had
produced his elevation. They had heard a great deal of the
calamity of famine that was about to happen. If that
calamity takes place it will be immediately, whilst the Right Hon.
Baronet's remedy will not come into operation for three years.
He, however, described the condition of the country as ex-
ceedingly prosperous. He stated that the people were con-
tented, happy, and peaceful, to an extent never known before.
The great error of the Government was, that they had no
sound discretion, and they all remembered the epitaph—it
might apply to the course pursued by them—that was placed
over the victim of quackery—
" I was well, I would be better, and here I am."
—(Laughter. )
Sir HOWARD DOUGLAS moved the adjournment of the
debate.
FISHERY PIERS AND HARBOURS (IRELAND)
BILL.

The House then went into Committee; and, after a few
words from Sir R. FERGUSON, passed the different clauses
of this Bill.
The House then resumed, and the Citations (Scotland) Bill,
was then read a third time and passed.
DRAINAGE (IRELAND) BILL.
The House then went into Committee on the Drainage (Ire-
land) Bill, when
Mr. F. FRENCH suggested some slight alterations, which
were acceded to.
Lord CLEMENTS said he was exceedingly obliged
to the Government for introducing such a Bill,
and that if the Government enabled the landlords of
Ireland to drain their property independent of the
Board of Works, it would give very great satisfaction. He
hoped the Right Hon. Baronet would not deem it his duty to
stop such a useful measure. He (Lord Clements) knew that
several parts of Ireland were frequently inundated from ob-
structions in rivers, which a few pounds would remove.
Several clauses were agreed to, and the House resumed.
On the motion of Sir JAMES GRAHAM, the Committee
on the County Works Presentments (Ireland) Bill was post-
poned till Monday.
Mr. AGLIONBY brought up the report on the Edinburgh
and Northern Railway, the Brighton and Chichester, and
several other railways.
The House adjourned at Half-past One.