The Sun.
London, England, 1846-05-05 00:00:00

r what has it done for them ? In the districts
where they are, are they not many parts of
the year starving? This was the case, not for once in a way,
but they were so every year, If then this is said to be the
case of the labourer in Ireland, can it be said that protection
has done anything for them, where for several months in the
year destitution and famine were amongst them ? Has there
been in any of the statements of those Hon. Members who ad-
vocate the necessity of these laws—have they, I say, attempted
to show that protection was for the benefit of the manufactur-
ing and labouring classes—that protection has done anything
for them? I deny that they have done so.—( Hear,
hear.)
I
cannot deny that so great a change as the one proposed can be
made without Injury to some. 1 regret that no great change
can be made without acting in some way to the distress of many
interests. It is so in all great changes. No one will deny that
the deems away of protection will injure those who have not
capital and skill in a slight degree ; and it is allowed by those
who opposed the present measure, that those who have capital
and skill will not be distressed ; but that admission proved at
once the unsoundness of the principle of protection. The
question is, then, seri this system be maiutaineiS ? The sooner
we meet—and the country I believe is also of the same opinion
—the sooner we meet the difficulty the better.— ( Hear,
hear.)
I believe the agriculturist must acknowledge that this system
of protection is far from being a sound and permanent system.
If the system of protection is not a sound and permanent one,
it cannot be called a good one, and the sooner a real and per-
manent settlement of these laws is made the better it will be
or all.—( Hear.) I am of the same opinion as Guizot, the
eminent French statesman, that a territorial aristocracy is most
essential to a great country. I believe this most certainly,
but the question is, what is the most legitimate way of
maintaining a territorial aristocracy ? I consider that in
maintaining a territorial aristocracy we should not lose sight in
the present interest that of future advantages ; and it was to be
considered whether it was for their benefit to maintain
an exorbitant price of food . Can the interest of the
landed aristocracy be upheld by maintaining this protection?
My tirm opinion is, that we shall maintain the territorial aris-
tocracy by giving up these laws.—( Hear, hear.) I agree,
also, with Mr. Burke, " That a territorial aristocracy is most
essentially for the good and well-being of this country ;" but
that great man very wisely drew the distinction between what
did and what did not constitute the privileges of that class of so.
ciety. The Hon. Member for Dorsetshire ( Mr. Bankes), in
speaking on this question on a former evening, made a charge
against me, which, though it was intended to censure me, was,
in reality, most comelimentary. That Honourable Mem-
ber said that I had adopted the policy of Turgot, and
that, by so doing, I was about sowing the seeds
of a revolution. Now, by adopting the policy of a
repeal of the laws which resrict food, I am doing the very re-
verse of anything approaching revolutionary principles. On
the contrary, I am for sowing the seeds of content by giving
the labourer the full value of his labour.— (Hear, hear. ) I do
not believe that the value of land or the privilege of land will
be injured by the change of these laws. On the contrary, I
am of opinion that the value of land, and its privileges in this
compact state of society, is so mixed up with the manufacturing
and other interests of this country, that what would be for the
benefit of one must of necessity be for the benefit of the other ;
and this is the natural and proper order of interests. And if
that is the case is it not better that the territorial aristo-
cracy should make some sacrifice to bring about such a
state of society ? How many other advantages have they not
given up, and no injury was the result ? How long ago is it
when land was the only means of entering this House?—
(hear, hear.) When they found that privilege defeated, for
it was easily got over, and by the abandonment of this there
has been no injury, and the character of this House has not
suffered by the ehange.—( Loud cheers.) We have had this
Bill before us for three months, and the country has known
for that time this law is coming into operation in February
1846. And what has been the opinion of its injurious results ?
The best proof of its anticipated results is that there have
been farms to let nowhere. Do they let at a reduced rental?—
( Cheering.) On the contrary and this is the best answer to
those who dread the repeal of these laws. —(Cheers. ) I
believe it is for the benefit of the landed interest that these
laws should be settled, and that a permanent system should be
adopted. I do not see any foundation for the prosperity of the
landed interest bs the continuance of these laws, and I believe
that the interest of the landed proprietors will be
served by the settlement of this great question.
I say so because I believe I do net consider it necessary to the
best interests of the country that those restrictions should be
continued, or that in fact any reasons whatever—l mean sound
and solid reasons—could be given in support of the continuance
of those restrictions. Indeed, I will go so far as to say that I
do c .nsider that the removal of all restriction upon foreign
corn will be perfectly consistent with the duties of this Par-
liament to the country.—( Cheers from the Opposition.) I
think I have now answered the questions of the Noble Lord.—
( Hear, hear.) But now let me say, that after having paid the
best attention I could to the reasons that have been assigned in
favour of the continuance of those restrictions, and after
having given them all the best consideration I could bring to
bear upon them, I can only arrive at this conclusion, that I
still believe that the continuance of those restrictions would be
impolitic and unwise.—( Hear, hear.) I am aware that the
Hon. Members who now cheer me still retain their impres •
shins upon this subject, notwithstanding the discussions that
have taken place in this House upon it. Their views no doubt
may be more just than mine, and more wise and more prudent,
but still I am compelled to say that even at the
risk of paying the penalty of their censure, and of the
forfeiture of their confidence, lam still determined to persevere
in the course I have adopted against the further preservation of
those rest rictions.—( Loud cheers from the Opposition benches.)
The Noble Lord has also taken this opportunity of referring to
our international policy, and has told the House that my pro-
mise cannot be fulfilled. Why, the answer to that is, that we
are only now beginning to consider this question.—( Hear.)
Surely, the Noble Lord cannot expect, nor can this House ex-
pect, that foreign countries can so soon be prepared to relax
their systems of restriction, in order to meet this Bill, which
is only now about being read a second time.—(Cheers from
the Opposition benches.) Yet, notwithstanding that, I do think
it must be already apparent that other countries have already
taken measures in consequence of the discussions that have
taken place in this House upon this subject, for we have seen
that very recently the commercial systems of the two Sicilies
have been very much relaxed. It is true that those are small
countries, but considering the very small progress we have
made in the removal of restrictions, I think that was doing a
goad deal.—( Laughter.) Well, then, with respect to France
—the Noble Lord has told the House that I promised that
France wonld immediately follow this course of policy. Now I
beg to say that I said no. such thing.—(Cheers and laughter.)
What I did say was, that I slid consider that the maim ity of the
representatives of the French people represented a nation much
too enlightened to persevere in the preservation of restrictions
upon English goods imported into that country, but that, for
the present, the representatives in both Cnambers, as now con-
stituted, were too much :influenced by a feeling in favour of re-
strictive duties to yield at once in favour of any measure for
their removal. But I also stated that I did believe that there
are now in France many eminent men, members of both Cham-
bers, who would, ere long, lead the way upon a mation for a
relaxation of those restrictive duties. That is what I
said (Cheers) and what I then said I still believe,
and that is, that the interests of the great body
of the consumers of this country and those countries
must and will prevail.—( Loud cheers.) And I furthermore
believe that if you now adopt this measure of commercial re-
form, you will most materially benefit the best interests of this
country. I beg to tell the House this, that there are at this
moment in France societies formed for the purpose of carry-
ing out a more liberal system of commercial intercourse with
this country, and that they are of opinion that they should no
longer continue to buy dear cotton and dear hardware, the pro-
duce of this country, and that France wonld materially benefit
by the removal of the restrictive duties that now compel them
to do so. But I never promised this House that France would
at once yield to the removal of those restrictions. —( Hear, hear.)
I am not, on that account, the less confident that if you will set
them the example, it will, beyond all doubt, prevail.—( Hear,
h-ar. ) If you set them the example, it will be discussed in
France, and when it is once well understood what must be the
result of the discussion ? I say it must prevail.—f Hear, hear.)
I believe that the same arguments apply to the United States.
Like France, they may nut be likely to take effect immediately,
but I do again say, that in every civilised country a movement
is about taking place upon this subject.—( Hear, hear.) Well,
but suppose you adopt a different course—suppose a course be
a retrograde movement—then I say you will find, when it is too
late, that you were wrong, and that I have been right.
It has been said that we are going to take in the
silks and brandies of France, and the timber of Prussia, at
prices less the restriction duties, and that we shall get nothing
in return. Why, then, I ask, if we do not—what do we
suffer ?—( Hear, hear.) Again, it has been said, that when
we take in the silks and brandies of France, and the timber
and corn of Prussia, so far from getting an equivalent, we
end out our gold. I must say, in reply to that, that I cer-
tainly have not seen any diminution in the quantity of gold in
this country ; or if there has been, it went to supply the
internal commerce of this country, and not that of either
France or Prussia. And here I am going to say what may
appear still more startling, and that is, that I wish it had.—
( Hear, hear, and loud cheers.) Now, let me ask, where do we
get this supply of gold? I say, in 'answer to all these
arguments, that this country will always be able to command
a supply of gold to meet its exigencies, and that there will be
no drain whatever upon the resources of the Bank of England.
If those foreign countries will take nothing but our gold in
payment for their corn, timber, silks, and brandies, recollect,
also, that their articles cannot be purchased by this country
without a return of that gold. I do say then, that by your
giving free access to foreign manufactures by the removal of
those restrictive duties, you will receive bet ter articles than any
now imported, and you will also intitte this country to the same
measure of policy from those countries. I say, furthermore,
that if France could be induced to allow at once access equally
free for the manufactures of this country at once, it would be
better still for our tradesmen ; but as that cannot be obtained
without delay, let us not on that account lose a single
dday.—
( Hear, hear.) And I have that confidencedl ihnavtehe uponin influence
which such an example, set by England,
countries that they will speedily
impression, that at no remote period principlemy
followo hiti,scsa. and I rely u ion the
namely,dono t r thatoee recede
e we
in
advice, which the
uni-
versally prevail, and therefore, I reiterate_
Right Hon.
neadnd'
Honourable Baronet sat
shall
course of commercial policy." The
tNakobolefoLroorinlehamsostotorn, u„chAdcovnandenem, this
down amidst loud cheers.
on which had taken place, said, that in the doeussi e, he had
Mr. G. BANKES said, that the Right Hon. Baronet had
Baronet had, perhaps, forgotten the very emphatic declaration
which he made on the last occasion, when an opportunity
that those
always maintained the same position ; but the
offered of declaring his sentiments, sentiments were
not fully: declared ; and that the very important distinction
which the Right Hon. Baronet made between his present de-
claration, and any former declaration, which he made on the
übject ; a declaration which it well became Members of that
[reuse to remark upon, and which had been so properly re-
marked upon elsewhere. Some few weeks past, the House
was led to the conclusion that. the maintenance of those laws,
then under discussion, was injurious, and now the Right Hon,
Baronet said, that he wished them to consider that,.
the maintenance of those laws was unjust. Fee4c,
It would have been singular, if the first opportunity hear.
had
not been taken by one of those who retained the opinions
which the Right Hon. 13 tronet had so long advocated.—
(Hear, hear. ) However little qualified they might have been
to tread in his steps, in
which he took the lead and honoured
him by his leadership, to eupple that place which he hail va-
cated. It became them, if they had seen no change, and
could find in the arguments which he now used no answer to
the arguments which, during ,„ many years, he so strongly '
used—(Hear, her. )—to take the earliest opportunity of
ex-
pressing their regret at the new chanee in his opinion—the
new stand which he had taken, still endeavouring, as it should
seem, to keep a-head of the Noble Lord on the other side of
the House—(lmmense cheering from the protectinnists `,—
aad to drown him in his course of operation. He
was bound, of course, to hold in every respect a per-
son so eminent as his Right Honourable Friend at the head
of the Government, and was bound to give him
every
credit for belief in opinion which he now thought he en-
tertained ; and he assured him that he felt how humble
it would be to him to deny it to one of his station and charac-
ter, and he would use no expressions but those of the deep re-
gretrteined—no feelings but those which which he ente • were
'II •
of that nature, when he found so striking an illustration, as he
feared it must be, of the fact that no confidence was to be
placed in him by those who were conscious of their superiorit
He could have and the superiority of his leadership. no feel-
ing
but that of sincere sorrow and regret at the loso of such
a guide, and it would indeed he a consolation to him if he
could follow him in the line which he then pursued. Listen-
ing to the arguments now offered by the Right Hon. Baronet,

he did not perceive any reasons in the speech which he had
delivered, for the change which had taken place. He could
perceive no new lights addressed to their atten•
tion. He had heard the same line of argument
often • pursued by men of not equal, but still of
great ability on that side of the House. The arguments raised
by the Right Hon. Baronet had been long answered, by the
answers he had made in opposition to the statements which had
then fallen from him. It would not become him to recapitu-
late those answers, or to set in juxta-position one with another
the speeches which he had formerly spoken and those which
he now addressed. He might be permitted so far to exercise
his own humble judgment, as to avoid weighing the speeches
of the Right Hon. Baronet given in former years, with those
now made. He was bound to declare that he thought his
former speeches brought to his mind the conviction that those
former opinions were the best grounded ; and the Right.
Honourable Baronet left those opinions which he formerls
assumed, and quitted them for arguments far belo%;
him. His Honourable Friend the Member for Lynn
had a question put to him about four nights since by the lion.
Member for Limerick, in which he asked the course that could
hest be adopted in regard to the alleged want in Ireland. Hi'
Hon. Friend, with a degree of caution in his reply which might
have preserved him from the sarcasms of the Prime Minister
said he could see nu benefit in the course proposed, and he
would lend himself to no such delusion, but that sooner than
b.
accused of any such obstinacy or indifference to the state of
Ireland, he would accede to the 'measures proposed. If the
Members for Ireland, on their own reponsibility as representa-
tives of that country in that House, would state to the House
their belief that such a course would be a benefit to Ireland,
they would at once consent to it. If the Governmen
thought that such a measure would be a benefit, why did
they not adopt it, instead of directing to them night after nigh;
the charge of delaying relief for Ireland. The debate com-
menced with such taunts, but now they were effectually si
lenced. The Right Hon. Baronet had referred to an observa-
tion which he (Mr. Bankes) had made on a former occasion
with reference to a minister of France, at a period in many
respects resembling the present state of the question before
Parliament, in which he stated, with the member for Wolver-
hampton, who referred also to this Minister of the Crown, at a
very dangerous and critical period, qualified as he was as a
great and eminent man for the high station he filled, he wanted
one quality—namely, moral courage ; and the want of that
quality led, as he believed, to all the disasters that fell upor
that unfortunate kingdom. M. Necker was a minister in that
country—a man possessing unbounded private wealth, and,
having nothing to induce him to engage in mean politics, was
a man of great talent, and no man doubted the honesty of his
purpose, but the want of one great qualification involved his
country in misfortune. He had referred to that circumstance
before, and would refer to it again ; for be did think that the
character of that Minister and that of the present Minister o•
England had many points strongly resembling one another, both
in that which was amiable and great and that which was weak and
vaccinating, He was quite incompetent to follow the Right Hon.
Baronet intothe subject of the currenc . , but he ( Mr. Bankes) was
surprised to hear him say that it was a matter of little conse-
quence at what price the gold that was used for that purpose
was obtained.—( Hear, hear.) There would be many oppor-
tunities for him (Mr. Bankes) to address the House on the
subject; still on the present occasion he thought he had suffi-
ciently met the points raised by the Right Hon. Baronet.
Not one good reason had been given for the change which had
taken place in the minds of many Hon. Members in this House
but the operations of that League to which so much reference
had been made.—(Heer, hear.) They had seen it avowed
that the formation of the League had encouraged a similar
bond of union in the sister kingdom, and the Irish Members hao
come over to support the present question on the ground that
the success which now followed the exertions of the League.
would also attend their labours in Ireland. It was these hew,
that led him to regret so much the course the Right Hon.
Baronet had taken, and why he felt it his duty to oppose him
He (Mr. Bankes) was satisfied the triumph of the League hers
would be the signal for the success of the repeal combina-
tion in the sister country.—(Hear, hear.) Not having change,
his opinions, and thinking in the way he had expressed himself.
he was bound to oppose the change proposed.—( Cheers. )
Lord JOHN RUSSELL, whose opening observations were
rather imperfectly heard in the gallery, said the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman who has just sat down charges the
Government with having changed their opinions on this
question. The only argument in the speech of the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman directed against the Right Hon. Baronet
(Sir Robert Peel) is the chance of opinion he has ex-
hibited. But let me ask the Hon. and Learned Gentle-
man what other course, supposing the Right Hon. Baronet
has changed his opinions, he and the Government could have
possibly pursued ? Take the case as it arises before us.—Sup-
pine we diminish the scarcity and disease of the potato crop in
Irelanl, still you must admit that great distress prevails. You
must also admit that relief for this distress is required by some
extraordinary measure. This forms one reason why the corn-
laws should be argued ; and an additional consideration why
the corn laws should be discussed is the proposition that large
sums should be raised from the land and from the taxes
of the country, in order to be applied to the relief
of the people of Ireland.—(Hear, hear.) These were sub-
stantial reasons why they should consider the propriety of
still maintaining the law that declared that food should not
be admitted from foreign countries to supply the wants of
the people.---( Hear, hear.) If the Right Hon. Baronet
thought the law ought to be maintained, then he should have
so declared himself ; but if that was not his opinion—if he felt
that those laws could not be maintaieed with advantage to the
empire, and that temporary grants and remedies were calculated
tomeet the difficulty—what course would you ask him to take,
but to declare that to be his opinion, and to act accordingly.—
( Hear, hear.) With such views and opinions, what course
could you expect of the Right Hon. Brronet, but that which
he has taken. No doubt this is not consistent with his former
course, but does the Hon. and Learned Gentleman say that no
reason has been given for the change, or that these reasons
had not induced the Right Hon. Baronet to take his present
course. I think we have had argument sufficient to show that
those laws which impose a high duty on the importation
of food are a great evil. It has been distinctly proved that their
maintenance is productive of distress and crime among the
population, and that in proportion to the dearness of food these
increase and extend.—(Hear, hear.) I know of but one ex-
ception to the course which the Right Hon. Baronet has taken
in favour of that which the Noble and Learned Gentleman (Mr.
Bankes) recommended. We have the precedent of Gil Bias.
—( A laugh.) I recollect that Gil Bias, when assistant of Dr.
Sangrado, says that he had been his assistant several months,
and that, though in all cases bleeding and the application of
hot water was applied to both old and young, and to every
manner of disease, yet there were no cures, but they
all ended in death.—(Hear, hear.) Dr. Sangrado says,
True, but you must still adhere to it, for I have writ-
ten a book to show that my system must do good.
The Hon. and Learned Gentleman who last addressed
the House speaks of evils, like to those that took place abroad,
that will fall 'upon us if we agree to this measure, and he
has likened the Right Hon. Baronet to Necker. For myself,
I do not see any point of resemblance between the abolition of
the corn-law and the French revolution. That revolution ori-
ginated from the oppression of the people, and the tyranr.y of
the Court and the aristocracy. These were the causes of the
French revolution, which I trust will not be said of the aristo-
cracy here. I value the security and safety of the aristocracy
of this country, but I feel that it depends for these, on their
observation of public opinion, and their not persisting to main
tain laws to which the country object. I wish to maintain
the landed aristocracy, but to do so, however, it is
not meet that they should from year to year maintain
laws, the effect of which is to raise the price of the produce
of their land, and to increase their incomes.—( Hear, hear.)
Anxious as I am to support a landed aristocracy, if they shall
continue to oppose the majority of this House and the wishes of
the country, I feel that their power will be much weakened. I
am satisfied that they can take no position so dangerous to
themselves as obstinately to maintain these laws. And when,
Sir, this law has expired—when the Bth of February, 1849 has
arrived—in what position will those landed proprietors be
placed who are now arguing against the injustice of disconti-
nuing this law? They will not have the disadvantage of
being deprived of the protection which is given by law to all
all other classes. They will have the same protection as that
given to manufacturers; and in that respect, therefore, they
are placed on the same terms ; and with regard to all other
matters, I do not know a position in respect to any country in
the world—l do not know any position more honourable, more
advantageous, and more pleasant to fulfil than that of the Eng-
lish aristocracy. They are in possession of property which is
increased, and which has been increased enormously from the
time when manufactures and commerce, towards the latter end
of the last century, took their start; and with their property has
increased their political power which, as compared with all
classes of the community, has enabled them to obtain places
in the House of Commons, and to possess almost. entirely all
places in the House of Lord—to possess, in addition,
all the advantages which this country gives. I do net know
that any class in the world can compare with the English
aristocracy ; and, with respect to their political power, I do not
know that any higher honour awaits them, than that they
should share that political power, with the members of other
classes of the community, who show that intelligence and ability
which ought to raise them to the position highest in the nation.
I say that the English aristocracy may be proud and delighted
to share with those whose ability and intelligence enable them
to fill those places. It appears to me, that the arguments ad-
vanced by Hon. Gentlemen opposite, in answer to the state-
ment of the Right Hon. Baronet, that foreigners will take
nothing in exchange for their manufactures but gold, is a most
extraordinary one. I think that the manufacturers of this
' country will give nothing for the gold required by us, but what
it is worth; and, therefore, any alarm felt with reference to
any scarcity of gold in this country, is preposterous. I think
you will find that, in those three years in which a great quantity
of gold was imported, that in the course of the two or three
succeeding years the price of corn has completely regulated
itself ; and so the manufactures that we take and give in ex-
change will regulate the markets under the new law which
we proposed. And now, Sir, I may say a few words with
respect to that division which is stated to have taken place
between the Hon. Member for Lynn and other lion. Members
on that side of the House. I do not think that the opinion!
which have given rise to this division have now been revived
for the first time this session. It does appear to me that
during this year the opinions divulged by the Right Hon.
Baronet, the First Lord of the Treasury, and the Right. Hon.
Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department, and other
Hon. Members acting with him, were altogether different
from the opinions of the Hon. and Learned Member who
had last spoken, and of those other Honourable Members
who had supported him. We have had, from the com-
mencement of these Ministerial measures, ample proofs
that great difference of opinion have existed.--( Hear, hear,)
The Right Honourable Baronet, the First Lord of the
Treasury said that in the last three years he had discovered that
free trade in certain articles had been productive of benefit,
and he intended to proceed further in the same course—
(Hear, hear)—but if he had been of the same opinion with
other of his friends who stilt voted forthe maintenance of free
trade, what I ask could have induced him to make any ex-
periment in free trade? Why, because his ideas were more
enlarged than those of other gentlemen who sit on that side of
the House, and therefore it was that the divisions arose in re-
spect to hie Canadian commercial policy, the corn-laws, and
the Maynoeth question. What can he conclude from this ?
That in the union to put an end to the late Government there
was no party united on views of public policy, and therefore I
think it was far better that the Right lion. Baronet should go
en in those views which he himself entertains of public policy,
and that those gentlemen should act on those opinions wh,eh
they entertain, and should vote accordingly. The Hon. and
Learned Member has spoke of the association which exists
under the Anti-Corn-law League, and of that other associa-
tion which exists across the Channel for the repeal
of the Union. i reg that lion. Gentlemen to consider—as he
dislikes the line which those associations take—as he dare not
approve of the course of policy which has been in agitation for
many years, and as he does think that improvement should
commence in Parliament instead of emanating from the
people—instead of coming from the public themselves—l beg
the Hon. and Learned Member, that he will consider
the experience of late years. For many years we contended for
the question of Parliamentary reform, and I remember saying
in this House, that if we did not yield to popular opinion
white it flowed like a river, we should afterwards find it rush
upon us like a torrent. I was afterwards laughed at for
thm
that
expression, but. when that popular demonstration reachedwould
House, then it was seen that the wiser measure
to
have been to have made concessionsod with regard
previous
that agitation. (Hear, hear.)
to this question of corn, and also with
whether ith regard to the
question of Ireland, I pray the Hour considerto
would not be wiser that those questions should be settled
before it will be dictated to by popular agitation. This
ought to be done. I feel that if we mean to give a great

example to all the nations of the worid—if we mean to teaeh
them the way to live, we, in the House of Commons, ought
deeply to consider which of our institutions, which of our laws,
are founded i truth, in reason, and in justice.—( Great
cheering.) You found fault with the Right Hon. Baronet
because he declared that the corn-laws were unjust. Why are
these laws not restrained? If they are not founded for the
benefit of the people the laws are unjust. If other laws are
stamped with injustice, do you wait until Ministers tell you
they ought to be done away with? Take example by what
has been done in the case of the Catholic question—by
what has been done on the question of reform of Parliament,
and by what will be dune with the present corn-laws. I in-
sist only on those laws which can be maintained. Stand only
by those institutions which are good, and give up those ques-
tions which are altogether unworthy of your support. In
this way I feel convinced that Government will show a
worthy example, and prove to all other nations that this
country contains a wise and intelligent people.—(Cheers.)
Sir. DISRAELI said that his Hon. Friend, the Member
for Dorsetshire, had vindicated his Noble Friend, the Mem-
ber for Lynn, from the imputation which had been cast upon
him by the first Minister. He was surprised indeed that the
motives which influenced the Noble Lord on that occasion
hould have been misinterpreted. He came forward to pro-
pose a remedy which he thought was necessary for
the state of Ireland. He admitted and appreciated the
exigency which existed, and he proposed a measure with which to
meet that exigency. That was the position of hie Noble
Friend. It was true that his Noble Friend offered more, but
that was obviously an argumentum al absurdum. He said,
" You suggest a remedy which pleases the passions of the
multitude—which may be misinterpreted, and which has been
misinterpreted in our multifarious debates." He said that he
would prove, if they had recourse to the proposed remedy, that
wfi
rt
iiwte
hnodua
i.dsh.eboaems iunrheeeffiine
which
e an
ct
c;hu aebndedi hefe,
dewde
ci steohi
vebiden
gtwo
ot ghr utehalrlevt
sl
so,Ne himself
of laow i
it
red a
uhnsi
dts
i
e
be admitted that his Noble Friend had a right to' seize upon a
point like that, which he (Mr. Disraeli) considered a most judi-
cious point, and which had had the
as he tendency to clear very much
stohepdraecbtaisteesdian
waspthaartliliamouenset,araynndraittor
thet Right
hardly worthy
ht Baronet
to take such an advantage of it asthaitg
which he had
shown. The Right Hon. Gentleman hadsiti
he
had been blamed for his precaution. Now he, (Mr. thataisr Disraeli)
could hardly believe that any gentleman in that House, wheel)
re
ever he might sit, could blame the Government for the
precautions they had taken. They had been blamed not for
the precautions they had taken, but for the policy they had
recommended. They had not been blamed for establishing
hospitals, they had not been blamed for importing maize.
They had not only not been blamed for such conduct, but they
had expressed their willingness to support any measure that
was necessary to meet an emergency. What they objected to
was, that on account of this emergency they should be ealled
upon to construct a new commercial policy—(Loud cheers.)
—that new commercial policy being absolutely opposed to every
principle which the Government had hitherto professed.
The time was but short between the last protection speech
made by the Right Hon. Baronet, at the termination of the last
session of Parliament, and the commencement of the present,
when he met them with a new profession of political and eco-
nomical faith. Out of respect to his late supporters, be might
have detached the emergency from his new system. The
Noble Lord who had just addressed the House had assumed that
the argument which bad been used was whether they were pre-
pared to oppose that which was for the interest of the multi-
tude. He (Mr. Disraeli) wasnot prepared to oppose any mea-
sure that was for the interest of the multitude. That was
he real question before them. He thought the point which
sad been taken by his Noble Friend was not only a legitimate
mint but one which was most necessary to take. He ( Mr. D. )
was not prepared for a debate,"but he could hardly offer that
is an excuse for not answering the speech of the Right Hon.
aaronet. It was not a speech that he had heard for the first
iine. He had heard it in other places, in different localities,
old he might be allowed to add from master hands. That
speech, he thought, had sounded in Stockport, and be
Nought it had been delivered in Durham. It had been given
n another House, which had always been the privileged -est
if the drams, and he supposed that the inferior company had at
,ength adopted the popular performance. When he had heard
hat speech he said to himself, in the language used in railway
committees, " This must be the member for Stockport's line."
- (Laughter.) With respect to the efficacy of this measnre,
he should be prepared to argue on a future occasion. If the
neasure of the (iovernment had not a tendency to occasion a
great displacement of labour—labour of that kind which was of
the most permanent character—if it was not calculated to
treate social suffering, then he would say that the measure was
► good measure, and one which he was not prepared to
ippose. That was the real question. That was the
question which, et the right moment, he should, with
he indulgence of the House, be prepared to meet ; and if he
lid not meet it, then he hoped it would not for a moment be
supposed that he admitted the justice of the series of assump-
tions which had been used by the Right Hon. Gentleman. The
Right Hon. Gentleman had alluded to the state of Ireland, and
the 533,000 farmers without capital, upon which he said, " See
what protection has done." Who was to say that but for pro-
tection these 530,000 farmers would never have existed ? They
might take any case of wretchedness—even the Wiltshire la-
bourers, with their 6s. or 7s. a week—and they might say,
" See what protection has done." Why, he had been in Lin-
colnshire, and he had found the labourers flourishing there,
and why could they not say. " See what protection has done
there." The Right Hon. Baronet said, " How can you jus-
tify your system of protection, even if it does benefit agricul-
ture? Can you justify it to the manufacturers?" He (Mr.
Disraeli) could justify it to the manufacturer. He protested
against the inference drawn from the assumption of the Right
Hon. Baronet. Unless it could be shown that the manufac-
turer were benefited equally with the agriculturist, he ad-
mitted that protection could not be maintained.—( Hear. )
Take the case of manufactures. He had taken some pains to
trace the origin of manufactures in most countries, and he
found that all the flourishing manufactures at present existing
in Europe, and in the United States of America, had sprung
from capital, arising from a system of protection—capital de-
rived from landed property, protected by the Legislature. It
was that capital which had fostered and formed the manufac-
tures; and the industry, the noble industry of the north of
England, which was so often the subject of discussion in that
House, was as much owing to the agricultural capital of
England as it was to the genius of its great mechanical inven-
tions, and its many local advantages. In the early state of
the cotton manufactures, about the commencement of this
century, it was the capital of Lombard-street that produced
the means for the development of those fabrics. Now,
what was that capital? Whence did it spring? Take the
case of a great house like Gurney's. The capital intrusted to
them fed the manufacturers of Lancaehireenore than probably
any other capital in England. And what was the means that
allowed them to discount a manufacturer's bill for half a mil-
lion sterling? He knew the instance to which he referred,
and he had no doubt it was familiar to many gentlemen around
him. Why, it was the capital of the farmers of the county of
Norfolk, of Lincoln, and other counties that allowed the Lom-
bard-street house to supply the capital which was the princi-
pal developement of the industry of Lancashire.—(Hear,
hear.) True, the industry of Manchester had outlived the ne-
cessity for support in this way, but do not let it be forgotten that
it was once supported by capital, derived from protective pro-
perty ; and that brought him to another point of the Right
Hon. Baronet's speech, who had inferentially said, " If manu-
facture require no protection, how can agriculture require it ?
—With what justice can agriculturists claim protection ?" As
an abstract principle he protested against it—it was not sonud,
nor was it argumentative. It was not for the state to inquire
what interests had protection, and what had not—they were
to inquire what interests required protection.--( Hear, hear. )
Peculiar burdens he never .thought was a sufficient argument
in favour of protection to agriculture But manufacturers had
peculiar advantages which agriculture had not. No gentleman
could deny this, for they were always getting up and telling
them that with their peculiar advantages of soil and situation
they required no protection. These advantages, it was said,
did not exist in any other country in the world. But the
farmer had not these advantages. He did not picture his soil
as the best in the world, or that there was any peculiar bles-kg
in it. There was no argument in the assertion of an abstract
opinion, that one interest ought net to be protected because
another did not require protection. It was not argument ;
it was nothing more than a mere sentiment
that suited very well the hustings, but did not be-
come the walls of the Senate. He was not asserting
that the farmers of England required protection, but if it Isere
necessary he would enter into a consideration of this question
without reserve, if an opp irtunity were given him of doing so.
'1 he case they had to deal with was not a case supported by
petty views and slender arguments. for he admitted, that un-
ens% they could make out a complete and overwhelming case,
they would not have a foot to stand on.—(Hear, hear.) They
had heard something about the aristocracy, but he for one de-
nied the existence of a territorial aristocracy. There was an
aristocracy of wealth, and he thought the measures and pro..
ceedings of Government had a tendency to increase its power
—a power in his mind not in general very beneficial to the
people. He protested against the rhetorical position taken up
by the Right Honourable Baronet at the head of
the Government, and the Noble Lord the
Member for the City of London. when they argued
the case as if the aristocracy of England were a privilegede
aristocracy. " Take warning," said they, from what betel
the aristocracy of France, and do not be too hardyle in
What
main-
taining these privileges." What were the.strdivit) privileges
ten:
was the aristocracy_? No aristocracy
often upheld the cause of
aristo-
cracy of wealth. He himself had o.
in musing such words, he was not to be
what was called the territorial computation of
understoodthecouanst
simply
maintaining maintaining the interests of barons and baronets, for certainly
he should never have risen to defend it had the territorial con-
stituion of the country been of so trivial a character. But
really this territorial constitution had obtained far this country
pdl i e
out
utto
fraolml c lhtahaasnesded so
often
eeaaennsrdtai
auk bye
ponpir
ae
cur
aipbri
oal on;
public liberty and the blessings of local government and of
limitation—itsel self-government. vern e n
wast lstpraepa
mtoeenvtertyo
classthe ocfontshteaboleomomf
uanityvi.llagHee,
himself the duty of arguing the necessity of a preponderance
in the agricultural interest ; and he remembered,
on one occ t -
sion, somebody got up and said nothing could be more im-
proper than holding nut the necessity for a preponderance of
one class of the community over another. He did not assume,
however, that the agricultural interest consisted merely of the
proprietors of land. The agricultural interest was that great
body of the people who were connected with the cultiva-
tion of the earth ; and if they materially changed the
balance between the population depending upon the two great
industries of the country, they shook the territorial constitution,
they destroyed the security of local Government, they subverted
the guarantee of public liberty, they changed in fact the cha-
racter of England, and brought about an extensive social revo-
lution. There was nothing excessively restrictive in the
principle of this territorial constitution, or he was sure it would
not have been tolerated for a single moment in England. He
had taken the trouble to examine into the history of all the
families that had sprung up since the time of Horace Walpole,
and who had formed great seats of industry both in
Lancashire and in Yorkshire. With the exception of one
instance there was not an individual who had accumulated great
wealth who had not deposited that accumulated capital in the soil
of England, and become the founder of a powerful and dis-
tinguished family.—(Hear, hear.) Well, then, these privi-
leges, which attach to the territorial constitution, were open
to all; and the fact that every family invested itself in the
soil, proved that there was nothing in our laws alien to such
an investment. There was no difficulty in buying land ie
the country, for, during the last twen y years, in the county
with which he was connected, more than one-third of the
sol had changed hand+, and, in some instances, the purchasers
were subscribers to the Anti-Corn-law League.—t Hear and
laughter.) Then away with then:, false views about a terri-
torial aristocracy. They were not a body distinguished
from other classes ; it was nothing more than an hereditary
right taking that position which property and intelligence de-
served. He woulel not.trespass further upon the time of the
le
House, and he should reserve himself for the more favozsrabion
opportunity of the third reading to discuss the larger q
s might
ibe
involved in the incidental debate. His argument
it
e . He
stron
weak, but he would not shrink from meeting the
should here have resumed his seat, were
observation of the Right Hon. Baronet, which
Baronet had made
allow to pass unnoticed. The Right qhnneo wt o for
rd
onenot
Hn
use of a political argument which hadh long been prostituted,
and kicked about from one side of te House to the other,
namely, that ofmeeting
hostile tariffs with free-trade. He could
n o
t on
with such
respect a
o subject
the first tu
en Lei n speak t he
in
adebn
Crown, n ilut. et
H mari-
neren
Gentlemen oposite thought that the point was quite certain.
It was one of the most abstruse, one of the most complicated,
t venture
t e tof
and one of the most difficult political questions that could be
argued.—( Hear, hear.) He had ventured once in a popular