The Sun.
London, England, 1846-02-18 00:00:00

just sat down, was scarcely intelligible, at least to him.---(Hear,
hear.) Ile (the Noble Lord) had written a letter to his con-
stituents, and from that letter he (Captain Layard) was led to
believe that the Noble Lord would have supported the measure.
The Noble Lord, the Member for Liverpool, had also made a
speech the other night in favour of the position of Hon. Gen-
tlemen opposite, and yet he had said that he would vote in
support of the present measure. He was sorry not to
sea the Hon. Member for Oxford (Sir H. H. Inglis) in
his place, who claimed the speech of the Noble Lord as his
own, and he (Captain Layard) thought he had every right
to it.—(Cheers.) Now, he must say, that the conduct of the
Noble Lord reminded him of a circumstance which had oc-
curred some years ago, at Nottingham. There was a man
there who had a vote, and a certain Hon. and Gallant Member
if he were present could confirm the statement which he was
about to make. That man, for the vote he had given at an
election there, was promoted to a choristership at Canterbury,
hut when he came to sing he could not sing at all.—( Hear,
hear, and laughter.) So it might be said of certain Hon.
Members on the other side of the House :

A sirging man, he could not sing,
No need to thank his patron's bcunty ;
Excuse me, sir, I cannot sing,
My voice is in another county.
—(Laughter. ) He was delighted to find that the Right Hon.
Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies, in spite of the
caustic speech which had been delivered by, the Hon. Member
for Shrewsbury, was determined to vote in support of free-
trade.—( Hear, hear.) And what was the charge—the
grievous charge—that that Hon. Member had also brought
against the Right Hon. Baronet now at the head of her
Majesty's Government ? Why it was this—that he sacrificed
party feelings for the good, for the glory, and for the happiness
of his country. —( Great cheering from the Opposition.) An
Hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House had also said
that rotten potatoes formed a rotten argument.—( Hear,
hear, and laughter.) But what would that Honourable
Member say, in answer to the distressing statements
which had been laid before the House that night
by the Hos. and Learned Member for Cork (Mr. O'Connell).
He had nut intended to refer to this subject in consequence of
tho,c statements. He would beg the House to consder those
statements most attentively, for they depicted suffering of the
bmost awful and
rotten
potatoes"grievous description,
alluded
to
o w
by ht
hi ceh waslio bn A eo
„nu gbhetr a
ibno u
sot
unmerciful and inconsiderate a manner. He held in his hand a
pamphlet which went to show that agriculture was benefited
by protection, and that it was a just measure. Now, he thought
With the celebrated expression of Mr. Cobden, that the system
of protection was one of mutual plunder between the farmers
and their landlords—( Hear, hear)—and he had not heard
one argument from Honourable Gentlemen opposite showing
that such was not the case.—(Opposition cheers. ) He could
understand the reason why so little mousy was spent in agri-
culture—it was because of the uncertainty that at present
prevailed with regard to the corn-laws. Hon. Gentlemen on
the opposite side of the House had said that they preferred im-
mediate repeal to the present proposal of her Majesty's
Government. Well, then, the Flight Hon. Bart. at the head
of the Government had last night expressed his perfect wil-
lingness to accede to their wishes.—( Cheers and laughter.)
They had now, therefore, an opportunity of obtaining their
desires.—( Hear, hear.) They would certainly have a num-
ber of supporters on their own side of the House, and certainly
a very great number on his (Captain Layard's) own
side of the (louse.—(Great cheering and laughter.)
He ever had confidence in his political leaders, and he had
every reason to continue his support to their measures. They
had never betrayed hins.—( Hear, hear.) He believed that
these leaders had ever acted rightly. He could safely say that
he had always the gteatest reliance upon the Noble Lord
the Member for the City of London, and particularly
when he made that startling expression some time
ago, that " protection was the bane of agriculture."
He (Captain Layard) wished to ask Hon. Gentlemen opposite
how they could justly charge that Noble Lord with a sudden
change of his opinions upon the free- trade question, when he
had uttered such a sentiment as the above years ago?—
(Cheers.) For the reasons then that he (Captain Layard)
had stated, he should be happy to give the Right
Honourable Baronet at the head of the Govern-
ment his humble support. He believed that the present
measure was for the benefit of the country ; he believed that
that Right Hun. Gentleman had made the greatest sacrifice
that any man could make for the good of his country.—
( Cheers.) He must say that be both honoured and admired
him for the sacrifice which he had made -(Cheers)—and he
never in his life had given his vote with so much happiness and
so much contentment as he should upon this occasion.—
( Hear, hear.) Believing that it was for the good of the coun-
try— bel eving that every country would follow the bright
example which the Right Hon. Baronet had set them—( Hear,
hear)--believing, as he did, that it would strengthen and bind
in a link of unity and peace, which we must all desire and hope
for, the nations of the earth, he would give the proposal his
most hearty support.—(Cheers. )
Mr. G. PALNIER said, he did not hope by anything he
might utter to add any new argument in the discussion of this
question ; but he felt himself bound to express his opinions in
discharge of the duty which he owed to the individuals whom
he represented in that House. Those individuals were
most anxious to knew the result of the delibera-
tions of the House on this question, believing, as
they did, that on the result of those deliberations
depended their future prosperity or distress.—( Hear, hear.)
It was scarcely necessary to inform that House of the state of
excitement in the country on this question. They had seen
that numerous meetings had been held in different parts of the
cnuntry—almost in every county—to denounce the free-trade
measures of the Government, and they were almost all unani-
mous in their cone.emnatmn of the present measure.—( Cheers
from the protectionists.) For the purpose of showing the
quickness of the Right Hon. Baronet's change in favour of free-
trade, he would beg the indulgence of the House
whilst he quoted Hansard for a few moments.—( Hear.)
In the year 1844, the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of her
Majesty's Government, in opposing 'he motion of the Hon.
al ember for Wolverhampton (Mr. Villiers), avowed himself an
advocate for protection, on the ground of the peculiar burden
on land, and that that was a subject which he could not deal
with upon abstract principles, without regard to all the other
interests of the class. Upon these grounds he therefore gave
his unqualified opposition to the motion. It was by thus acting,
that he (Sir 11. Peel) led many persons to imagine that he did
not contemplate a change in a law which was settled only two
years Lefore. He (Mr. Palmer) had attended many meetings
in the country, and the general feeling was one of alarm at the
consequences likely to ensue from the adoption of this measure.
The question which was asked throughout the country
was, what grounds are there for the change proposed by
her Majesty's esovernment ? He had li-tened to a large por-
tion of the d• bate, but he had not heard any substantial
reason brought forward by the Government to account for
this change, excepting that melancholy statement of the
failure of the potato crop in Ireland. He could not hear the
statement matte by the Right Hon. Baronet last evening
without feeling gnat alarm and anxiety. He did not think,
however, that the measures proposed were calculated to
remedy this grievous evil. The necessity of opening the ports
had been urged, but he did not think even that measure
would have alleviated the distress, unless the persons who
were suffering under the calamity had the means of obtaining
the corn thus introduced. Hut he would not have
objected to any Bill of Indemnity which it might
have been necessary to have passed in this House. on account
of the suspension by Order in Council of the existing corn-
laws.—( Hear, hear.) He was not sufficiently versed in Par-
liamentary matters to know, however, that it was a necessary
consequence that the corn-laws should be totally repealed in
consequence of a temporary suspension of the measure. He
remembered that the late Mr. Canning suspended that law,
and orders were given in Council for the admission of 5,000
quarters of wheat. A Bill of Indemnity was given to him,
but he (Mr. Canning) never thought of coming down
to the House and saying that he considered it
necessary to repeal the corn-law in consequence of that
temporary suspension. ( Hear, hear.) The principle of
protection seems now to be abandoned by the Government,
but they have given us no good reason for changing their
minds on the subject. He was however prepared still to
adhere to that principle. It was no new system; it had been
the policy of England for upwards of a century. He had read
in " The Lives of the Lord Chancellors" (a work written by
Lord Campbell) of Lord Chancellor Morton, who ',red in the
reign of Henry VII., who co, sidered that in a time of scarcity
corn should not be allowed to be sent out of the country. This
he believed was the earliest case on record. It is
under this system of protection the country has
arisen to its present proud position. Mr. Huskisson
said that the produce of the country should be protected—he
cared not how cheap corn was—and he said that in order to
ensure a continuance of the supply of cheap corn, vie must
ensure to the corn producer an adequate amount of protec-
tion. He (Mr. Palmer) did not agree in the demand which
had been made upon the Government for a compensation ; he
did not look at the question in that light. The principle of
protection is in it=elf either light or wrong.—( Hear, hear.)
If it is right, let us maintain it ; if wrong, the continuance
of the principle is wrong, usjwt, and unfair, and we have no
admitl-is ht t:t
coo. grantbtco,itnh je.
sl compensationtanld,ehda That
interest
oulfdo rb
eft
,h,grei
vt removalihnegaau
porlit
nomfinut
omhfr.
tttohwionhs
injustice.
tic
slhat
:yes!
The Rightd
o. Hy osanyo,u
trha
tl ewßhaernoenvectr statesh he
ha dt that he hasopportunity
affordedofeoa
nd
suiting the farmersnidde
ronethdat htiet
ws uawbsajseael
sta,o thmhaiestannsouoeprtaierno,inohene.aorf.t)AhseTmlretosnwasliil-
dileeregdouthl at he had got an equivalent.—(
btheefoirre,opinion,not
onas
called on to concur in. The Right Hon. Baronet, in te
course of his speech on a former occasion, stated that the alter-
ation he had then made had been productive of no injury, but
rather was a benefit to all parties. He instanced a great rise
in the price of cattle, meat, and other commodities. Now he
thought there were many other reasons why the rise in the
price of cattle had occurred, besides its being caused by a re-
duction on import duties. He thought the Right Hon. Baro-
net could not take particular credit to himself for raising those
prices. Even admitting that those benefits had occurred in
consequence of the measure that he had introduced, he
(Mr. Palmer) thought it was a good argument for
not meddling any more.—(Cheers.) He believed that the
constant meddling with those laws had occasioned more dis-
tress amongst the agricultural community than any ether pro-
ceeding whatsoever. It was not until about the present time
that the farmers, in consequence of the alterations made in
those laws in the year 1842, were recovering from the losses
which the agitation of that measure caused. The labourers were
much better employed, general prosperity was experienced by
all parties in the country, just at the period when the Right
lion. Baronet brought forward his proposition, which turned
the scale in a contrary direction.--a Loud cheers.) He.
could, from his own personal experience, state that there
was a great stagnation in the markets of his own country. No
miller would buy any large quantity of wheat at present, but,
to use a common expression, was purchasing from hand to
mouths. The price may be as high now (he did not mean to
say it was not), but there was no business doing in the market
since that measure was announced. He knew per-
fectly well that it made a difference of 75., or
Bs., or 10s. to the mechanic, there being no trade
carrying on. Therefore he said it was a most unfortunate time
to bring forward such a measure. He (Mr. Palmer) should
like to ask anybody who took a fair view of the farmers' condi-
tion whether there was not greater improvement, more capital,
and more skill, now used by them, than there was twenty years
ago—whether the general cultivation of their land was not much
better than it was then—and, taking a full view ,j of
the question, he could not believe that protection was
a bane to agriculture. He (Mr. Palmer) considered that they
ought to make themselves as independent of foreign supply as
possible. These were arguments which were supported with
great ability at one time in that House by some who had since
thought fit to change their minds. He would venture to read
.a short passage to the House from the speech of
the Right Honourable Baronet the Secretary for
the Home Department, on the subject of depending on
foreign nations for the supply of corn. The Right Hon. Ba-
ronet said, " It appeared to him that the state, and power, and
majesty of great Britain would be humbled by their depending
on foreign countries, and was like placing this country in a
state of siege. When the supply was withdrawn, and there
were many countries which would be glad to place us in
that position, what then should we do ?" That
was the opinion of the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir J.
Graham) in the year 1839, on the question of our rendering
' this country dependent on foreign nations for our supplies.'
The Right Hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Go-
vernment says, a deficient harvest may involve them
in difficulties. If further calamities should arise then
they may lose their independence, fur restrictive
duties were no security against a famine. The House
would consider that those were good authorities who
had spoken such language, A great deal had been said on the