The Sun.
London, England, 1846-01-30 00:00:00

intirtilii A !7')111t4

LONDON, FRIDAY, JANUARY 30, 1846.

The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat upon the
Woolsack at 14kiTC

The Toll-bars (Scotland) Bill was read a second time.

The Duke of RICHMOND, in presenting several peti-
tions in favour of protection to domestic industry,
stated, that he and they entirely dissented from
the Ministerial proposition with regard to com-
mercial policy, and that he considered the scheme
as unjust and uncalled for, and that he denied the
truth of the assertions on which the plan was based.
It was perfectly ridiculous to talk of this as a compro-

mise. It was no compromise at all ; and, besides, he
was averse to all compromise. They ought to have
stated what would be the price of corn under the system
before they talked of compromise. The farmers felt
they had been illtreated, and it would be dangerous to
pass the measure in opposition to their wishes. He
hoped their Lordships would throw out the Bill, and
force the Minister to appeal to the country. He
had no fear of the results, notwithstanding the
bribery of the Anti-Corn-law League ; but he,
Lord KINNAIRD, as a Member of the Anti-
Corn-law League, denied that they had bribed.
He would not hold himself responsible for all
the language that had been held by them, and be
thought the Noble Duke would scarcely hold himself
responsible for all the language made use of at Pro-
tection Societies.

The Duke of RICHMOND would hold himself re-
sponsible for the language used at Protection Societies.
Lord KINNAIRD congratulated the Noble Duke. He
therefore held himself responsible for the gentleman
who had compared a Member of the other House to
Satan, and for the burning of the Times newspaper at
a protection meeting. The League had not bribed—
they had merely enabled persons to obtain the franchise
according to law. The Noble Duke, in advocating an im-
mediate appeal to the people on every great question,
was merely advocating Chartist doctrines, and if he
were to succeed, he would merely give rise to an agitation
for a further reform in Parliament.

After a few words from the Duke of BucxmoHem,

Lord BROUGHA3I wished to ask, with regard to Ore-
gon, if it were true that on a globe published under au-
thority, the American boundary had been drawn as laid
down by the American Government? ','4K--tei
The Earl of ABERDEEN thought his Noble Friend al-
luded to some prior transaction. He had no objection to
lay before the House the instructions under which the
party had acted.

Earl GREY said t'.-at with regard to the proposals
for the reform of our commercial policy, if they were
to be opposed, he thought it would be better to meet
- them by a resolution in favour of protection. He ap-
proved of the principle of the measure, but should have
preferred a repeal of the corn-laws at once. The three
years' duty was producing a state of indecision.
and was a mere mockery, continuing the uncertainty and
agitation which was the great evil of the present state
of things. The real security of the landed interest
consisted in granting leases ; and anything that pre-
vented this rendered that interest insecure. So low
was the stock of corn in foreign countries, that any al-
teration now would be attended with little effect ; but
these three years delay would dam up the current of
exportation from abroad for three years, and at
the end of that time would let in a flood of
foreign corn, to the detriment of all parties.
He trusted that their Lordships would prevent this part
of the measure from passing. With regard to the mea-
sures of compensation, although some of theta were just
in themselves, to talk of them as compensation was delu-
sive. The only real compensation would be to esta-
blish the principle of free trade completely in every-
thing as well as corn. If they were to sell cheap corn,
they ought to buy cheap coffee, cheap timber, and cheap
everything else, If the home producer would support
cheap competition why could not the colonial producer,
He trusted that if the experiment were tried as regarded
landowners it would be carried out as regarded others, to
the great benefit equally of the Treasury and the con-
sumer. He was sorry too to see that the fallacy which
he had thought utterly exploded of making a distinction.
between free and slave labour sugar, that most absurd of
all fallacies, was still to he maintained. He had always
felt deeply attached to the principles of free trade, and
from the moment of his entrance into public life he
had denounced the principles of protection as, from first
to last, a mistake ; that the principles of free trade w, jre
principles of common sense, and the sooner they w are
adopted into our Legislature the better.
Lord ASHBURTON feared that neither the Government
nor the House would ever be able to carry out the prcoa•
ciples of free trade, as advocated by the Noble Earl, ita
country placed in such a complicated position as this
country was placed in, owing to the great burdens whi ch
were borne by this country. It was impossible that the
British farmer could meet the foreigner upon equal tern is;
and all the authorities upon this subject, such as Hr.
HUSHISSON, Mr. RICARDO, and others, admitted that the
British farmer was entitled to compensation on accot tnt
of his peculiar burdens. As long as they bad the debt
in the state in which it was, and as long n
foreign countries continued in their present state, it veal,
perfectly Utopian to hope to establish a system
of free trade. The Noble Lord then complained
of the conduct of the League in opening a shop
in every town in the kingdom, for the pus.-
pose of providing what he termed fictitious votes.
He thought it the duty of the Government to provi (if
some remedy for this evil.
Lord MONTEAGLE denied that the revenue duties we re,
obstacles to the freedom of trade. His Noble Friend
had, in the most strange manner, confounded revenue
duties—which were no obstacles to freedom of trade--
with protective duties, which were obstacles to the frc e-
dom of trale. For instance, neither the tea nor tobaceo
duties were obstacles to the freedom of trade. Few men
had been consistent on the principle of free trade ; but
with one exception, all public men bad advanced towards;
free trade. When the burdens of the country were
greater than they were now, the petition of the met`.
chants of London had, in 1815, laid down the broaal.
principle of free trade, and had been supported
by the highest authority in both Houses or
Parliament. If our burdens were great, that was a,
reason for leaving industry unfettered. With regard to,
the clelayof three years in the repeal of the corn-laws he,
considered it would be prejudicial to those for whose ad-
vantage it was intended, bat he accepted the measure as
a whole as the greatest step that had yet been made itt
regard to free trade.

Lord ASHBURTON explained.
The Duke of RICHMOND complained that the farmer
was obliged to employ more men than he wanted. If
he was to be forced to sell cheap bread, he should bo
secured cheap labour. If they had cheap bread, why should;
they not have cheap beer? It would be better to repeal
the malt tax than the brandy duties. He was for pro—
tection to all classes, and he hoped the farmers would
not enter into a compact with the League. He thought
that if they were to have free trade, it would bebetter to
have it at once. Protection had ever existed in this
country, and all the farmers wanted was fair play.
The Earl of DALHOUsrichthehe proposednrosetos shouldubmitt b
to their
Lordships the plan which
yadeao
rpetedthile'seith
Br....einigardhadto rbacellnwayfewßiilnls.
numlnberfo,rmbuert