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

of Wales was not justly carried on, because the then Parlia-
ment did not asspesl to the sense of their constituents. Indeed
the very law of succession to the English throne was not
rightly made if this principle was a true one." Then, if that
were said of Ireland, what shall we say cf the present proposal,
which is to affect the whole of the United Kingdom ? Whet
shall we say of that law which was made for the admission of
Roman Ca,holics to seats in this House? We made no ap-
peal to the country. Whatever may have been thought of the
propriety 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. I am sure that no one will
soberly contend that that principle is constitutional. If it
were allowed to be a good one, then as Mr. Pitt bad very pro-
perly said, the right of succession to the English throne was
very questionable. Sir, I contend that there could not have
been " 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
ground of its incompetency to decide upon any question of 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
on this measure. Now, Sir, I am not aware of any other matter
relating to this question, in which I am personally concerned,
and of which I dare not have given a full explanation. If
there is any point in my conduct which 1 have omitted to ex-
plain, I shall be quite ready to afford any explanation which may
be desired, and answer any question that may be put to me.
Well now, Sir, I come to the question itself. Is it for the
public interests that under the present circumstances of the
country, and in the present state of public feeling and opinion
—is it advisable, I say, that we should at the present time
either refuse to modify the existing laws in order to meet the
distresses of the people of Ireland, or that, having modified
it, we should still have a continuance of the present corn-law,
or whether it would not be better to adjust permanently and
satisfactorily the whole question ?—( Hear, hear.) The Hon.
Member who spoke last says you might have dealt with maize ;
that was an article of food tit for the Irish people; you need
only to admit that and do nothing else. Now, Sir, I con-
sider that if Honourable Members wished to undermine
the 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-
vation, that maize is food good enough for them—to tell them

that the law should be altered so as to admit maize, but wheat
and barley shall not be admitted. Sir, by such conduct, you
would rouse a storm of indignation against the laws you
atempt to maintain. But do we, however, mean to do nothing
with reference to maize? There is at present a duty of eight
shillings upon that article. You say that Government ought to
buy maize and remit the duty on it, so that by supplying it to
the people of Ireland, the Government would lose nothing.
Now, Sir, our doctrine is that the Government cannot support,
the people of Ireland. We are powerless—we can
do nothing without earnest, instant, local exertion, on the
part of the wealthy classes of that country. We say, that the
duties of charity, though not legally enforced, are imperative
upon those classes. The duty of the landlords of Ireland, and
of all classes possessing property in that country, is to miti-
gate by all means in their power the evil, and the calamity,
which has befallen their country.—(Cheers.) It is not suffi-
cient for us, that we should pay the duty upon maize, and
then reimburse the Treasury the amount of duty so paid. But
what are we to say to those whom we are inciting to acts of
charity ? Are we to say to them—the potato crop is failing—
a general distress is felt throughout this country
in consequence, and the food must be supplied,
but you shall pay a duty of es upon all maize which you shall
distribute among the suffering poor. You shall pay also a duty
of 18s. upon wheat, and there shall be no relaxation whatever
of the law ?—( Hear, hear.) Do you not think it would be
impossible in a state of distress, even to the extent which you
cannot deny to exist—would it be possible to vote half a
million of money from the English treasury towards the
support of the people of Ireland, and to incite the Irish pro-
prietors to acts of charity, or to the purchase of food
to relieve the necessities of the people? Do you
think in the face of Belgium, Prussia, and Holland—
who admit the necessity of adopting every natural
precaution to remove impediments on the importation
of food—to propose a vote of half a million, and to buy
corn for the people of Ireland at es. ,duty, and make no relaxa-
tion whatever? It would have been impossible The Hon.
Member, the Recorder of Dublin (Mr. Shaw) said he could
not deny there was great scarcity in Ireland. I should doubt his
word if he said otherwise. He could not deny there was great
scarcity, and great, danger of the disease, but these were com-
mon things in Ireland—this is the general state of Ireland.
These are the Hon. Member's own words upon the subject.:—
'
A large portion of the Irish people are always nearly
on the verge of . destitution—there has been no year
in my recollection when the said statements, with
reference to disease, might not have been made
with equal truth." Well, be it so. The admission of the
Hon. Member goes some distance to mitigate the present
emergency; but it has been said the present is a labourer's
question. Well, then, is the maintenance of protection a
benefit to the Irish agriculturist? And does protection come
to this ? In that part of the United Kingdom it has always
been contended that protection was absolutely necessary to the
interests of those persons who depend upon agriculture. Has
protection, then, brought you to this—that the agricultural
labourers, who form so large a portion of the Irish people,
are always living on the
_verge of destitution?—(Cries of
" Oh, oh," and cheers.) Is it true, also, that there
has been no year in the recollection of the
Honourable Member when some statements with
reference to disease might not have been made ?" Be it se
then. This is the permanent annual state of Ireland under
the operation of your restrictive laws. is not that then a
strong argument in favour of the abolition of the existing corn-
laws? • _ _ _ _ _

AN from. MEMBER—Why did you not repeal them before?
Sir ROBERT PEEL—The Hon. Member asks why I did
not do it before ; I answer that, although we have not done it
before, that is no reason for not doing it now. You are so
pressed by the force of these arguments that you are reduced to
the necessity of asking us why I did not do it before ?
( Cheers. ) Sir, we have been neglecting our duty in not doing
it before ; but that neglect of duty, Sir, is no reason why
we should continue to neglect our duty now.=(Cheers. )
If we have a great failure of the potatoes in Ireland, which con-
stitute the food of a large portion of the population there, and
the danger threatening of having a population of many millions
who are dependent for their supply of food upon such an article
as potatoes, subject to such a dimunition of quantity and dete-
rioration of quality as in the course of Providence we have been
visited with in the present year; and hearing, as we have, from
the Hon. Member, the general and permanent state of the
country, is it not, I say, a cogent and unanswerable reason for
making some permanent change in the system ? To do
nothing in such a case would be impossible. To modify
the existing law, and to propose such a change
in the system of the country, as professed by the Hon. Mem-
ber for Southamption, would be merely to excite and en-
courage agitation, lead to no beneficial result, and
would be rejected by the agricultural population—would, in
fact, would be laughed at and scouted by them. It would
effect no good. There is, therefore, no alternative, except
trying to lay the foundation of an ultimate and satisfactory
adjustment of the question. My firm conviction is—charge
me if you please with treachery—that the safest and the best
mode of settling the question is that proposed by her Ma-
jesty's Government.—(Loud cheers.) The Noble Lord the
Member for Newark asked me repeatedly if I proposed to ruin
the: agricultural interest? Sir, I attach the utmost importance
to the prosperity of that class.—( Cheers and counter cheers).
Why, Sir, do I not know why I have not as much right to feel as
great an interest in the prosperity of that class as those Hon.
Members have who have sneered at and received with scorn
my opinions upon the subject.—( Loud cheers.) I attach the
utmost importance to it. I think, Sir, for great political
reasons, that it is of the utmost importance that the agriculturists
should possess a great weight in the government of the country.
I think, with Burke, that land is the safest basis of political
power in any country. He says that all writers—
Aristotle speaking of Coe Grecian states, and Cicero
speaking of the Romans—that all writers upon politics
have attached the utmost importance to the landed
interest. They always considered that it was the
safest basis of a sound protective Government. I remain, Sir,
in that opinion, and deeply should I deplore the day when the
landed interest was excluded from its full share in the coun-
sels of my Sovereign. —(Loud cheers.) Burke said that it was
fortunate for this country that the landed interest was so pre-
dominant as to direct the Government of the country, and the
reason of that was, he said, that the landed aristocracy and
proprietors have never been a class disassociated from the ge-
neral interest.—(Protectionist cheers.) They had never been
opposed to public opinion—they have tdways preserved and
shown an unity of interest. Now,Sir, this is just the question.
By what means shall we secure a continuance of ahis just and
beneficial power to the landed interest ? Will it
be by maintaining your privileges upon grounds of
restrictiveness and exclusion of food to the people of this
country ?—(" No, no,".from the protectionists.) Well, then,
if that offends the Hotl. Members, I will not use the term ex-
clusion of food. I will say by the imposition of taxes upon the
importation of food. Will it. I ask, more conduce to the per-
manent quiet and legitimate interests of the country that the
present corn-laws should be repealed, or that they should re-
main in tact. My opinion is, and I repeat it—accuse me of
treachery if you please—that you will satisfy and maintain the
influence of the landed interest, by now making these arrange-
ments rather than, in the present state of feeling and opinion,
pertinaciously contending for the continuance of the existing
laws—that is my opinion. Take, for instance, the taxes on
I butter and bacon— which have not existed for more than
twenty years, is it safe, I say, to rest the privileges
of the aristocracy and landed proprietors upon such a foundation?
Let us consider the bearing of the corn-law on the land, which
maintained, as it ought to maintain, a just and legitimate influ-
ence in the country. We have to deal with a population which,
according to the census of 1841, consists of about 19 millions
of people—l am excluding Ireland. But you have in this
country a population of 19 millions, and how are they divided?
You have of the agricultural interest 1,590,000—0 f landed pro-
prietors, of farmers and occupiers, above 20 years, 1,500,000;
and you have of labourers employed in other occupations,
1,761,000, including miners and quarriers. You have
engaged in commerce above 3,110,000, and you
have 200,000 belonging to professions, and you have
511,000 persons of independent property, not including
200,000 paupers and lunatics ; the rest' of the population are
women and children. What an immense proportion of that
population consists of persons who earn their subsistence by
manual labour— what an immense proportion of persons of all
those must subsist on wages below 30 shillings ! Just consider
how taxation, apart from food, bears upon that class of the
people. You raise about 32,000,000/. by taxes, by customs and
excise. Now take the articles which cuter into the consump-
tion of a family having leas than 30 shillings a week. I have a
return here of the artieles, which are used by families in that
class of life—independent of bread, butter, cheese, a little'
meat, potatoes, lard, candles, soap, and a small portion of tobacco.
Now there is not one of them, which is not taxed. It is from
no want of sympathy that you tax them. In my opinion it is
necessary that you should raise a great part of your revenue by
indirect taxation, but all indirect taxation is unequal. You
have established a great claim on the confidence and gratitude
of the country, that you did take upon property an annual
burden of 5,000,0001., not alone that it might supply a de-
ficiency, but that you might relieve the labouring classes of
those -burdens which press upon them. I have before me a
return of the expenditure of a labouring man in the receipt
of ten shillings a week in summer, and eight in winter,
with a wife and one child. I leave out bread—
the following articles entered into his weekly con-
sumption :—four gallons of beer, bacon, beef, butter,
some sugar, some tea, some soap, some candles. All
of these articles, with the exception of candles, are taxed in-
directly. We have reduced the duty on salt beef, and the duty
on butter and cheese. Now can you repent for having made
that reduction?—( Hear, hear.) The man died and left a
widow and one child ; she earned 4s. 6d. a week, the guardians
allowing Is. 6d. a week to her for a pension. What was hcr outlay ?
Rent, Is. 6d. ; candles and soap, 40. ; butter, lid. ; tea,
lid. In that case the soap was taxed, the butter was taxed,
was Bs.
the tea was taxed, and the sugar was taxed.—( Hear, hear.) I
will now take the wages of a Yorkshireman, living more com-
e food of the poor
com-
fortably. These were not fictitious cases. This man earned
fifteen or sixteen shillings a week, and
.he spant fourteen.
His expenditure was as follows:—There is beef, 2s. ; sugar,
soaP, 3d. ; tea
you pas+ the law the
o 7
andudt, ;o of
coffee,rl ecta. Ns3.
odt. candles,
great proportion
oatmeal,.2p dr7ol
do br. ut toHtne
His expenditure ,
of Btdh.
consisted in fl mr, something in sugar, something in meat; but
a reduction on the
more
Governmenttha than half
propose,in flour.wi 1 l
itWell,no.t suppose
produce
most important articles—and will you not most materially add
to the comfort and enjoyment of the poor ? Let me assure you
that this is by far the most important part of the measare....