The Sun.
London, England, 1846-02-17 00:00:00

thine• to suspend the existing law. Admitting
that the law was suspended, be asked what did they propose
to do with it? His conviction was that it would be imps-
siblc, alter suffering a free trade in corn for eight months, to
revive the existing law, and he could not have advised it.
No power could have revived the present law, which it had
once suspended. It might be asked could they not have
proposed a modified corn-law? Public feeling would have
been against it, so in matters of food public opinion could not
be disregarded. Must not the law have been altered with
regard to maize? Could they enact a new corn-law,
admitting maize for the feeding of cattle and
pigs, and keeping out the food for human. beings.
Would not the fear of the suspension of the law form a new
element of consideration, and give a tenfold stimulus to agi-
taticn. When they talked of submitting to the corn-law,
let them look to the changes which had taken place in public
opinion, let them look to Lord ASHLEY, Mr. STURT, Mr.
WIDLON PATTEN, Lord HAMILTON, and Mr. CIIANTREA,
the young, promising, and clever Member Gloucestershire.
Did these gentlemen vacate their seats for any corrupt mo-
tive ? And even those who, during the present debate, had
opposed the great measure, were not prepared to revise the
existing corn-law. The Right Hon. Member for Hunting-
don (Mr. T. BARING) said the time was arrived for a com-
promise, that is, for a new corn-law. What security for per-
manency would there be in that. The Member for Rox-
burgh (Mr. Scorr) who likened the Minister
of the Crown to a learned advocate, and who
was not perhaps aware that a Minister took :au
oath to freely and unreservedly deliver his opinion, which
constituted a material difference between him and au ad-
vocate. Even that Hon. Gentleman admitted that there
had been such improvements introduced into agriculture that
the time had come when the present corn-law must be
altered ; and when asked for whom he was counsel, he
answered, like Anacharis Clooty, that he was Attorney-
General of the human race. The Member for Newcastle-
under-Lyne (Mr. CoNtruome) had withdrawn his con-
licence in him because he had not laid down a great prin-
ciple. If that were so the Hon. Gentleman ought to be
obliged to him, for he ( Mr.Coot.QuitouN) an advocate for fixed
duty, had been a strong supporter of the sliding scale; and
if the Hon. Gentleman had shared in his misfortune, and read
the pamphlets of JOHN COLQUIIOUN, Esq., of Kellermont,
he would have judged that the writer of those was an advo-
cate for repeal—at all events, lie was not an advocate for
maintaining the present corn-law. Neither was the Noble
Lord (John Warmers) the Member for Newark. That
Noble Lord was in favour of repeal, but the present Minister
ought not to propose it. Now, he submitted that the real
question was—is repeal of the law right or wrong? If right,
vote for it; if wrong, vote against it, let who will propose it.
The Hon. Member for Somersetshire indeed was in favour of
the maintenance of the existing law, but with regard to
those who thought the alt eration ought to take place, he
would say, pass the measure, and punish U 2 afterwards if you
think we deserve it. The Hon. Member for Somersetshire
had last year stood out against grease, and said to grease—
" Hence avaunt I 'ts holy ground !" Now, the Hon. Gentle-
man had, by his own defence of peace, done peat damage to
the cause ot_protecting his defence of geese.

Mr. MILES explaiiied he was not present at the discus-
sion.

Sir ROBERT PEEL thought he had shown his discretion
as a leader by being absent from the discussion. The Hon.
qeotlemett'eaargament, with regard to cattle, was a dan-
gerous one. He contended that the price of meat was clear
because the number of' cattle brought to market was less by
'250,000 this year, on account of the disease and the defici-
eatcy of food—was it not therefore right to bring in
cattle from abroad to supply the deficiency? Then,
with regard to the Honourable Gentlemen's argument'
with regard to flax he would like to know when the cultiva-
ta'on of flax in those parishes to which the Hon. Gentleman
alluded were abandoned.
Mr. MILEs—On the last withdrawal of the last duty.
Sir R. PEEL—That was sd. per cwt.---the protective duty
ref 101. was removed in 1824. In Ireland, and other parte of
the country, the withdrawal of protection had increased
the culture of flex, which was more profitable than wheat,
which the manufacturers of flax had increased immensely
year by year, since the protection had been withdrawn, so
much that now three-fourths of the cambrics sold in London
came from Ireland, and only one-fourth from France, whereas
before the removal of protection the proportions were the
reverse. The Government had proposed that the
earn duties should not case for three years, because
he thought it would be more acceptable to the
iegriculturists, and because he thought the opportunity would
he given to make improvements in drainage and other ar-
arrangements, and that it would also be more acceptable to
C'anada. Believing that proposition to be the best it was
li is intention to adhere to it, but the Hon. Gentleman speak-
big on behalf of the agricultural body had 'said
tihat he should prefer immediate. Now if the agricultural
body thought the immediate repeal to be preferable
ho deferred repeal, if, by a union with gentlemen opposite,
tatey should place hint in a minority, the only consideration
liv which he would be actuated would be how best he could
efUct to the law so amended. He would not say what
Is a might do, or what effect the decision of this House might
It we elsewhere, but so decided was his opinion the sub-
j ect, that he should feel bound to bring about the adjustment
oin the basis of immediate repeal, thusforeedupon him,rather
than leave the country to the anarchy and confusion
hich must result from leaving it unsettled. With
riagard to the price of corn under a free-trade system,
i t was impossible to draw any inferences withal
crensidering quality and the superiority of English corn, would
always command a superior price. He did not consider the
r,gricultural prosperity depended on the price of corn. During
tike lest few years the price of wheat had fallen, and agricul-
Moral prosperity had increased, and these were the results
of improvements. In 1845 the rental of England was
3:2,000,000/., and the price of wheat 102 e., and in 1845, while
the price of wheat had fallen to 645., the rental had increased
he 37,000,000/. Then with regard to the argument of the
Ilion. Member for Northamptonshire, and the pathetic picture
lee had drawn of an int eruiew between a tenant farmer and
i 3 landlord, he would suggest a better speech for the land-
-1 erd to make to his tenant. He would suggest that the land-
-1 :,rd should say that it was to their interests that the land
eh-Luella produce five quarters instead of three, and that he
?mild therefore appropriate his savings by means
oaf the tariff, to the improvement of - the farmer for
the benefit alike of the landlord and the tenant.
1 tut then it was said it was a labourer's question. If they
i hade the land produce five quariers, it would give increased
( employment to labour, and all parties would be alike bene-
fitted: They had positively assured the Sovereign that they
v maid consider whether the present policy of protection
r night not be modified, and yet they now proposed for six
i aonths to do nothing. To stand still in commercial policy
e leas to ireteograde, and he hoped this House, which had
pc iseed the tariff and Canada Corn Bill, would not pass such a
censure on itself as was involved in this amendment. He
lead never said that it was the changes consequent on the
c'.iteration of the tariff that had induced him to alter his opi-
r tions. lie had said that the:experience of the last three years
bled convinced hint that cheapness and plenty were thefounda-
t ion of prosperity, and he evauld challenge his opponents to show
o en e caseiin which the removal ofprohibi t ion had not contributed
bibt alorie to the comfort of the consumer, but of the pro
deicer also. Why, there was the petition of the shipowners
hie was ashamed of it—it wished the House to make no tur-
f her rash extremity in the timber trade. Why the effect of
t fiat rash experiment of 1842, had been to increase the ton-
n huge employed in the Canada trade from Liverpool, from
1.'.53,000 tons to 194,000 tons, and to increase the
i oaport from 5,700,000 to 6,837,000, and that was the result
()ethic rash experiment. Now they had proposed to admit
Blood Baltic timber, in order that good ships might be built,
arid this had increased the demand for Canada timber. Now,
all persons, ()b-
-in eted to its being imported. He was laying the foundation
ft b 3 .reysh liipa-dburuilltdining,
an Liverpooldyetthae single
log of Baltic timber fit
shipowners,
of
fv r increased revenue by drawing the line between duties
la vied for revenue and for protection. They bad
bi >en gradually diminishing colonial and home pro-
;ction, and that diminution had not injured the colonies.
Le proposed to proceed gradually is the sante path, and not
tie; once to withdraw all colonial . protection. Then with
i isgard to paper hanging there was an excise dutty of 14d.
ter yard, and he proposed a duty on foreign paper of 2d.
I was said our patterns were inferior, but competition would
i inprove them. Whenever the removal of duties was pro-
tised, ruin to the protected had been invariable, prophecied,
Ind the prophecy had as invariably proved false. What
twheannio we had had exported to the rt
:fad been there suit of the. removal of prohibition
oi m
n in the
s
he silkilk
no
t vade an increase in the import of raw silk front 19,000,0001b5.
P,000,0001b5., and a p.iopottionate in our silk manufac-
,t
it ereaheir,nl-11
latldev
tot
rirlworld taken
ttlon place,de
I.tls id followed in every instance. The removal of the duty on
A ethers had given a great stimulus to the feather manufac-
titre, and the quantity of Irish feathers cense-
aoltioel
ciaettion
system. The same result
op in
tently had prance,l
I
p so
rcreased, and the price had—in concur-
rence with a large importation of foreign feathers.
)n these facts he grounded the challenge which he had be-
f bre given, to produce an instance in which either consumer
(is producer had been injured. This was not a question cf
( bnfidence in the Government—it was whether they would
eelvanee in this commercial policy or retrograde. This was
tbe question they would have to decide by their vote. Let
them consider the geographical n between Europe
aid America—their physical advantages—their mines of
i con and stone—their acquired advantages—cupital—
their skill, their energy their unshackled press
t I ieir free constitution, and with all these advantages, were
ti icy to dread competition. Other countries were watching
teir example. Sardinia and Naples were prepared to follow
tt leir example. Russia was shaken. France was desirous of
fig eedoin of commerce. There was a large party in favour of
ee commercial intercourse ; but if no country should follow
t I ieir example, let them not punisti themselves, and on the
ebcperience, not of three years, but of every reduction that had
been made, his advice to them was to set a glorious ex-
ample by freeing commercial intercourse from its restrictions,
and thus taking an additional guarantee for the continuance
of prospeaity and of peace. It was possible that times of
distress might return, like those of 1841 and 1842, the me-
i Sillies of whieri could never be effaced from his recollection;
and if they should return, he asked if one who hearth him
to sk himself, if it would not be a consolation that they
hi id relieved themselves from the heavy responsibi-
lity of regulating the supply of food, and that they should be
able to sae, that in the time of prosperisy they had removed
every impediment to the free circulation of the food of the
people, and to reflect that the dispensations of Providence
had not been aggravated by human institutians restricting
t 'he supply of food.
On the motion of Lord J. MANNERS, the debate was ad-
journed.

. The other orders of the clay were disposed of, and the
I louse adjourned at a Quarter to Two o'clock.

The intelligence brought by at. tlibernia from the United
States possesses no new feature tinmeaning debates were
going on in Congress; acrimoclons attacks were made day
after day by the more violent si takers upon England; no
question has yet been decided, andno journal or corre-
spondent can tell when tl:4 re is a chance of
the numerous motions reilbevtilig Oregon, the ba-
lance of power, and the ~tner topics set forth
in Mr. PoLK's Message being brought to a close. Whether
Mr. PAEENIIAM and Mr. Bur,:r.s, ts have again entered
into negotiations we have no inkornirdioif to show, but it is
extremely likely that the one may be waiting for in-
structions from England, and that :Irr3other will not be in-
clined to take any new steps tit: the opinions of Con-
gress have been more fully ascertained. Indeed we cannot
see how the two negotiators can 1-,:nw the conference. The
PRESIDENT declares that Americe I)3s a right to the whole
territory, and that any part of it calinot be given up without
sacrificing the honour and interest.: f the republic. Both
Houses appear to have taken their tore from this document,
and, what is more, they have asstnrei the settlement of the
affair, and almost deprived the Exe :uttve of any power to act,
Till they come to some decision, tliei eere, the people of both
countries must remain in suspense but, as we have all
along said, the Oregon question is a very small affair.
Mexico, and Texas, and California zrowd into the scene I
much sooner than was anticipated, anti judging from the most
correct accounts that can bo gather t from the papers, we
may anticipate some Serious events a very bri3f period
both m Mexico and Texas.,..:rhe I.Thabitantos, and more