The Sun.
London, England, 1846-02-21 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, FEBRUA R r 211 1846.

convictions drawn from certain economical principles, when
they trace the evils of the country to the restrictions on trade,
appealing to the House under a sense of injury for a change
in the system ; but the Right Hon. Gentlemen, I confess,
ought not, nor, in fact, ought the Right Hon. Baronet himself
to have addressed us as if they were martyrs, when after
all, they were only converts.—( Hear, hear, and laughter.) I
forgot however that the Right Hon. Baronet was a disciple of
the free trade system in the year 16,11, but free-trade princi-
ples in those days were applied from the opposite side of the
table, and that makes a very material difference. Now the
Right Hon. Gentleman the Secretary at War declared, that in
discussing thisquestion, the fallacy 9f cheap bread was entirely
discarded by all parties. Now the Right Hon. Baronet the
Secretary of State for the Home Department, who addressed
us the following night, in answer to a very proper appeal, said
that unless the question before the House was one for giving
the people food in sufficient quantities, and at as cheap a rate as
possible, there was no question for them to discuss. How do
you reconcile that with the Right Hon. the Secretary at War's
statement? But lam not surprised at a slight difference of
opinion of this sort prevailing in a confused Cabinet Council.
'I hen came forth the Right Hon. Gentleman the Secretary at
War. He said, in the first place, "as regards the most int-
portant interest, this is a comprehensive scheme, and to which I
shall myself particularly advert, and that most important interest
is that of agriculture." He said, " What do you fear from free
imports—where is your corn to come from?" Now I avoid as
much as I possibly can making a corn-law speech, which I dare
say many here have already done. —( Hear, hear.) I wish,
however, to meet his argument, and deal with comprehensive
measures on comprehensive schemes. But at the same time
I do not wish to let observations of that kind pass, because
I observe there is a coolness of assertion very prevalent on
this subject.—( Laughter and cheers from the protectionists. )
I recollect a speech which was made on this subject by a Noble
Lord a Member of Parliament, and that Noble Lord said that
if the corn-laws were repealed there would be a rise of 10s.
per quarter in the prise of corn. Now I will say to
the Right Honourable Gentleman the Secretary' at War
I avoid a discussion in detail, for which we shall have
a better opportunity—l say, I speak from as much
investigation as I can give, and more personal experience, I
believe, of those foreign countries than most persons—l mean
the corn countries ; and I say there is not the slightest doubt
that you may have, when this system is established in this
country, any quantity of corn that you may like.—( Hear.)
It is ridiculous to tell me—but you may tell me—that these
people have no capital. The gentlemen of Manchester will
say so.—( Cheers and laughter from the protectionists.) It is
perfectly idle to tell me they have no road. I dare say the
Hon. Gentleman the Member fer Durham will persist in
saying so; but this I will say, that there is no fallacy so great
as to suppose that the price of corn will rise when there
is an established market in proportion to your demand. The
price of corn will fall according to the supply. Certainly at
present there is a very limited supply now prevalent in England,
and the reason is that the price is high. It is an inevitable
rule, however, that corn falls according to the amount of supply.
(Cheers from the protectionists, and expressions of dissent on
the Opposition benches.) Nothing pleases me so much as
those sneers of Hon. Members opposite, but I am prepared to
meet their arguments with reason. If they confute me the
House will decide.—(Protectionist cheers.) Now I take the
article of tea, which we get only from one country. The
increase has advanced from year to year, and from year to
year the prices have fallen. (Protectionist cheers.)
Now look at cotton. I take cotton because there
is a great analoe y between cotton and corn. I re-
member—at least I have read a speech which was made
during some discussion on this subject in America, particu-
larly with respect to the supply of cotton as well as
corn the Manchester gentlemen maintained that if
the prices in America were greater in the United States,
it would be impossible for - Lancashire industry to
compete with the neutral markets there. It was proved by a
pamphlet written by a very distinguished Member of Con.
gress, that under any circumstances the prices of cotton were

less now, 12 cents lower, than they were some years ago.
And, as I have seen in a treatise upon political economy—
written with as much demonstration as if it were proving a
case in mathematics—ever since you have established your trade,
Kith scarcely any interval, the price of cotton has diminished,
diminished, diminished, and the price of cotton has been as
low as three cents per lb.—(Protectionist cheers.) You can
object to my reasoning with respect to corn; can you refute
me about cotton ? When you can, you will have a right to
sneer at me.—(Protectionist cheers.) Well nose, Sir, 1 turn
to the Right Honourable Gentleman the Secretary at War.
In his speech he asks you what is the agitation about the pro-
posed repeal. What is it ? He quite forgot that it was called
a social revolution. Why, the agitation, at which he is sur-
prised, is about the repeal of the import duty. Then comes to
the House the Secretary of State the night after.
He says, "continue to oppose the measure, and you will bring
upon England anarchy, misery,' and ruin.—(Laughter on the
Opposition benches). The Right Hon. Gentleman the Secre-
tary of State was very much alarmed at the end sliest year, in
consequence of the deficiency of the potatoes in Ireland. He
thought so, however, if we were to believe him in speech. He
also said in consequence of the expected deficiency in the wheat
harvest of England. The Right Hon. Gentleman also told us
that he was particularly alarmed about that, because he thought
it possible that it might bring about a state of affairs similar to
that of 1842, in which he assured the House he was much
more alarmed than they could possibly anticipate at the
time.—(Hear, hear.) Now, Sir, I observe that ever
since the Right Honourable Gentleman has been
a minister of a Conservative Cabinet, he has failed to bring
forward the very expensive measure which has so regularly
produced great alarm and great odium in the country.—
(Laughter.) The Right Hon. Gentleman has been alarmed,
and withdrawn that measure.—(Laughter and cheers.) The
Right Hon. Gentleman appears to be overscrupulous. It
seems characteristic of the Right Hon. Gentleman that the
responsibilit) of office brings to him, not prudence but panic.—
(Loud laughter and cheers from the protectionists.) And
these are the Ministers who turn round to us and say, " You
are alarmed at our measures, but you won't suffer at all except
from your wen panic."—(Laughter.) But they act upon
nothing but panics. It is an alarmist Cabinet.—(Loud
protectionists cheers.) I know not what they may be most
like to, but I may say fright is stamped upon their
foreheads.—(boud protectionist eheecs)—and it arises either
from a deficiency of the feed in Ireland, or a superabundance
in the suffrages in Lancashire. —(Loud laughter and cheers.)
And now, Sir, if I may be permitted, I will meet the question
of protection.—(Cheers.) I have not departed from my en-
gagement.—(Cheers.) I was bound to answer those main
arguments that have been offered in favour of the new system.
The Noble Lord the Member for the city of London, in his
address the other night, the tone of which every one present
felt to be equal for the occasion and the subject, touched upon
the question of protection in the abstract. He expressed in
very classic language the usual economical theories upon the
subject, which were no doubt very valuable in them-
selves—( Cheering and laughter)—but never having
ever exerted any influence on the conduct of individuals, and
being totally destitute of the power of doing so, all that
we can admire in it is the evidence which it offers of the Noble
Lord being well read.—( Loud laughter.) Now, Sir, I
do not know what Honourable Gentlemen opposite mean—
dealing, as we are, with England, and with its particular
existing circumstances. Ido not know what they mean by
the term protective system. I do not find in England such
protection ; if protection be as they define it, a protection to
every branch of native industry, such a system never existed.
There was once a commercial system founded upon these prin-
ciples, defines! in all its details, and extremely beneficial in its
operations. I mean the colonial system. That was a
system which went as far as it could to effect the protection
of native industry, and tend to develope its great
Power. There was a protection to native industry in
England, but that was ancillary to this. I refer to this, in
order to see if I can arrive at the point. We always had in
England in these good old days a very liberal system of com-
mercial policies. We have had since then propositions which
were not carried into practice. Here was a very general
system of commercial intercourse with the whole world at
a moderate duty of 10 per cent. This proposal was, however,
swamped in the year 181 A, by a system of protection called
colonial system. The range of our commercial transactions
was curtailed by the merchants of England, when compensated
by larger profit and more secure markets, which they speedily
obtained. Ido not say whether this was right or wrong ;
but at any rate, the result was that you lost your
principal colonies. You were then obliged to lay down
principles for your future commercial dealings, but you were
too late ; and a large system of commercial policy, having the
advantage of being founded upon principles of reciprocity,
was then introduced by the first Minister of the Crown.
He came down to this House and said to Honourable
Members, " You must not adhere to your old principles.
We have no longer any great colonies left. You manufacturers
of England—and they are by the way the most obstinate, for
country gentlemen are far more facile—( Cheers and laughter)
you must come forward and give up your protection." After
that, what did Pitt do? He came down to the House, and
said, " Gentlemen, I give you a new tariff." He said ‘' Here
is a sew tariff. Here are terms of interchange and commerce
with all the countries in the world. I have entered into
treaties with all the great Powers, and have just concluded a
commercial treaty with France." Then came your revolutionary
war, that upset all ; but Huskisson again brought forward the
same measures. Now, Sir, I gave my votes to the Corn Bill
of 1842, which was only a part of the tariff then introduced,
embodying a moderate system of just protection, which was
in complete harmony with the true principles of the universal
policy of England. We know what a contrary course would
have done in this country, because we have always Spain be-
fore us as an example and a warning. There is another
country, also, where such principles have been in operation—
I mean Turkey. In that country there were some of
the finest manufacturers in the world. Up to the year

1812 there we;e—aconsiderable number of manufacturers
still lingering there; they have been destroyed by the spirit of
competition, which has existed in hostile tariffs. Now what
was the consequence? There have been the same pernicious
results as there had been formerly in Spain. They have had the
same aggregation of capital, and the same impoverishment of
the people. —( Hear, hear.) The system of moderate pro-
tection in England is not founded upon abstract principles.
I propose new to deal with this question of protection, and I
shall look at it from two points. I consider, first, that it is
the duty of the Government to legislate in such a manner that
the people shall be fully and amply employed. Secondly, that
in affording these means of employment you should not give
too great a preponderance to any one branch of native industry
above the other. There is, Sir, a great difficulty in dealing
with this question. An Hon. Member had also stated that there
was a great difficulty in arguing against protection, for there
was a prima facie evidence in favour of it. So far as I am
concerned, Sir, I don't care one farthing about their prima
fizcie evidences. Members on this side might also take
up this same argumenJ? and reply that it was useless to argue
in favour of protection, because there was a prima facie evi-
dence admitted to exist in its favour.—(Cheers and laughter.)
Now, the Right Hon. Baronet ( Sir Robert Peel) and several
other Members of the Cabinet, had officially announced that
these principles are to be for ever relinquished by them. We
think, Sir, that these principles are beneficial. I say, we
think so. I do not attempt to prove it, but I call upon you (ad-
dressing the free-trade party) the onus probandi rests upon
you—it is for you to prove that these principles are not bene-
ficial. Now, I have listened to the speeches which have been
made in the course of the debate by Hon. Members, who are
also Hon. Members of the League to the speech
of the Honourable Member for Manchester (Mr. Gibson. )
1 had not the pleasure to hear the last speech made by
the Honourable Member for Durham (Mr. Bright.) I took
care however to read it, as I always do the speeches of a gen-
tleman who takes so prominent a part in the agitation as he
does, but I cannot extract from either, or any of them, a
single principle to guide me in this maze.—(Cheers from the
protectionists.) I cannot find one solitary, reasonable, ra-
tional objection against the principle. They have, however,
made so many speeches, upon so many occasions, that per-
haps it is not fair to draw conclusions from the speeches
with which we have been favoured, during the course of this
debate, upon so important and knotty a subject as protection.
I have great difficulty in doing so. The difficulty is this, that
the case of the Anti-Corn-law League against protection has
signally failed. It was a very curious thing that they
had been working for the last seven years, and that
they commenced their agitation with promising cheap
bread to the labouring classes, and they have ended
that agitation by promising high rents to the landlords.—
( Great laughter from the protectionists.) I cannot certainly
understand such promises. I firmly believe that the Anti-
Corn-law League, while they thought they were instructing
the people, that they were actually educating tho-
selves.—( rn
®rest cheering.) I can give sufficient rea-
sons from reading the manifesto of the Chamber
of Commerce in Manchester in the year 1820. I tarried the

leaves of that document, and found the panacea was not what
it is now stated to be, and the parties who drew up
.that cir-
cular are the principal members of the Anti-Corn-law League.
—(Loud cheering.) Let them read the evidence of some
of the most distinguished members of that League,
and they would find that Mr. Cobdee's evidence
was opposed to his present principles, but he belonged to the
school of Gemini.—(Laughter.) I consider that the prin-
ciples we advocate are not entirely hopeless, and therefore
it may be useful to prolong this agitation. lam stating a case,
and I take that case from their own speeches. They say that
protection has two objects, to feed the people and to employ
them, and that as protection has failed because we are obliged
ttioes on thatimpotfoarretirlec.ornisrowwe,arwee bound to troeprelym, otvleiaptrwoteeccatinve
feed
d-
the people and employ them also. That is my answer ; and
the question is, have we failed in feeding the people ? Now,
Sir, we have what we call great facts. We can show, for ex-
ample, that fifty years ago the people of this country were not
much more than one-half its present population. I say, we
can feed the population, although it has increased so much.
And whilst that is the case, protection cannot be the bane of
agriculture, unless the agriculture of England is inferior to
the agriculture of other countries.—(Cheers.) Now, I want
to know wherethere is a superior system of agriculture
to that pursued in England?—( Hear, hear.) Russia
had been quoted; but I believe that agricultural
mprovement remains in much the same state. Do you mean
to say that the agricultural system of Germany is superior, or that
of Belgium or Tuscany? It is true, if we take a a small district,
there may be a greater amount of produce, but I deny, taking
any country, that we are not equal to it in agricultural produc-
tions. No country with the same breadth of land can certainly
support a population of a first-rate state compared with
England. lam sure you will not say it is done in Russia
or in Germany—those miserable struggling states—so
much inferior to the real wealth of England.
I need not allude to Spain; but I will pass to a country which
is nearer to us, and which, in fact, is our rival. There was a
country with an exubtrant soil, blessed by nature, and
labouring under none of those disadvantages which pressed
upon England. They had no law of primogeniture, no en-
closures, and no game.—(Loud cheers.) We, under the favour
of protection, have contrived to go far beyond that people in
agricultural science, and have been able to give them corn at a
cheaper rate than they could possibly buy in their own
markets, although they were double their number. But
then, you say, I want to meet all your argumen!s—
that there is a deficient application of capital to land.—( Hear,
hear.) We must make researches, and from a number of
facts make our inferences. I say that it is totally impossible
that there is a want of the application of capital, when
there is not a man in the colonies, either in India or America,
the great event of whose aspirations is not that he should re-
turn to England to spend his hoarded treasures, and become a
justice of peace or a deputy-lieutenant.—( Loud cheers.) Yes,
there was not a man of them who did not dream of quarter ses-
sions.—( Laughter.) England was, in fact, thegreat metropolis
of the world, and all other countries were paying tribute to
her. There are two facts which lam afraid we have a right
to assume they have done.—( Hear, hear.) The one, that the
corn-law will be repealed, though we will endeavour to pre-
vent them—( Hear, hear)—and the other, that after the re-
peal has endured a certain number of years they will be in-
volved in a foreign war. Now I want Hen. Gentlemen to
consider what would be their position if matters should be as
they were at the rupture of the treaty of Amiens ? At that
time you had a free trade, and for a number of years you
received large supplies of corn from the Continent, but when
the war broke out you found the greatest difficulty in obtain-
ing a supply. It was true that, in the year 1811, we received
some corn from Holland and France. But are we to construe

,hat such always will be the case? If we do, we shall fall into
a grievous error.—( Hear, hear.) I consider that a reference
to those facts is a sufficient answer to the assertion that they
would be independent of their colonies should a war break out.
Remembering all this—even that a very small quantity of corn
was brought from France and Holland—that in 1812 the
quartern loaf reached the price of Is. 7d.—when all these cir-
cumstances occurred, I warn you not to depend on foreign supply.
Yet with all this increase of population, England is able to sup-
ply herself with food.—( Cheers.) I now meet the gentlemen
of the League on the second point. They say the system of
protection has failed to employ the people. The Right Hen.
Gentleman the Secretary of War has touched upon a delicate
subject. He says, only cultivate the hills of Wiltshire, and
there is sufficient employment for the labouring population. I
ask the Right Hon. Gentleman why are the hills of Wiltshire
not cultivated ?—( Hear, hear.) It is a legitimate question to
ask one whose proudest boast is that he is the representative of
that county, and who is the descendant of a family who have
long dwelt upon that soil.—( Hear, hear.) You tell me of the
sufferings of the people. It is not for me to attempt to diminish
the sufferings ; but when you come down with your cool
assumptions and daring statements, I call upon you for facts
in proof of them.—( Hear, hear.) I ask you to compare the
state of the country before protection existed to what it is under
protection, and I say that with an accumulated population
we are not in ajworse!condition now.—( Hear.) I have read the
details of the period of the last revolutionary war, when you had
free imports of corn from all the world, and I see nothing dif-
ferent in your condition then from what it is now. I see no
difference but the poor-rates, and less responsibility of pro-
prietors. You have brought forward the Goatacre meeting in
proof of the distress which prevails in the country. The Right
Hon. Gentleman also has compared an Hon. Gentleman on
this side of the House to Anacharsis Clooty. Anacharsis Clooty,
it is well known, stated at the National Convention that he ap-
peared there as a deputation from the nations of Europe. The
deputation appeared in appropriate costume, and produced a
sensation throughout Paris. Now I think the
Goatacre meeting might be considered in the same
light as the deputation before the National Convention.
But it is not my wish to call the attention of the House by
an allusion to the Goatacre deputation that would call the at-
tention of the House, for it is not my wish to do so, from the
state of the people of this country. The gentlemen opposite
are very fond of painting the wretchedness of the agricultural
districts, but if they would come with me into the manufactur-
ing districts, I could show them such scenes of wretchedness
a 3 would throw into the shade the scenes which they have so
pathetically described to this House.—( Hear, hear.) Let them
come with me into the manufactories at Stockport, and I will
show them the poor heartbroken slaves there.
( Hear, hear.) I will show them the heart-broken
the despairing men—those who, in the depth
of their despair, curse the toil-worn life which they cannot
quit.--(" Hear, hear," and cheers from the protectionists.) I
could also take them to Lancashire, and show them the same
state of the manufacturing liberality of this country.—( Hear,
hear.) But I know that the industry of Lancashire is a noble
industry, and I do not wish to underrate it. The manufac-
turers of that place are fully sensible of their responsibility, but
I cannot assent to their assertion that they can. alleviate
their condition by the diminution of their wages. I should like
to know how they will respond to that.—(Hear, hear, and eries
of " No, no," from the free-trade side of the House.)
The Lion. Members cry "No;" well, then, I will take them
on their own ground.—( Hear, hear.) I had some respect for
this hour of the night, but the challenge having been thrown
out to me, I shall accept it.—( Loud cheering from the Hon.
Member's party.) Well, then, I will test that position.
Why, you say that the wages of labour was not dependent on
the price of corn. How is it, then, that you say, the higher
the price of corn the higher was the wages of the labourer ?
If your position, which is the position of the Right Hon. Ba-
ronet, because he has borrowed it from you--( Hear, hear)—
if your position be, that the wages of labour depend upon the
price of corn, I will just ask you this—Suppose you have an
importation from the Baltic of four millions of quarters, then if
wages be not increased by the price of corn, why should the con-
sumption be greater?—(Hear) Why should more corn be con-
sumed then than now? And what effects will the importation
of these four millions of quarters have upon the price of corn,
or upon the amount of consumption ? Why, the cnly effect it
will have will be, if the consumption be not greater, to dis-
place a certain amount of labour ; that labour will leave
the agricultural districts and go to your districts—the
manufacturing districts—and there a fall in the amount of
wages must follow.—( Hear, hear.) There is another point
to which 1 would wish to allude, if it had not appeared that I
was abusing the patience of the House—( Hear, hear)—but I
shall endeavour to condense the few remaining observations I
have to make as much as possible. You say if we had a regu-
lar trade we should have a regular supply. Well, I entirely
agree with you there. But suppose the ease of a deficiency in
England, then you must get a supply from other countries,
which you must pay for in gold—( Hear, hear)—
the only difference being, that you must give a
bonus for granaries under the present system.—( Hear, hear.)
1 have nearly concluded my observations ; I have never been
one of those who vindicated our agricultural policy. But now,
Sir, I maintain this, and I,wish Hon. Gentlemen to bear it in
mind, that their cause is not to be attained in this way.—( Hear,
hear.) I venture, feebly and slightly to ins sure at this hour
of the night, to maintain this great principle of high policy in
which our system ought to be maintained. I say, without
reference to England, that it is the first duty of every Minister,
and the first interest of every state to maintain an equal balance
between the two great parties—manufacturing and agricultural.
I::: shouldtlte
people,
—(Hear, hear.) That principle had been recognised for the last
of
p7l°itiycaelars;ndas smoeoias il
emoepsoirdtearnett,ionb,y thea a
ffgereetaitnegst stthaetes mhaepn..
maintainthethatorbdaelrancoef itsheneepenspsaurlyanefo, for
and
above all the stability of the State.—(Hear, hear.) Igo
further than that. We are bound in England to d
wwhyy
repeata a VII
should
Id
netbefore
only
stated. I say there
are o
specialmo n s
more
and
a s o I no
maintain that balance, but
that, further, you should give a
reasons
preponderance—l repeat a
prepoderance—(Hear, hear)—to native agricultural princi-
ples.—( Hear, hear.) I say preponderance, for thii reason,
that in England you have a territorial constitution. You
have thrown upon you the burden of the land, the mainte-
nance of the Church and State, and the protection of the poor.
—(Hear, hear.) You value this territorial constitution, not
that it pampers the luxuries, but because you, and those who
preceded you, found it the only security for self-government.
—(Hear, hear.) My constituents are not of the landlord
class, nor are many of them capitalists; they are of the in-
dustrial class • and they believe that their material interests
are 'maintained in the maintenance of this system, that will
favour native industry, by ensuring at the same time
real competition. They believe their political interests
are involved; and I entirely agree with them.—(Hear.)
The meaning of this great movement is not only the repeal of
the corn-laws, but the transfer of power from one class to
another—(" Hear, hear," from the Ministerial benches)—
class, distinguished for their intelligence and their
wealth—l mean the manufacturers of England. My con-
science assures me that I have not been slow to do justice to
the intelligence of that class, and I do not envy
them their deserved prosperity but I do regret, that
in this age of political regeneration, when all social
power trusted to class interests is only to be rescued from one
class to sink under the domination of another, I for one—
if this be the end of all struggles—if this be the great result of
the efforts of this enlightened age—protest against the igno-
minious catastrophe. If there is to be a change, I hope that
the foundation will be deep, and the scheme comprehensive,
instead of allowing us to fall under such a thraldom—the thral-
dom of capital and of those who boast of their intelligence
and are proud of their wealth. If you must find a new force
to maintain the throne and the immemorial monarchy of
England, I would prefer to find these invigorating energies in
an enlightened and an enfranchised people. (The Hon. Mem-
ber sat down amidst immense cheering.)
Mr. EDWARD BULLER moved the adjournment of the
debate until Monday next.—Agreed to.
The House adjourned at Half-past Twelve o'clock.

FASHION.—The neat and elegant white cravat is all
the rage at present for dress, and the linen manufacturers
upon whom so many thousands of families derive their sup-
port, already feel the beneficial influence of the fashion. The
encouragement thus given has likewise set to work much in-
genious mental machinery, and on• of the results is a cravat
and collar in one piece, arranged and folded so completely as
to be capable of adjustment to the neck by the merest tyro.
It has been scoured by registration, and is termed the Golden
Flax Cravat Cellar, from the fact of its being made of a
most exquisitely white and fine description of linen, manu-
factured from that product. From its peculiar construction,
it is very much lighter than the ordinary cravat and collar,
and thus possesses, amongst other recommendations, a strong
one in favour of its adoption in the ball-room, at soirees,
morning concerts, and other crowded assemblies.
ROYAL DUBLIN SOCIETY.—PROFESSOR MANE.--At
meeting of the fine arts section of the Royal Dublin Society,
held on Monday evening, the Lord Lieutenant conferred the
dignity of knighthood upon Professor Kane, who is now Sir
Robert Kane.—Pilot.

Dispatches were sent off yesterday evening from the
Colomat-office for the Governor of West Australia.