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

at the head of the Ministry ; and such being his conviction,
he should abstain from a single observation at variance with
these convictions. It had pleased an all-wise Providence, to
visit the nation, and in particular the kingdom of Ireland,
with a great calamity ; and if the corn-harvest in Ireland
had been deficient, as was the potato-crop, why that would be
some justification for introducing a measure in suspension of
the corn-laws, and he, and the Hon. Member who coincided
in his way of thinking, would have fully concurred in such ;
but he could see no connexion between the failure in the po-
tato crop in Ireland, and the suspension--much less the repeal
of the corn-laws.---(Cries of " Hear, hear," and cheers.)
The true remedy for the distresses of Ireland was not to abolish
the corn-laws, bnt to give the people the means of purchasing
the food already in the country.--(Hear, hear.) What he
complained of was, that they did not give their own law a fair
trial. What circumstances had arisen to justify them in proposing
to reverse, at the bidding of the League, the decision which the
country had given at the last general election ? Was that the
way they proposed to carry out the Reform Bill ? It could net
be denied that the question at the last general election, when
so large a majority was returned to that House, was protection
or no protection. It was really too bad, therefore, that this de-
cision should be now rescinded, and they should be ealled upon
to yield to the dictates of the League. He would ask, had not
the country prospered under the corn-laws? And if this had
been the case, why then were they now asked to abolish them?
The imposition of the income tax had restored the funds and
re-established the public credit. It had given an impetus to
speculation and to commercial transactions. All of these
things had for a long time previously been in a state of depres-
sion. This was followed by tie mania for railway speculation,
which required from the nation the deposit of an immense
amount of capital—more, indeed, than could be conveniently
spared. That mania caused a greatly increased demand for
labour, with an increased price for it. These things were, no
doubt, very beneficial, but were they likely to continue so as
to justify the changing of the entire protective policy of this
country, under which this country had arisen to be the queen
of all nations. He for one, therefore, could not consent to
sacrifice his principles to the opinion of the Right Hon. Ba-
ronet. He -could not consent to embark with him' on the
boundless ocean of free trade, to arrive at a distant shore,
which no person had ever explored. Even though the favour-
ing breezes of popular opinion swelled his sail 'and wafted him
over the deep, he would not follow the Right Hon. Baronet
to the promised land of abundance ; for he could not be sure
that the luxurious vegetation would not by its superfluity breed
a noxious atmosphere, which would be poison to the English
constitution ; for he saw in the perspective the troubled ocean
of angry dispute, and he feared to encounter the shipwreck
and disaster which it threatened; therefore he should refuse to
fire the first gun which, booming over the angry waters, should
give the signal for sailing. He thanked the Pouse for the
attention they had accorded to him, and resumed his seat, de-
claring that he felt it his painful duty to vote against the Go-
vernment. . _

Mr. POULET SCROPE said he was anxious to make a
few observations. It would appear that the measure was
brought forward for the purpose of debate, for the arguments
used for and against the corn-laws it would be found were the
same as those used for the last ten years. He thought the
object of the debate was very truly desci ibed by the Hon.
Member for Berkshire, who said the real question was whether
protection was right or whether protection was wrong ?
( Cheers from the Opposition.) Hit was right let them main-
tain those laws, if it was wrong let them be abolished. These
were the grounds on which they were to judge of the corn-
laws. When he understood a question, he had always the
moral courage to act according to his opinions.—•( Cheers from
the protectionists.) He should jay nothing of the potato rot
in Ireland, because he consideredithe question in that House
had reference to the condition of the people generally, and for
their sakes it was to be considered whether a repeal of the corn-
laws was right or wrong. He should not follow the able
statement of the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of her Ma-
jesty's Government, but he considered there were other reasons
besides the relaxation of prohibitory duties for the increased
prosperity of the country for the last three years. He consi •
dered that the abundant harvests which Providence had
blessed them with had a claim in that prosperity.—( Cheers. ) He
maintained if that was the argument for a repeal of the corn laws,
it was as strong in 1841 as now—in fact it was as strong 20, or
30, or 40 years ago. The corn-laws raised the price of corn, or
they did not. If they did not they were of no benefit to agri-
culture, but were a gratuitous interference with the trade of the
country which no arguments or no reasoning could justify. Take
the other alternative—the coin-laws raised the price of
corn, and it was urged that a law of this tendency was necessary
to enable the farmers to pay the heavy taxes
which the Legislature inflicted on them. Now, how could the
farmer be the party who paid the taxes, when the consumer
paid him an increased price for his commodities? In fact, it
was the consumer, and not the producer, who paid the taxes
whilst this system existed. " Oh," but said the protec-
tionists, "we give protection to every class of pro-
ducers; and in return for the high prices they pay us for our
corn, we pay them an equally high price for their own produc-
tions." In his opinion this was an argument unworthy of being
advanced in that House. They made them pay their heavy
taxes, but they would not compensate them. There were
hundreds of thousands of workers in cotton and wool in this
country. They paid taxes upon beer, sugar, coffee, tobacco,
malt, and other articles, that went towards the payment of the
national debt. Did Hon. Members think that it would be any
benefit to those persons to impose upon them a tax upon bread
in addition to those other articles. There was another large
class of persons, the moneyed interest, fundholders, annuitants,
mortgagees, and other* they paid their share of the nation's
taxes, but they could not be protected by protective laws, for
they were not producers. Some Hon. Members seemed to have
a notion, which he thought he could best illustrate by an
anecdote. A farmer in the Highlands was building a house,
a few miles from a very pleasant sea-port; he was met by a
person who was on his way with a little scrubby pony, with a
large deal hanging on one side of the animal, and a large stone
on the opposite side. The party who met him inquired of him if
it was his intention to build his house with stone ? He replied,
that was not the reason why he used the atone ; it was to maintain
a balance with the deal on the opposite side. He never thought
however of cutting the deal in half, and thus making the two
pieces of deal balance themselves. This was just the case with
these protectionists ; they think that by adding another burden
they are enabled to relieve the existing burden. He put it to
the gentry of England whether they would choose to protect
themselves from their share of any burdens which might be int,
posed, in consequence of invasion or any other extraordinary
expenditure, by the jugglery of a set of corn duties. He had
vainly waited, during the whole of this debate, for a single
valid argument in favour of protection, and he would ask the
House whether the idle sarcasm sihich had been thrown out
by the Hon. Member opposite was its favour of protec-
tion ? Why, he had always understood that it was ono of
the very vital principles of all trade, and the very foundation of
political economy to buy in a cheap market and sell in a dear
one. This was, it was true, the maxim of political economy ;
and what was there cold-hearted in that? He had made a
pathetic appeal to the House with a view to prevent the in-
troduction of a lower rate of paper-hangings and silk goods.
If Honourable Gentlemen on the other side of the House
would only take the trouble to oarry their principles to the
extremes they would see what crude absurdities they held for
opinions. If they were to strip that Hon. Member of all that
he had about him, which was not the produce of British in-
dustry—if they were to take from him all that he had about
him of German wool, of Russian flax, of American cotton, of
Italian silk, he would appear in his place Its a condition
more fit for a state of savage nature than civilised society.
And if he followed out the principles of the Hon. Member for
Knaresborough, of abstaining from everything that was the
produce of machinery, they ought to come down to the House
clothed with skins, and they should follow their prey with
clubs, tear it with their teeth, and grub up the earth with
their nails. He would ask Hon. Members who had expressed
their intention of opposing the Government measures, to sup-
pose a manufacturer whose warehouse was glutted with the
goods he had produced, but which he could not sell ; whose
correspondents were writing him from abroad that the foreign
market was equally glutted. After having vainly struggled for
a length of time against the difficulties which euvironed him,
he put his workmen on short time, and then Or, short wages,
until he finds it necessary to discharge them, and to shut up
his mill. Let them also imagine the condition of men, women,
and children, suffering from the want of food, and unable to
obtain employment. Let them imagine parents giving
up their children to any occupation by which they
might obtain their subsistence—no matter how de-
grading or immoral. Suppose they came and so-
licited assistance from the manufacturer, be would say
to them, "My friends, my heart bleeds for ynu, I regret it,
but I cannot help it ; my capital is lacked up in yonder ware-
house, or my money is exhausted. I can send no more goods
abroad, because, although 1 may obtain corn and other commo-
dities in return, I am prevented from doing so by the law."—
( Hear, hear.) Thus their intercourse with foreign nations was
destroyed, or, if not destroyed, rendered almost abortive. In
the Queen's warehouse, for instance, at the present moment
there were hundreds of thousands quarters of foreign corn,
which they were prevented from purchasing on account of the
high duty exacted. Well, now he would ask, would it not be
desirable to pass a measure that would remedy this evil? They
had at present an ill-paid, discontented, and demoralised pea-
santry under the present system. Under the altered system
would it not be desirable for the succeeding tenant to be a man
who could afford to pay better wages than his predecessor, and
employ more labourers? He could not see that there was anything
very terrible in all this; and surely if the operation of the proposed
measure would have this effect, it would be a most desirable
measure to have passed into a law.—( Hear, hear.) The
farmer then, instead of using his two-horse plough, and waste
ing his manures, and persevering in a bad system of cultivae
tion, and allowing the rains of heaven to lodge upon his lands
until it had rotted his crops, and produced nothing but weeds,
would adopt a very different and much more profitable system.
He thought it was by such reasoning as that used by the Hon.
Member for Stockport, that they ought to consider the import-
ance of the question. If, then, the Hon. Gentlemen who OF
posed the abolition of these restrictive laws Could not cOnvitice
the country that protection could be maintained for the
mutual benefit of all, they could not do better than
abolish those laws, and he could not but think that the motives
which actuated the Hon. Members in opposition to her Ma-
jest} Government on this question were dictated by very sus-
picious motives.—(lronical cheers.) What he meant by sus-
picious motives was, that they were dictated by a patty and a
selfish feeling, and to convince the country of the contrary,
they should at once support the Right Hon. Baronet's measure,
and thereby enable the people to purchase a sufficient quantity
of the article of life at the cheapest possible rate.
Mr. NEWDEGATE said, the Hon. Member:who had last
addressed the House had attacked the consistency of the prin-
ciples and argiinehts of his H9u. Friend the Member for
Northampton. in the absence of his lion. I'riend, he would
endeavour to answer the Hon. Member. The Hon. Gentleman
had said that his Hon. Friend was not consistent on the ques-
tion of buying in the cheapest and selling in the dearest market.
He did not tindinstand the argtiment of buying in the cheapest
and netting in the dearest market as implied by the Hots.
Member, the principle was indeed true as respecting trade, but
it did not hold good in Legislature. He denied that the
duty of tIW country, he conceived rather that it was the
and the Go-
vernmentwelfar
functions of Governmeht were merely to increase the wealth of
to secure the happiness, the peace,
of the population. He denied that a case
twhich when applied to
when applied to trade was as universally true
might be true
to Legisla-
Government. Were this principleapplied x ense provi-
ding now, could they justify
ding for the national defence.
Legislature to the
justifica-
tion might be equally applied by
the
the military establish-
defence of labour and prosperity, that 0
f personal safety.
ments would apply to the preservation
army
the
eThee same y
that they should
buy in the cheapest market? No
How could it be said in the case ofd
than at home, but could
cheaper in some parts of the world
Would the same
them.
they place the same dependence on _
? It had been said that
men possess the same motive or quality
oaunbtttthey might get men
d the prices of corn,
not reduce them. But if they reduce
The Hon.
in the markets.
did they not risk unsteadiness
verlooked the fact that
Member seemed altogether to have oe
nsure steadiness of
the repeal of the corn-laws must reduce the prices, or it must
these laws were enacted tou
bought
in the cheapest
prices. Even if they
one, and the country
market, might be an exceedingly e
in the years 1841
might again find
itself its the same state as
was produced by their
and 1842. The distress of these years
d the reaction on the
commercial relations with America an
market, it might so happen that tredmgaarrket, even the cheapest
mone-
tary system athome. He begged
political economists, who were
the strongest advocates for the extension of their trade, not to
refer to this argument, because it wasa most unhappy one for
themselves. But the Hon. Member said that it was very hard
e•hat the manufacturers should pay a duty on corn in addition
,'to their other taxes. He was
prepared to prove, in the
first place, that the manufacturers paid -.only' those taxes