The Sun.
London, England, 1846-06-12 00:00:00

cilmstances of any nature--211 peers were found to vote for the
i adoption of a course which, by their !Bence, they had rejected
i
, a few years ago. That the county was not universally in
f favour of this measure, was evident from the fact that when
1
i even the advocates of the League and its principles had stood
forward as candidates to repiesent the people, the elector, in
every case where he had a choice, had given his suffrage in
avour of the candidate whip was in favour of supporting the
corn-laws as they then ex.sted. Try the result of the vote by
ballot in the House of Lords, and he was satisfied that not
twenty Lords would be found to vote for the measure. A party
had been fosmed for the agricultural body which nas power-
fully unprecedented, because founded on public principle.—
( Hear, hear.) There was at the head of that party, in the
other House, a Noble Lord who had distinguished himself in
the dt,ence of the agricultural interest, and he would say of
that Noble Lord, that he deserved the thanks of the country
at large.—( Hear, hear.) It was the duty of Parliament to
reject this measure, as calculated to inflict a lasting injury on
the industry of the country. It was their duty to reject it, as
the beginning of an attempt to uproot the ancient institutions
of the land, and as one which would bring ruin and desolation
on the agricultural body.
The Earl of ESSEX said he had a few words to address to
their Lordships upon the Noble Earl's concluding remarks.
The Noble Lord had said that if the question was tried
in that House by an appeal to the vote by ballot, that not
more than twenty of their Lordships would be found to vote
for it. He would say there was not a vote given in favour of
the measure but what was an honest vote. Toe Noble Earl
had attributed bate and sordid motives to those Noble Lords
who had voted for it. Now, if they were to appeal to the
ballot upon this treasure, he wield say for himself, that he
would, so help him God ! be one of the twenty who would vote
for the question.
The Ear. of STANHOPE having explained,
The Earl of RADNOR said that he would address such
arguments to their Lordships as applied to the question. He
was sure that the measure was one which should not be de-
layed. There was no ground for attributing base and sordid
motives to those Noble Lords who had voted for this measure.
They had voied in accordance with the dictates of their con-
sciences for a measure called for by the exigencies of the
times.—( Hear, hear.) Many motives had been attributed to
Hon. Members of the other House who had voted for the
measure, and charges of the most unfounded character
had been brought against them for their votes
with respect to the question. He did not stand there to defend
Sir Robert Peel ; that Right Hon. Gentleman had many
Noble Lords in that House who were able and ready to defend
him should it be required.—( Hear, hear.) He conld not,
however, but regret the ill -feeling which had been displayed
against the Right Hon. Baronet, for it was well known that he
had made many sacrifices in taking the course which had been
so much condemned by many Noble Lords. He would not
have taken that step had not the necessity of the times called
for it, a=id it was too bad to find that for obeying that necessity
he should have been attacked, and the worst motives attributed
to him by persors whose characters stood high and whose
opinions had weight.—( Hear, hear.) The Anti-corn-law
League had been attacked, and a Member of that body, having
used an expression at a meeting held in Drury-lane Theatre, is
was laid hold of and perverted into the worst possible meaning.
It was male out. that the League and its machinery was not to
cease with the passing of this measure. The Noble Earl who last
addressed the House, said that the League had ulterior mea-
sures in view. This might or might not be the case. It
their ulterior measures were consiatent with reason, what had
that to do with the present measure ? If those ulterior views
were inconsistent, and such as ought not to be sanctioned.
then they would be resisted, awl the anticipated evils woulit
not result.—( Hear, hear.) The farmers said they could imi
get the price they ought to receive for their corn if there
were no corn-law, and therefore it was they ought to be pro-
tected against the foreigner. It was owing to this argument
that the sliding-scale was established—a very pretty thing, he
admitted, as a theory, hut totally useless in practice. In his
opinion, those who argued in favour of this system were the
w Idest theorists he had ever met with. One Noble Lord,
whom he did not see in his place, had told them that he had
experienced the working of free-trade principles in the east o,
Scotland. The Noble Lord told them that the removal of tb.
duty on marilla proved a very serious injury to people
residing in that part of the country; but the
Noble Lord forget that the people injured by the removal of
the duty were the minority, while the majority derived benefit
from the alteration in the law. I f the position the Noble Lord
took upon this point was good, they might just as well sat
that a railway should not be made, because it would inflict in-
jury on an existing turnpike road.—(Hear, hear.) Then.
again, they were told that the removal of protection would go
far to annihilate agriculture in this country ; but he, for one,
did not la, lieve it would produce any such effect. Another
argument used in favour of protection was, that owing to the
existence of low wages, and the people living poorly in Poland,
the farmer of this country could not compete with the foreigner
without it. Why, the people of Ireland lived as poorly, and
received as low wages as the labourer in Poland,
and yet the English farmer found no difficulty
in competing with the Irish producers. This incon-
testible fact, he thought, was a sufficient answer to
that argument, and he would, therefore, pass on to another
branch of the subject. It was urged by some Noble Lords
that protection had always been the policy of their ancestors.
but he by no means admitted this, for during several reign-
importations of corn were expressly invited by the Legislature.
In the reign of Edward IV. protection certainly did exist.
In fact it commenced in this reign, but even then the protec
tion preponderated more in favour of manufactures than a4.-,,r.
culture. Previous to that reign, Acts were passed invitini,
importations and prohibiting exportation of corn ; and even
when the protective Act against importation of the reign of
Edward IV. was passed, it was strongly denounced by large
bodies of the people.—( Hear, hear.) In the reign of El zabeth
the landed interest became very powerful in Parliament, and a
protective system was established in favour of agriculture, buy
it created a great stir in the country, and was strongly resisted
by the Commons.—( Hear, hear.) At a subsequent period of
the reign the outcry against the dearness of the bread became
so great that the Legislature was compelled to reduce the
amount of protection, and from that time down to the presen.
the people had always showed themselves to be decidedly
averse to monopolies of every description.—( :fear, hear.) Hi
need scarcely say an',thing more he thought in refutation ti
the argument, if argument it could be called, that their ances-
tors were favourable to protection.—( Hear, hear.) Hi
wished that feeling had continued; but the landed interest
prevailed in the House of Commons from the time of Charles
11., and protection was regarded as necessary for agriculture.
The confessed object at the time of the restoration of protection
was to keep up the value of the rents of land. Again, in the
time of William and Mary, an Act was passed which bad con-
fessedly for its object the prevention of any deterioation in the
amount of rents. Bounties upon the exportation of corn were
afterwards invented, and were paid to the amount of 6,000,4,00/.
to the owners of land. This was an injustice, and while r
raised the price of food to the poor it put mor.ey into th.,
pocket of the landowner. On the average, for every five year,
there had been two Acts of Parliament ; and a system whicl
required so many alterations, must be manifestly improper.
The Noble Lord entered into a long saatistical account of th
quantities of corn imported into this country, as compared with.
the increase of the population, and applied it as an argument
that restriction en the impartation of foreign corn should b-
altogether rescinded. The advantages of protection were greater
when the population was smaller than it was now when th,
population had so greatly increased. If the present measure
was benefi-ial to the manufacturing interests atone, it ough'
to meet with the best support of the landed interest. By the
population returns it would appear—