The Sun.
London, England, 1846-03-07 00:00:00

B,?G, which recommended the doing away with the heavy
charges imposed en the copyhold tenant-farmers. It would be
the wisest course to make that report a part of the presets
question.
After a few words from Mr. CURTF.IS, Villich were quite
inaudible in the gallery,
Sir ARTHUR BROOK said he would state his reasons
for voting against the question proposed by her Majesty's Go-
vernment. He was satisfied that the measure would be of
great and incalculable injury to Ireland. In England there
was some expectation of a benefit from free trade; it was an
importing country, but it was well known that Ireland exported,
and that that export consisted of agricultural produce. The
people of Ireland were greatly interested in agriculture, and
they would feel the injury of free trade mulch more severely
than this country. Ireland was an exporting, and England
was an importing country. He was of opinion that the people
of Ireland would be much more benefited by full employment
than by any result of the Right Hon. Baronet's measure. If
they were to open up canals from Lougherne to the river Shan-
non, it would give employment to thousands, and confer a great
advantage on the country. He wished the Hon. and Learned
Member for Cork was in his place, as he wished to
read a letter from that Hon. Member to Conciliation-hall,
It was impossible to expect any measure to be of advantage to
Ireland, while those who could and would spend money there
were in danger of losing life and property. The lion. and
Learned Member fcr Cork heal said in his letter. that the mea-
sure about to be proposed by the Government, for the punish-
ment of crime, should be resisted. He was greatly opposed
to the measure proposed by the Right lion. Baronet for the
relief of the distress of the country, and more especially as it
would be greatly injurious to Ireland, and for that reason he
should oppose it.
Mr. ACLAND wished to say a few words. He thought
that if an indefinite arrangement had been proposed, it would
not have extended longer than three years, whereas they had
now the advantage of knowing their own position. He was
glad to see his friend had given his preposition to the House
without any of the vituperation which had marked the earlier
course of the debate, and that his friend had also refrained
from taxing any Member of this House with his changes of
opinion.—( Hear, hear. )
Mr. STAFFORD O'l3R 'EN begged to second the request
of his Hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract, that the
House would not divide. lie (Mr. S. O'Brien) found a pro-
position made by the Government laid upon the table of that
House, and he considered it his duty to oppose that proposition.
He opposed the Bill without stating his own views with regard
to it, or to the maintenance of protection as it at present ex-
isted. He found the motion for the repeal of the corn-laws,
and he declared his intention of fighting against it.
Mr. CHARLES BULI.ER said that his Hon. Friend had
o statingeont contented te
hisdhimself
reasons. th I
certainly found the motion for the repeal of the corn-laws,
andwTm aretiy
did
he
offeringsaariino
thepp o sei
at irolriierwpi tahrt-
of the evening? He said he knew there wey
re various amend-
ments, but he would not notice any of them, nor would his
friends propose any amendment on their side. The Hon. Mem-
ber, who had brought forward the proposition, hal certainly
done it with great temper, but when he found that the sense
of the House was against it, it would be as well to discontinue
his efforts to promote it.
Mr. PETER BORTHWICK said that he thought the
present measure, as proposed by Government, was uncalled
for, under the existing circumstances of the country. He
dtd not, however, say that circumstances might not arise re-
quiring a change in the corn-laws, but they had not arisen
yet. A change ought never to he male at all unless there
was enough geod in its effect to balance the evil. The Secre-
tary for the Home Department had remarked that he (Mr.
Borthnick) had prophesied that the corn-laws would not work
well—he certainly had done to, but his opinions were now
changed, as he thought the laws worked very well,--(Hear,
hear.) The meaning cf the oprosition he had given to Go-
vernment was that her thought the present circumstances re-
quired no change in the laws, but he was ready at any future
period, should circumstances require it, to take into considera-
tion any project for an alteration in the corn-laws.
Mr. WARD said that he was astonished at what he heard
from the Hon. Member, when he knew that he was connected
with the Protection Society in Bond-st: set, which was pledged
up to the very eyes never to allow a repeal of the corn-laws.
Yet the Hon. Member made a sort of " Mysteries of Udelpho"
speech, in which he contemplated the probability of supporting
a measure for an alteration in the corn-laws arter such a do-
claraeion. He (Mr. Ward) could have no mote confidence in
him than he could in any Member on his side of the House,
and that world he rcducittg it to a very small scale.
Mr. LAW SON said, that if this measure were carried, ruin
would be the result of it. In his neighbourhood, both Whig
and Tory concurred in the belief that protection was necessary
to agriculture.

fIUME said that the protectionists had declared that
they would fight this Bill from pe,t to pillar. At a meetirg of
the Agricultural Protection Society last Tuesday, a resolution
was proposed by 31r. W. F,her Hogg, and seconded by the
Duke of Richmond, which resolution set forth that the altera-
tion proposed by Sir Robert Peel would cheapen food and other
artit-les to the injury of the labourer and manufacturer, and
therefore they acre bound to maintain protection and resist
the progress of the abolition of the corn laws. Since that
time several Members had modified their opinions, and he, for
one, was glad to receive a convert, however he was obtained.

Mr. SMITH O'BRIEN said that he had stated nothing
more than his simple opposition to the measure, and that he
would give no reason for that opposition.
Mr. FI Z GERALD said he had paid great attention to
the measure proposed by the Government, and he thought the
Irish people would reap as much benefit from it as the English
people. It certainly had not been lift to their choice ;no per-
son had applied to the Irish people to ascertain their opinions
on the subject, therefore the Irish had only to adopt the mea-
sure as it came to them, and to ascertain what benefit they
would obtain from it.

Lord GEORGE BENTINCK said that he begged leave
to say to the Honourable Member ( Mr. Hume) that there
was no flinching on that side of the House to uphold pro-
teeti. n to agricultural produce, and to other articles of domestic
eonsumption. If the Secretary for the Home Department
would only fulfil the pledges and promises he gave to the coun-
try in 1826, what compensation would he not have to give to
agriculture? He had promised that 30 per cent. should be
taken from annuities chargeable on land, with various other
deductions of a like nature. Relieve them from tithes, poor-
rates, the malt-duty, the duty on distilled spirits, and the hop-
duty, and they would defy the world. Not one among them
would ask for protection then. Put he would tell the Hon.
Member for Sheffield (Mr. Ward) that while these burdens
remained on land, they (the protectiouist.,) would still claim
that a certain amount of protection be c,needed.
lllr. 11. MILNES said he made the proposition tinder a
strong sense of public duty, but seeing the feeling of the House,
he would beg leave to withdraw it.

The amendment was accordingly withdrawn.
Mr. P. HOWARD then rose to move that the amount of
duty proposed by the Government be extended to the Ist of
Febi, 1851, instead of for three years. He said he would
briefly state the reasons that had led him to make this motion.
It was in order that the change might be gradual, and with due
respect to existing interests and coot! acts. He knew that there
were many farms held on lease in the country ; held for
periods of seven and fourteen years, and to withdraw the pre-
sent amount of protection from them would be doing the far-
mers a great injustice. In order to preserve the interest of
those who had made those leases, as well as other contracts that
had been entered into, he now proposed the extension of the
period. While making the motion, he would beg leave to ob-
serve, however, that unless the House showed a fair disposition
to entertain his preposition, he would follow the example
of other Gentlemen who had proposed amendments, and
withdraw in—( Hear, hear.) He wished the question settled
as soon as possible; so that they might be prepared with peace
at home to resist aggreoien abroad ; and he must observe that
though he differed in some respects with thellinisterial proposi-
tion, he did not consider it either an unconstitutional or uncalled-
for measure. He would have preferred a fixed permanent
duty, like that which prevailed in Belgium, where the Govern-
ment had a discretionary power of relaxing it, whenever any
exigency arose. If the present measure passed, he trusted the
farmer would not suffer from competition with the foreian
agriculturist ; and with the expression of this hope, though he
would have been glad at an extension of the period for the
termination of the duty, he would, under the circumstances, as
seeing the disposition of Hon. 'Members, confine himself now
to the simple declaration of his sentiments on the subject. He
could not but rejoice that they had secured a period of mo-
derate protection before entering upon their new career, as it
would prepare the country for that great change. He thanked the
House for the attention they had paid him, and he would con-
clude by saying, that though he had formerly supported the
Noble Lord the Member for the city of London, in
rproepostiLieg
fixed duty, ho would, now that the House ha,d,rl d
all he
principle of a total repeal at the end of three years, enee.
Hon. Member sat
could to give effect to that uses ore. T
down by withdrawing his. amendment.
light
tounts the
three years' security, esearsnaeidli
Sir W. JOLII'FE,
could
nnirdenfenrtensecee toit
in
thwe
lion. Gentleman who had just sat down. He could not look
upon it as any security at all. There might be a change of
Ministers, and Sir R. Peel be succeeded by Lord John Russell ;
in which case that Noble Lord would be bound, accord-
ing to his professions, to propose a total repeal.--( Hear, hear.)
There could, therefore, be no security ; and he, for one, if a
change was to take place, would prefer the settlement of the
question at once by a total repeal.---( hear, hear.)
Mr. Alderman COPELAND entirely concurred in the
measures of the Right Hon. Baronet, and was glad that the
Hon. Gentleman had withdrawn his resolution. lie would
state a fact, to show that the farmers did not seem to dread
the proposed alteration in the corn-laws. He knew the case
of a farmer, who had just taken a farm from one of the Cor-
porations in Yorkshire at an advanced rent. The former
tenant had paid 1,22.0/., rent, but the new one took it at
1,4001. This fact had a great influence on his mind, and the
commercial world, and showed the fears expressed by lion.
Gentlemen were groundlecs.
After a few words from Mr. FINCH, in reply to the state-
ment of the previous speaker,
Lord G. BENTINCK said he would take that opportu-
nity of asking the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of the
Government what he expected would be the probable opera-
tions of his Bill ? Could he give any idea of what the ave-
rage price of wheat would be ? He (Lord George Bentinck)
thought that a Minister, making a proposition of the kind be-
fore the House, was bound to state what would be the probable
price of labour under it. He also wished to know what was
to be done in the commutation of tithes ? It was stated on a
former occasioe, by the Right Hon. Gentleman the Secretary
for the Home Department, that the price of wheat would be
about 455. a quarter, and it was also stated by the Right
Hon. Baronet in 1842, that a duty of Is. per quarter would
be no protection whatever to Ireland, but a great injury. He
(Lord G. Bentinek) wished to know if the sentiments of the
Right Hon. Baronet were stiil in accordance with these views?
Judging from all they had previously stated, wheat, under the
new system, must average from 455. to 50s. per quarter.
Sir R. PEEL, who was very inaudible, from his turning his
back to the gallery in addressing his observations towards
(Lord George Bentinck) said, that he really could not give an
answer to the questions of the Noble Lord. He had no
desire of reviving the discussion which had al-
ready occupied te House for three weeks. The
Id have heard the
R. Peel) stated in that debate, else he
.wou
He then endea-
voured to show the causes that operteed
oftowheat. And in so
production, and to reducchthie p
during which the average
last alteration in the corn-laws,
t the result of the
of wheat was 51s. that that price NV,. .
price
agricultural improvements and
doing, he showed that within the three years afrer the
He shots ed that agricultural pros-
causes of another
builtnateunr
the
price of wheat, for it would ap-
pear,perity was not • s 67e per quarter, while the
that in 1842, tee. price was .
corn laws, but arose from
that agricultural prosperity did not depend on the exist-
enceproof
' three years following it averaged
,51s. This was a strong
of the corn-laws. Ile had no answer to make to what he
might have previously stated, or to passages from " 'Hansard,"
but to say that, having paid the closet attention to the question,
he had seen reason to change his views ;and whilst he cast no
imputation on other lion. Gentlemen for any opinion they
might entertain, or any change of sentiment they might have
lie trusted they would ex'eud the same
tceonntsiiodrel
sr,a tai
roind toh
eh i mcl .ai
claimed
gapetshaemme
seen proper to make,
!tielrlicreditl
ff.o r hLoarrs et s
year,
when the Hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Villiers)
made his speech for the repeal of the corn-laws, he (Sir Robert
Peel) replied to it, and on that occasion Lord Howick, now
Earl Grey, said, it was conclusive in favour of a gradual repeal
of the corn-laws. Since then circumstances had shown him
the necessity of the course he now proposed to the House. But
he had no desire to go into the discussion, as he seas desirous
that the Bill should be brought its founded upcn the resolutions