The Sun.
London, England, 1846-03-28 00:00:00

opinion, they were incapable of appreciating the wisdom that
dictated such a change, yet the Right Hon. Gentleman might
rest assured that ho would receive his reward from a grateful

country and an admiring posterity.—(Hear, hear.)
The Marquis of WORCESTER wished to know what the
consequenco would be if the present measure should, as it
undoubtedly would, reduce the lower order of farmers to
labourers 7—( Hear, hear.) In his opinion they would be
driven to emigration or to the workhouse, when the taxation
for their maintenance would increase to so extraordinary a

degree that the landholders • could. not pay it.—( Hear, hear.)
He could make every allowance for an alteration in political

opinion, but he certainly felt deep sorrow that the Bight Hon.
Baronet had given way at the very first attack on the constitu-
.

tion of this eountry.
Mr. GARDNER said that he considered the report of the

failure in the potato crop as a panic and nothing but a panic.
He had taken the trouble to look at the special returns made

the last six years, and comparing those returns with the prices
of this year. On counting the number of parishes mention-
ing the returns, he found that the whole number to which
reference Was .made, was 404. He found that in • 107 towns
the ordinary prities were not increased; and that left 295 out of
the 40.4 in which the prices had arisen. There were eleven
towns in which the prices had increased sine farthing per stone.
In fifteen towns the prices had increased one halfpenny ; in
10 towns, three farthings ; and in 5'3 towns, one penny.: He
believed it was the duty of the Governmen: to have given
some-compensation to the landed interest by the removal of
the burdens on land, before lowering the prices of agricultural
produce. Besides, if free trade were to be given to this coun-
try, it should also be accorded to the colonists, who had as good
a right to benefit by the alteration as we have. He had no
doubt that if the present measure was passed, plenty of
corn would be imported from America, the continent of
Europe, and all other countries. (The Hon. Member here had
quoted from Mr. M'Gregoes report, showing the great amount
of corn which was raised in the United States in 1842.) It was
stated that the country in the United States west of the Ohio,
raised in that
.year 26,000,000 of bushels of wheat, one-half
of which was grown for exportation. The amount of Indian
corn raised in that country was also enormous. He (Mr. D.
Gardner) was satisfied that the home market wOuld be seriously
affected by the large amount of corn that would be imported
from the Vnited States, if the measure before the House was
carried. The Hon. Member concluded by intimating his in-
tention of voting against the motion.
Mr. MILDM AY and Lord PALMERSTON rose together,
but the former, having caught the Speaker's eye, proceeded to
address the House, amidst considerable manifestation of im-
patience, and cries of " Palmerston." Tho Hon Member said
he only wished to offer a few words, and he would not disap-
point the Noble Lord in addres,ing the House for any length of
time. It' was hot his intention to go into a long discussion on
the corn-law. Hcmerely rose at that stage of the debate, for
the perpo4 of. expressing his reasons for taking a different
course now to what .he had formerly taken; or that he ever
thought to take, namely, that of opposing the Right Hon.
Baronet at the head of the Government, whom he had previously
supported.. He had not opposed the going into Committee' on
the question, on account of the expressions employed by her Ma-
jesty in the opening speech from the throne, but they had now
arrived at a stage on the discussion in which he must declare
whether he should support or oppose Hear, hear.) /le
would take a straightforward course and that would be in op-
position to the measure.—(Cheers.) He must express him-
self against the laudatory view of the Hon. and Learned Mem-
ber for Liskeard (Mr. C. Buller) respecting the changing of
opinion. It would seem to that Hon. and Learned Gentleman,
that the oftener a man changed his opinion the better it was.—
(Loud cheers from the Conservative benches.) If Hon.
Members were so fond of turning round, he at least could
' not so easily change his opinions. There ought to be some
principle in the matter, and changes should not be made upon
such slight grounds as is the question before the House. It
seemed Hon. Gentlemen wanted a pretext to turn round, and
they jumped at the potato failure in Ireland for that purpose.
And what were they doing ? Importing Indian corn into the
country duty free. Why did not they do that at first,
to relieve the people of Ireland, without altering the
whole laws relating to agricultural protection? But
the Right Hen. Baronet had a foregone conclusion,
and required only such a pretext for making a
change. For this purpose they had joined together two
things that were not necessarily connected; and it must be
admitted that Ireland could not be benefited by .the measure
which was now before the House. Nor did the state of the
country require the measure. In 1E45, the country was in
a general state of prosperity ; and all experience went to show
that the iepeal of the corn-taws was unnecessary. The Right
Hon. Baronet assured them, that the agricOlfural interests of
the country would not be injuriously affected, but his (Mr.
Mildrnay's) experience convinced him, that the measure must
operate most injuriously. He was satisfied, the g' eatest injury
would be inflicted on the agricultural interests of
the country, if the present Bill passed.,—( Hear, hear.)
What, he apprehended, regulated the production of any article
was its being, remunerative, and, supposing that there was not
capital in that country to go on increasing their products, they
must get their supplies' from other parts. Let them look at
cotton. - At the end of the last century they had not a bale of
cotton from the United States. Now, such was the peculiar
capability of the Southern States that cotton from America
regulated the price of cotton from the East Indies, and
indeed from all parts of the world. —( Hear, hear. )
So with indigo; and, in the same way, they would be ex-
posed to a competition in corn, which would completely ruin
the home grower. With these views, he would give his vote
against the second reading of this Bill, because he felt that a
sufficient caution had not been exercised to prevent injurious.
consequences to the revenue. Before he sat down, he should
like to refer to the petition presented on that night by the
Right Hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, from
the merchants of Liverpool and Manchester, who
stated that the stagnation in their business was
attributable to the prolongation of this debate. But
was there not, stagnation in every interest over the country?
and why, therefore, should those Gentleraen attribute this
depression to the delay which had been thrown in the way of
passing this measure ? He thanked the House for the attention
with which they had listened to him, and he would conclude
by expressing his determination to vote against the measure of
the Government.
Sir. R. PEEL and the Marquis of GRANBY rose together to
address the House, but their being loud cries for Sir H. Peel,
the Marquis of Granby gave way to the Right Hon. Baronet.
Sir R. PEEL said, Sir, I did not intend to have again in
truded myself upon the attention of the House, in the
course of the present debate, but since I last had an oppor-
tunity of addressing the House. I have been accused with wil-
fully betraying the agricultural interests of the count rS—( The
Hon. Baronet was here interrupted by a remark from a pro-
tectionist Member, which was inaudible in the gallery). Well
then, take it that it is your impression that 1 have done so;
but, at least, after the accusation you have preferred against
me, you -cannot' refuse to concede:to me the privilege of a
defence, and to listen to what I have to say in answer to the
charges "you have made. In the observation, I have
made throughout this debate, I hive not quarrelled
with any man for offering his decided opposition
to the opinion I have lately enunciated. No, I have respected
'the opinions of others, and endeavoured to secure the mainte-
nance -of their co-operation. -I knew not by whom-the mea-
sure which I have proposed would be supported on this side of
the House, and I tried to influence no man. I have listened
to the charges which have been made against me with sorrow,
but not with anger. I think it natural that you should have
made a resistance to this measure, and that some Hon. Gen-
tlemen should retain their former opinions.- I entreat them,
however, to extend to me the privilege which I conceded to
them, and for the sake of courtesy, to hear with patience my
answer to what they have said against me. If I were a private
individual, strong in the conviction that I have acted from
nothing but a sense of duty—(Loud cheers)—strong in the
conviction that. I had acted from pure and honourable motives
—I would have let these accusations. pass by ; but I ams not in
the situation of a private individual, and it is right ass Minis-
ter of the Crown that I should vindicate the course I have
taken as an executive Minister of the Sovereign.—(Loud
cries of " Hear, hear.") Sir, it is irregular under ordi-
nary circumstances to refer to what has passed in a' former
debate, hut I am sure the House will permit me to refer in
general to the questions that were put to me, and the charges
that were made against me, after I had the opportunity of last
addressing the House. It was said in the course of the last
discussion that I had expressed an opinion that the charge of
this measure for the adjustment of the e.irn-laws would have
been committed with much greater propriety to other hands
than mine; and yet at the same time I observed that I pro-
posed to the Cabinet to undertake the conducting.of this mea-
sure, and that the Cabinet had been unanimous eirs deciding
that the conducting of such a measure ought 'to be committed
to my hands ; and therefore it is said that there is an apparent
inconsistency between the opinion that it would have
been better to have committed the measure to other
hands, and ray undertaking to make a permanent
adjustment 'of this question after the suspension of the corn-
laws. Now the facts are most correctly stated. I did give
an opinion that it would have been better had it been intro-
duced under all ordinary circumstances by others more entitled
to the credit of such a measure, rather than that. I should have
the conduct of it. Yet it is perfectly true that in the Cabinet
I proposed, and the Cabinet confrmed, that I should-undertake'
the proposition of this measure. I did so under these
circumstances. On the Ist of November , I proposed,
with the concurrence of my Right Hon. Friend who
has spoken before, 'on account of the reports from
Ireland, to take precaution against the impending
danger—what I thought was the natural precaution,
namely, the suspension, either by order in Council, or by Act
of Parliament, of those laws which prohibited the importation
of foreign corn. I renewed that proposition towards the close
of the same month, and if the measure I proposed to
Government had been simply a suspensiou of the law, with a
guarantee that the existing corn-law should be revived, I do
not believe that there would have been any very serious oppo-
sition to it. There, must have been a difference of opinion as
to the extent of the danger in Ireland ; but I think that if the
measure proposed had been merely the suspension, with a gua-
rantee on my part that I would, at the termination of the sus-
pension, propose a continuance of the existing law, I am not
aware that there would have been any difference of opinion
about the measure. But I distinctly refused to undertake or to,
guarantee the revival of the existing law at the termination o
the suspension, 'and I did so upon these grounds. . As
I have said before, I thought suspension was become a
necessary act.—( Hear, hear.) But the Right Honourable
Gentleman the Recorder for the city of Dublin says, we were
deluded by the accounts which we received from Ireland. He
says he was alarmed himself by these accounts; but after in-
quiring into the matter, he found, from the representation of
parties connected with the agrictetural interest of Ireland, that
the alarm was but ill-founded. Why, it is easy for an indi-
vidual to collect these reports, but,what is a Government to do,
responsible as they are for the well-being of the country—
deeply responsible for famine and disease, shculd they come
and no precautions taken ? What was Government to do in
circumstances like these—receiving reports from all quarters—
from the highest authorities, from private individuals, from
parties most interested? It was no easy or enviable position
for a Government to be placed in. Their alarm may be un-
founded, their precaufions may be superfluous. What, do you
think, where there are good' grounds for expecting a general
and wide-spread famine, that Government ought to neglect
to take precautions, even should those precautions ultimately
turn out to be superfluous ?—( Cheers.) I, for one, would not
undertake the responsibiltty of the Government, if I thought I
should be compelled to neglect taking precautions until the
famine and disease had become evident. But the Right Hon.
' Gentleman the Recorder of the City of Dublin says we were
deluded. • I deny it altogether. I formed my impressions
in November last —my convictions are still the same.
Why, how are we to ascertain with accuracy the utmost extent
of the disease—how are we to decide
.upen the very moment
when the Hon. Gentleman would have us take precautions?
Are we to sit calculating in the Cabinet how much charrhosa,
dysentery, and reflux the whole people of Ireland can bear
before it was necessary to find food for them?—(Cheers.) The
precautions may be superfluous,. but look at the danger that
might arise if these precautions were not taken. Is it not
better to err on the side of precaution than to err on the side
of neglect?—(Cheers.) I say, then, that with the reports we
had received, Government would have been deeply culpable had
they not provided for the emergency, and therefore it was that
I advised a suspension of the corn-law ; but then aroset the
question, what will you do when the period for terminating g
the
indeed,
and suspension shall come? That was an important question
and I was asked, will you undertake to guarantee the revival
of the corn-law ? I said, I cannot for many reasons.— (Hear. )
In the first place, in the last session of Parliament, I expressed
a decided opinion that you could not long continue a different
principle, in respect of protection to
agriculture,
trade. I• I from that
which-you have applied to other articles • any told,
however, that I have wade a sudden change in my
.opinions.