The Sun.
London, England, 1846-02-10 00:00:00

THE SUN LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 10, 1846.

victories he had achieved. He had supported his Right
Hon. Friend at the head of the Administration,
upon agreeing with his general policy, but he
mast on th, present question differ with lien.
The Right Honourable Baronet, however, should con
cede to his supporters the right of scrutinizing his mea-
sures, and judging whether they deservh:his support; but
if he refuses to them the right of scrutinizing particular
measures, and by their doing so he is induced to throw
up the Government, why the responsibility of the act
was upon himself and not upan his supporters. Thank-
ing the House for their indulgence, he begged to re-
sume his seat, seconding the amendment.
Mr. LASCELLES trusted the House would extend
its indulgence whilst he suited to them the grounds
which would induce him to support the measure of the
Government. The Honourable Member who had
just concluded his address seemed to think that
the country had attained to its present eminence in
consequence of the restriction of commerce. Well, if the
Hon. Member thought so, he confessed the Hon. Mem-
ber had read history very differently to himself, for he
found that since the establishment of the restrictive
system nothing but distress had existed iu the countoa
On the reconstruction of the Conservative Cabinet, -it
was very evident what the policy was which they intended
to pursue, and he must candidly assert that if the measure
which had been proposed by the Right Hon. Baronet had
been brought forward by the Noble Lord opposite, it
would have received his unconditional support. It might
be observed, with respect to sugar and corn especially,
that the indications of the measures of the Government
were sufficiently evident, immediately after the present
Government had taken office. He had, therefore, no
pledges to break, no assertions to retract, and he had
no hesitation in giving his full adherence to the policy
which the Right Honourable Baronet had thought it
prudent to adopt. With regard to the course which
the Government intended to pursue with those measures
he mus: profess his perfect ignorance, but, at the same
time, he must protest against anything like an unprin-
cipled change of policy. From the very first mo-
ment that the Government took office, the whole
of their acts indicated the course which they
intended to pursue. The very reasons on which
the tariff was intended to be based were evi-
dent in the regulations laid down in its provisions.
Numerous questions had been put, session after session,
to the Right Hon. Baronet with respect to the corn-
laws, as to whether it was his intention to alter the pro-
tective duties or not. To all these inquiries the
Right Honourable Baronet had invariably answered
that he could give no pledges, but that his conduct
must be directed by circumstances. Now, he did think
that this was a matter of considerable importance. He
believed that it was not the object of the Right Hon.
Baronet to bolster up any particular system, but that
it was necessary to go to the bottom of the
system of restriction. When that Right Hon.
Gentleman propounded his policy with respect
to sugar and several other products, there was a suffi-
cient evidence given to the country of the policy which
they intended to follow There might be suffering and
distress it, individual cases, but these were occurrences
which followed in all such cases ; but that was
no reason why this measure should not he
carried into law.—(Hear, hear.) He was so little
accustomed to addressing this House, that he trusted
he would be excused for having trespassed on its at-
tention so long. But he bad a strong feeling upon this
subject ; and while he expressed his sentiments as he had
done, he was placed in the painful position of
adopting a course at variance with the opinions
and wishes of his constituents ; but he could
look back upon his past connexion with them with
pride and satisfaction.—(Hear, hear.)
Lord NORREYS said that having supported the
Right Hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Go-
vernment in all his measures for this country, as
well as in all his Irish policy, it was with considerable
regret that he now rose to express his opinions upon
the proposition now before the House. He waited to
hear the Hon. Baronet's explanation before he had taken
any course in reference to them, because he did think
that to attack him before he had developed those
measures would be unfair and unmanly, and if he (Lord
Norreys) had done so, he would stand degraded in his
own eyes as well as in the estimation of this
House.—(Hear, hear.) No doubt, the letter of
the Noble Lord the Member for Landon,
as well as other events that had taken place, had caused
a necessity for some alteration in the existing state of
the laws upon this subject. He did not expect that
the Right Honourable Baronet would propose such
a measure. He was free to admit the difli•
culty with which he must have made up
his mind for any alteration in the corn-laws, but he
might have avoided the difficulty to a considerable
extent. He might have taken a course which would have
opened the eyes of the agriculturists to the position in which
they then stood. If the Right Hon. Baronet had refused
to return to power until the Noble Duke had had the
Government offered to him, he would have adopted the
proper course.—(Cheers and laughter.) That vas the
course which would have opened the eyes of the agri-
culturists, and would have enabled the Honourable
Baronet to have proposed a far different measure.
ge was sorry that the course taken by the
Right Hon. Baronet was not in accordance with the
advice he gave in 1839. There was more necessity for
an alteration then than there was now. Was the con-
duct of the Right Honourable Baronet consistent with
his measures in 1839, 41, and 42 ? He had once objected
to a duty of Bs, per quarter, and he now came to Parlia-
ment to propose a duty of 4s. and that to be followed
by total repeal. What inference could he draw but
that the Right Honourable Baronet had been
wanting, not in political integrity, hut in po-
litical foresight. He had heard his Friend, the
Right Hon. Member for Edinburgh, upbraid him with
inconsistency in his political principles with re-
gard to the corn-laws. He (the Right Hon. Member
for Edinburgh) had charged the Right Hon. Baronet
with declaring one thing out of office and another while
in office, and had, during his remarks, used a quotation
which he (Lord Morris) thought very applicable to
the case, and which were simpy the words of
Dido, " IVusquanz tufa fides."—(Loud laughter.)
He should say that if the measure should be carried it
would not be carried from the conviction of its wisdom
or necessity, but because, seeing that the thing was
inevitable, the supporters of the Right Honourable
Baronet would prefer doing for him what they would
not be inclined to do for the Noble Lord opposite (Lord
John Russell). But why, supposing that the First
Minister of the Crown thought fit to change his opi-
nions, should his followers change theirs ?—(Hear, hear,
and laughter.) Whatever might be the result of the
measure, for the consequences the Right. Hon. Baronet
should be responsible.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. B. COCHRANE could not agree in the notions
of many gentlemen who preceded him ; and, looking to
the history of the corn-laws, he was compelled to say
that he did not see any violation of principle
(as we understood the Honourable Member) in
the present conduct of the Ministry. Protection existed
previous to the Revolution. An alteration took place in
the laws in the year 1773, and again in 1791. The next
alteration took place in 1822, and subsequently in 1842,
when the Bill was introduced, which they were then
called upon to overthrow altogether.—(Hear, hear.)
In all this there was no principle, or if there were, it
arose from a breach of faith. There was another point
in which he differed with the Honourable Gentleman
who had addressed the House. It had been stated that
Members of Parliament had no right to support
this measure, unless they first appealed to
their constituents. The authority of Mr. Pitt had
been asked, and great importance was attached to his
opinion, Now, what said Mr. Pitt in 1798, when pro-
posing the legislative union with Ireland? He said
if the question of Parliamentary confidence was sepa-
rated from Parliament, on the principle
that it had no right to decide without
an appeal to the people, they would be adopting
a principle most dangerous to the state, and one of per-
version of all principles of political society. He could
not understand such a principle. He might point to
an answer to it— that the Septennial Act war passed by
a House elected under a three years' system • that the
Ronan Catholic Relief Bill was carried by' a House
returned on principles opposed to that measure. It
was impossible to define the limits of Parliamentary ac-
countability. If the principles maintained by the
Honourable Gentleman who had addressed the
House in favour of protection was to be acted upon,
it would make that House a mere assembly
of delegates, instead of a deliberative and legisla-
tive asssembly, leaving gentlemen divested of
htleiear.)pri
Ivtilewgeouldof be arg
mostuna e ndta
nagncd, r
urse flaecntdi o .de—ro(gi4ltcoarry,
to the character of that House, if it was to be
held that no Member should be at liberty to
alter his opinion, supposing he had seen good reason
for that change. The Right Hon. Gentleman at the
head of the Government had been charged with great
inconsistency in bringing forward this measure. He
(Mr. B. Cochrane) did not see that other public gentle-
men were more consistent than the Right Hon.
Baronet. Honourable Gentlemen were in the habit of
quoting Hansard to serve their purposes, but that pub-
lication would servo the purposes of others as well as
those who used it. One gentleman quoted Mr. Hus-
kisson's opinion in 1814, while another quoted his
opinion in 1828. They might refer to what Mr. Can.
ning said in 1827, in contrast with what he advanced in
1815. He might refer to Lord Ashburton, who was now
an advocate of protection, yet who in 1820 presented
a petition from the citizens of London, praying for a
total repeal of all commercial restrictions

" Facies non omnibus una."
He could not agree that all public men were dishonest
because they changed their opinions. On
either side such a doctiine was unfair.—(Hear.)
It was ridiculous to propose an unalterable law. Who-
ever did so was an unalterable fool—(Great laughter)—
but a public question was not like a meta-
physical question ; he would say himself, if he
might be allowed so long to trespass on the House,
that he had seen many changes, and he did lament the
necessity that drove a nation on from change to change.
Why, they had seen an entire change in their commercial
relation proposed within the last twelve days; they
found those changes going on perpetually. They
found many changes within the last six years.
Who could say that this law was to re-
main unchanged? There was another point to which
he would wish to draw attention, and that was with re-
ference to the Reform Bill. He wished to remind them
how that Bill was passed. Who were in office when
the Reform Bill passed? Why, the Noble Duke now
in office was at the head of the Agri-
cultural Association, when that Bill passed.
There was another Noble Lord associated with their
Majesty's Government at that period, who was now se-
parated from them. The Government of that day, of
which that Noble Lord was a member, threatened to
swamp the House if that Bill were not pissed.
An HON. MEMBER interrupted, but in so low a tone,
that he was quite inaudible in the gallery.
Mr. B. COCHRANE would affirm that such was the case.
But it mattered not. .the Government the people had