The Sun.
London, England, 1846-02-11 00:00:00

DNESDA MORN] NG, FEBRUARY 11, 1846,

from parishes in BarksLi") praying that
protection to agriculture should take place.
Another lioN. MEMBER presented a petition from
Manchester in favour of the Ten Hours' Labour B 11;
and al o petiions of a similar nature from factory dis-
tricts in Lancaihire.

,o abolition of

Lord RENDLESHAM presented 124 petitions in fa-
vour of aKricultural protection from districts in Suffolk.
Mr. HUME presented seven petitions in favour of the
present measure of her Majesty's Government ; one
being from Mfoatrose, and signed by the bankers, mer-
chants, and other inhabitants ; another from Arbroath ;
another from Kerriemuir, signed by 1,160 of the inha-
bitams ; another from the linen manufacturers of
lieniemuir, who stated that they desired no protection
themselves, and, therefore, pretested against any pro-
tection being extended to other interests ; another was
from the farmers of Kerriemuir, praying the House to
abolish the corn-laws, for they wanted no protection to
agriculture.

Mr. MITCHELL presented a petition, numerously
signed, praying for a total repeal of the corn-laws.
Colonel RICHARDSON presented two petitions from
South Cheshire deprecating the present measure of the
Government.

to place them in their present position. But he could
undertake to say, that if ever an opposition was con-
ducted upon party principles, that opposition was which
aas marshalled, headed, and led by the Right :ion. Ba-
ronet at the head of the Government.—(Hear, hear,
and laughter.) The disappointment was too bitter.—
(Hear, hear.) The subject -of his conduct was one
which was far too annoying, or else he would enter into
it with perfect willingness. But he did not wish to
give personal offence to his friends, the officers of
the Government, otherwise he would subject the occu-
pants of the Cabinet to the reprobation of the House.—
(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman had said—
and that he thought was the sum and substance of his
speech—that inasmuch as the law had failed
in the year 1842, he should, therefore, entirely aban-
don those principles on which he had come tato office.
The Right Honourable Gentleman said that the law had
failed in 1842, and the word "failure" might be under-
stood in two ways. He would wish to call to the recol-
lection of his Right Hon. Friend what he said to the
farmers of Wiltshire, in February, 1845—(Hear, hear)
—when he made the announcement that he had become
a convert of free trade: He would wish to ask whether,
if the law failed in 1842, the Sidney Herbert of that year
would have corresponded with the Sidney Herbert of
this ?—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) He would also wish
to ask him, if it was possible for any ingenuity in
human nature to concoct a law which would
answer both those gentlemen ?—(Great laughter.) His
Right Hon. Friend in 1845 would find that law failed
for the letting in of corn freely—his Right Hon. Friend
in 1346 would find that the corn law failed in the re-
striction of the free importation of corn—therefore,
highly as he thought of the legislative powers of his
chief, and sincerely as he might believe that he was
capable of effecting anything—and certainly the House had
seen that he was capable of effecting great things—still
that Right Hon. Gentleman asked of him too much, if
he expected that the law of 1842 could succeed in
pleasing gentlemen of both sides of the House. But the
question of averages was all that disappointed the ex-
pectations of his Right Hon. Friend. He could not see
the cause of that. His Right Hon. Friend might re-
member, that even if he were obliged by this
failure to give up the question of the sliding-
scale, there was a fixed duty for him to fall back
upon.—(Laughter.) He conceived that the argument
of the Right Honourable Baronet, viz., that be-
cause the sliding scale had failed in one out of
three years, it was not a good one; was not in his opinion
a sufficient reason to induce him to give up, not only his
favourite measure, but even the principles of all his life.
His Right Hon. Friend (Mr. Sidney Herbert) had said
that this was not a question of delegation. He (Mr. S.
O'Brien) should say it was not a question of delegation,
but the Members of that House were the representatives
of the people, and when they voted against the interests
of their constituents, then they betrayed those interests,
and were unfit either to be delegates or representatives. It
was not merely a question of import which sent this
llcepe before the country, and it was not merely a ques-
tion of import which placed the Right Hon. Gentleman
on the Treasury benches. Ho would not attempt to
treat this question as a trifling one. He would not
treat this question in that light manner that the Right
Hon. Gentleman who had spoken last had attempted to
treat it. It was a question of the greatest importance
to the agricultural interests of this country. The Right
Hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Government
had said that the great potato failure in Ireland had
almost led him to throw open the ports. Ile (Mr. Stafford
O'Brien) did not underrate those evils ; he knew they
did exist, and he was glad to find that the Hon. and
Learned Member for Cork intended to bring forward
the evils pending that failure in Ireland the following
day. But he thought her Majesty's Ministers would
have done better by throwing open the ports
temporarily for a temporary relief, than to adopt
the present measure. How had the free trade
question been received in Ireland ? The gentleman who
stood next to Mr. O'Connell in that country had re-
probated the measure; he said plainly that a re-
peal of the corn-laws would work great evil to
the farmers of that country, and would but
add to the distress which now threatened her.
Ho was in England when he was called back again by
the dreadful accounts which he received of the progress
of the potato disease, and he would tell the House that

those accounts were so far correct, that if the
disease had progressed as it had commenced,
there would not have been a single vegetable in Ireland
at the present moment. On my return, 1 found the dis-
eese rather mending, but it has again commenced,
either from the late wet weather or some other
mysterious arrangement of Providence. He assured
them that there never was a country which
called for more urgent measures than Ireland,
and he firmly believed, there never was a Government
more anxious than the present for the welfare of that
country. But he should tell the Right Honourable
Member for Oxford, that the famine in Ireland re-
quired more immediate measures for its alleviation,
and he did not see how, if he would pass his Bill,
Ireland would be benefited by it one single quarter of
wheat.— (Cheers.) My Hon. Friend, observed that when
he looked round Wiltshire he was surprised how the
poor people could exist there. All he could say was,
that he generally found that the poverty of the agricultu-
ral districts was greatly to be attributed to the owners of
the soil. When they found wretched cottages, and
women and children half-clothed, they were naturally
led to inquire the name of the owner of the soil. He
had conversed with some Wiltshire farmers that morn-
ing, who bore him out in the statements he had made,
and he would do them the justice to say they believed him
to be conscientious in his opinions. But he (Mr. S. Herbert)
had totally failed in the case which he had brought for-
ward to show the necessity of a repeal of the corn-laws,
in order to remedy the evils under which the country
was labouring, which was simply only saying that em-
ployment and the wages of employment tended to the
happiness of the labourer, but if he had followed up
his argument, and really shown that a repeal of the corn-
laws, and an extensive cultivation of poor soil would
effect all this, he would have made his arguments com-
plete. He would hare given an argument in favour of the
repeal of the corn-laws, which had never yet been urged.
—Cheers.)--But if the Hon. Gentleman had visited
Northamptonshire, the county which he (Mr. S.
O'Brien) had the honour to represent, where the la-
bourers received wages amounting, to 13s. or 14s. a
week, he would find that the people were
not in the abject state he had represented.
If he would go and visit that part of the
county with which he was connected, he should be able
to show him well built cottages and a state of comfort
which would satisfy him that a repeal of the corn-laws
was not so much required. He should, in the course of
their ramble together, be able to show him cold clay
lands of such a nature as even to affect the
intellects of those engaged in their cultivation--(Hear)
and, he might add, that the Noble Lord the Member for
the City of London, in his address, looked to the
Member for Northamptonshire when he talked of the
advantages which the landed proprietors of that
county would derive from a relaxatioa of the duties on
corn and other articles of commerce. The address laid
down three propositions for meeting the wants of the
country at the present moment, the long and short of
which was, that British industry required no pro-
tection ; and in the latter part of his speech he said
that protection was neither wanted by the agriculturist
nor by the manufacturer, and vvouki leave their protection
to the energies of the country. It was not treating him
improperly if he (Mr. S. O'Brien) assumed that this-
principle had been publicly enunciated. The Noble
Lord assumed that these propositions were true, because
all political economists were of the same opinion.
Notwithstanding the charge of their having old-
fashioned prejudices and clay intellects, he for one dis-
sented from those propositions, and he said, that even
if all political economists were agreed in this manner,
there would still be higher considerations on the settle-
ment of the question. Honourable Members on the
other side of the House were very apt to confound
the science of political economy with the
science oflegislation. His own notion of political economy
was, that it was a science which treated of the amassing
and distribution of wealth, and. if the science of legis-
lation consisted of the amassing and distribution of
wealth, then he should say that both political economy
and legislation were synonimous terms.—(Hear, hear.)
He, however, took a higher standing ; he said
that the distribution and accumulation of wealth
was only one element in the science of legis-
lation, but even if both the science of le-
gislation and political economy consisted only of the
accumulation and distribution of wealth, it was not
sufficient to prove the case of the Right Hon. Baronet.
—',Cheers.) The Noble Lord the Member for the
City of London had sneeringly declared that agricul-
tural protection societies were established solely for the
purpose of opposing the Anti-Corn. law League.
Now, he denied that these agricultural societies
had been recently formed, and so far from their object
being the overthrow of the Anti-Corn-law League, he
believed they were established for the promotion and
improvement of agriculture.—(Hear, hear.) Honour-
able Members were too much accustomed to throwing
out taunts in reference to these protection societies,
but on a future occasion he might find it convenient
to enter into their history, and he
,would
say now that there was nothing in them
he was ashamed of.—(Hear, hear.) It was said that
labour was the property of the poor man ; he did not
know whether it was right to call things by their wrong
names, but the Noble Lord the Member for Lancashire
called the agriculturist a manufacturer, and upon the
same principle labour was called the property of the
poor man, and this definition of one of the Right Hon,
Baronet's dogmas went forth to the world. But they
ought not to stop there. It would not do for them to
meet six months every year for the protection of their
own property, and at the same time to tell the poor man
that labour was his property, but his property was not
to be protected. The poor man would not understand
such a system ; the poor man would say that they met
to protect their own property, and the conclusion
he would come to was, that the property of the
poor men must be left to take care of itself.
The question of protection was a very unfortunate one
to emanate from a legislation who some years ago
boasted of the extent to which they could avail them-
selves of the labcur of children. That legislation now
found the labour of the poor a difficult thing to deal
with. They had resorted to the most discreditable
methods to protect property. Treatise upon treatise
had been written on the subject, and the decision they.
came to at length was that they should let it
alone. He did not speak of the shop-
keeper, but of the man who had amassed
meney, and who, the moment he found himself in pos-
session of it, found it his interest to be a convert to the
system of buying in the cheapest market and selling in
the dearest one. He would teke the case of the duties
lately spoken of by the Right lion. Baronet at the head
of the Government, because they would serve as an il-
!ustration, and because they were fresher in the memo-
ries of the Members of that House. Supposing that he
had been in the cheapest market, he could furnish his
129ttso with splendid French paper or silk

hanging, and• could ride abroad in a foreign
carriage. He could look out of the window
of his smart house, r.nd drive abroad in his foreign car
riago, and he would see a nuieber of labourers standing
idle. lie might ask them what they were, and the reply
would be, that they were, perhaps, English paper stainers,
hard ware-manufe.etnrers from Birmingheon, and coach-
makers. lie might then say—" My good fellows, I
have done my best to make you idle, but not from any
selfish motiee, for on the 27th of January, 1846, the
Government proposed the withdrawal of the pro-
tective duties, and that proposition was received
with cheers by all political econot&,-ts, in order
that their:dcetrines might havefair play."—(flear, hear.)
Would any man say that the feeling in the hearts of the
people would be one of reverence or attachment to our
institutions in such a case they had that pretanto, for
the feeling would be decidedly against the Government.
W hen they took into consideration the number of
persons so employed, allow employment would be taken
away by the want of protection, they must consider
how much their ancestors had laboured to give them
that protection ; they would see that the way to benefit
the poor was to protect them against foreign competi-
tion, and against the madness cf themselves. In this
House they were all rich men—(Great laughter)—at
least he assumed the fact, and such Hon. Members as
were not, might laugh at the notion.—(Laughter.) But
one thing was quite certaimand that was that they allhad
had a breakfast that morning, and they all expected
to hare a dinner that evening—{Laughter)—and they
might rest assured that such is the position in which
they would be held by their poorer fdlow-creatures ; '
and, therefore, be was right when he asserted that they
in this House we re rich, while the classes lie al-
luded to outside were poor. Well, now it
would go forth to-night to those classes, that in this
House the question propounded was not corn against cot-
ton, but the question of buying in the cheapest market
and selling in the dearest, and therefore he would ask
them why they taxed the poor ? He was not now argu-
ing against the poor-law, but he was contending against
this House attempting to propound a harsh and imprac-
ticable dogma, which would look odious in the eyes of
the poor.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") He had never
stood up ill this House as the champion of exces-
sive duties, or to contend that no alteration should
be made in the corn-laws, but he was contend-
ing that the Government was enunciating a dogma
which the poor people could not understand. There was
another reason why he objected that this dogma should
be promulgated here, and that was that this assembly
was no longer the representatives of the poor man, for
that had been done away with by the paasing of the Reform
Bill. Adam Smith had made two exceptions where other
considerations might enter bssides political economy.
But there were so many other exceptions in addition,
that it would be extremely unwise and unsound
to propound such a rule, and extremely dangerous to
' act upon it. He thought that one of those cases was
agriculture.—(Hear, hear.) He would not then go into
the question of the corn-laws, as he had so frequently
expressed leis opinions on them; but ho considered, that
if there was a calling which, more than another, had
peculiar claims on protection—which contribured to the
health, longevity, and morals of the community—that
calling was agriculture.—(Loud cheers.) He protested
against any change being made under such a complex
state of things which existed in this country. He must
say that lie had been engaged in studying the state of the
question during the last four years in all its bearings,
and he could not find anything to materially alter the
opinions which he had formed on the subject. One
change, however, had come over his mind ; he
began by 'believing it a landlord question,
and he was of opinion that the effect of a
sudden repeal would be to throw large quantities of land
into the market, and consequently the price would be
greatly deteriorated.—(Hear, hear.) From all that he
had read and seen he could not but consider that this
question was a question of the small landed proprietors,
not of the large landed proprietors; they :are able to weather
the storm.—(Hear, beer.) It is a question of the small
landed proprietors, who, upon the faith of previous legis-
lation, have burdened their estates to nearly the full
value for the sake of' effecting improvements on their
lauds.—(Hear.) He believed the present was essentially
a farmers' question, and it was upon this ground that he
took his stand; and because lie thus considered it a far-
mers' question he refused to consent to any changes which
would bring in their train nothing but distress and
misery.—((fear, hear.) Now suppose the case of a ,
tenant farmer, and he would give an illustration, because
he considered that would have more weight than mere
abstract arguments. Suppose, then, in this ease, the
prices to be rather low, arising from a large importation
of grain or some other cause. The tenant farmer comes
to the landlord, he says to him, " I hope you will allow
some abatement in the rent. I have expended large
sums in draining and fencing, my family have hehl
under you fisr several generations, we have weathered
together many hard, difficult, and stormy seasons. I have
worn your colours; and I should be sorry to leave
the spot where I and my family have lived
so long to seek a home el-ewhere."—(llear, hear.)
The landlord says to him, " hly good fellow I am sorry
for you, you have invested your money in drains and
fences, you invested that money on the faith of my as-
surances, and I have made those assurances, and invested
my capital on the faith of the legislature.—(Hear, hear.)
We aro now told that we are to buy in the cheapest, and
sell in the dearest markets.—(Hear, hear.) There is a
gentleman, a manufacturer in this district, ready
to invest his capital in your farm. I must
now look to my own family arrangements ; I am
sorry I can do nothing for you.—(Hear, hear.) You look
back at the feudal times, those times we are now told
are old and exploded notions—(Hear, hear)—aud as for
colours, God bless you, my good fellow, there is no
such thing as true blue now."—(Prolonged cheering.)
The tenant farmer then goes away from his land, the -
manufacturer with his immense capital comes in, and by
the application of that capital, the land, which before
yielded but three-quarters then, yields six quarters, and
the great increase of the produce will then be used as a
set off to the injurious effects of a large importation of
foreign corn.—(Hear, hear.) A few months ago a
farmer mentioned a circumstance to him, the relation
of which would help to explain this question
better than anything he could say. A farmer
went to his landlord and stated that he had
just had a large fortune left him ; his landlord
advised him to leave the cold, clayey ground
which he then held, and invest his capital
in some good ground, and make his fortune.
He said " the graves of four generations—of my father,
grandfather, great grandfather, and great great grand-
father aro in this neighbourhood ; and I have worked
that farm, and I will stick to it."—(Hear, hear.)
There were hundreds of thousands of men like that man,
who had not fortunes in their pockets, but who had the
same hearts in their bosoms—whom now they were driv-
ing forth by their legislation with broken hearts, and
whose bitterest recollection—whose bitterest association,
would be with the name of Cobden.—(Hear, hear.)
We, continued the Honourable Gentleman, will
not aid you, Sir, in your triumph over these poor men.
We do not envy a triumph in which we do not parti-
cipate, and though we are small in number, and may
be uninfluential in debate, we will raise our voices
against the injustice that is proposed. You are now
prenaring a triumph against a body of men who are
petitioning that table in vain ; and who see ruin staring
them in the face ; who have ben moderate in prosperity
and patient in adversity ; whose virtue and whose mis-
fortune is, that they are poor, and, as I said before,
whose fatal fault was, having trusted, you.—(Cheers.)
You are prepared to triumph over them, for I will give
it no more milder term—you are prepared to triumph
over them by a strange coalition with men who, true to
their principles—(Loud cheers)—can neither welcome
you as friends, nor respect you as opponents—(Voci-
ferous cheering)—of whom, I may say, in conclusion,
that the best and most patriotic amongst them will least
rejoice in the ruin and the downfal of a great constitu-
tional party, and will most deplore the loss of public con-
fidence in public men.—(The Hon. Gentleman sat down
amidst the most boisterous cheering from his own party.)
Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD rose to address the
House, but was some time inaudible on account of Mem-
bers leaving. He said that the whole argument of the
Honourable Gentleman who had just sat down was
that the Right Honourable Baronet at the head of
the Government was a traitor. The Honourable
Gentleman professed great regard for the working
classes, for whom he professed protection was requtehre
He (Mr. Sharman Crawford) would not understand
Hon. Member asking the House to continuo protection
while they refused cheap food to the working °lasses.
Cheap food was the foundation of national prosperity and
protectionwas injurious,because it enhanced the price of the
necessaries of life. He thought the arguments heretofore
used in the debate tended to confuse the question, the
main points of which were exceedingly simple. The
agricultural body demanded that the nation should pur-
chase its food at their market price, but would
they consent to proffer to the working classes
wages equivalent to the prices they sought
to obtain ? They bad never yet done so. Were
they prepared to do so now? Yet this seemed an es-
sential element in the case. Could they engage that all
the working classes should have their wages made com-
mensurate to the price they wished to keep agricultural
produce at? By the old poor-law wages were raised in
proportion to the price of food, but the new poor-law
had done away with that. It was not so now. In the
election of 1841, two points were raised, in order
to return a majority to that House. One was the per-
petuation of protection to the agricultural interest, and
the other the restoration of the old poor-law; the latter
especially was much dwelt on as an electioneering cry
against the Whigs, who were charged with the odium of
that measure. Bad the pledge then given been fulfilled?
No; they had kept up prices by the corn-laws, andyet had
done nothing to mitigate the evils of the new poor-law
He was more particularly anxious to address the House
on that occasion, on account of the question of Ireland
having been raised. It was raised by the Hon. Member
who spoke last, and many other Hon. Members
who preceded him. He must acknowledge that
he disagreed with the great majority of Irish
landlords on this question, and so far from his thinking
that agricultural protection was a benefit to Ireland, it
had, in his opinion, proved a curse to that country.—
(Hear, hear.) It was used as an argument in favour of
thecontinuance of the corn-laws in England, that England
had been in a prosperous state ever since their exist-
ence ; but this argument could not, at all events, be
applied to Ireland, for ever since the corn-laws
had been extended to that unfortunate country
nothing _hut misery had prevailed there.—(Hear, hear.)
He thought that this measure was a matter of deep con-
cern to the whole of the Irish community. He had had
great hopes of the results which might arise from
the Commission tinder the Earl of Devon. But
he was disappointed, for he found that that Com-
mission had a reference only to the interests
of the landlords, and had no reference whatever to the
condition of the tenantry of Ireland. It was evident
from the report of that Commission that the condition
of ndttaon
of the tenantry was wretched in the eztrem .
_NOW, by
inquiry into the restips between 19019 and