The Sun.
London, England, 1846-03-27 00:00:00

Hon. Member for Lambeth in his place, as astonishment hal
been expressed at his (Mr. Borthwick's) side of the House
that no answer had been given to the statistics of that Hon.
Member, However, he hoped the House would indulge Is'm for a short time whilst he proceeded to refute those statistics.
In the year 1797, and during the five following years, we had
not only a free trade in corn, but a bounty given upon its im-
portation. He would quote " Macpherson's Annals of Com-
merce :"—lt is stated that it was found necessary to hold out an
inducement for the importation of corn, and therefore a bounty
was granted on all foreign corn imported. For every quarter
of grain weighing 4401b5, 20s. ; for every quarter of wheat
weighing 4241b3., 16s. ; and for every cwt. of wheat and flour
is. In the five years to which he was now referring the
country had abundant libations of the sweets of free trade ; but
what was the effect ? In 1797, the price of wheat was 77e. Id.;
in 1798, it was 50s. 3d. ; in 1799, it was 675. 6d. ; in 1700, i
was 113 s. ; and in 1701, it was 116 s. ; and, if the Hon. Gen-
tlemen would allow him to quote an additional year, they
would find that in 1802, the price ranged beyond 116 s. Taking
any five years of protection about the same period, they
would find that the price never varied more than 7s. per
quarter. Mr. Canning had said in that House
wason tslni a tdenoecictaifusiona,s
fithtganres,nowthitihngth
ebrought i 0 fnoorsfv afradets...there
laugh)—and he (Mr. Borthwick) said on the present occasion
that they had something more subtle than figures, " and more
slippery than facts," and that was the principle upon which
public men proposed to conduct the Government. Hon. Gen-
tlemen would believe him when he quoted the authority of the
Right Hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, when, ors
a former occasion, he advocated protection, arid adduced in its
support precisely the same arguments and data which he now
adduced in support of free trade. When addressing his consti-
tuents from Tamworth, he had quoted M'Culloch in support
of protection, and he now quoted the same words from the same
author in support of free trade. The Right Hon. Baronet had
appealed in several instances to the country. He had done so,
in the case of East Gloucestershire; and the result was the.
return of the Noble Lord (the Marquis of Worcester) who
made such an excellent speech the other night against the mea-
sure. All the recent elections showed that the feelings of the
country were against the policy of the Government. He had
almost forgotten Nottinghamshire, where also the representative:
of the Government was defeated under very painful circum-
stances.---( Hear.) He (Mr. Borthwick) did not speak as the
advocate of any mere political party, however great, but he
stood there to record his vote on a great issue—a great question
between the powerful few and the feeling many—between ac-
cumulated capital and suffering toil. That was the question,
they had to settle, and on which he would record his vote
against the attempted domination of capital. He stood there
on the recorded words of Burke—that the rich were but the
pensioners or bankers of the poor, and that it was the duty of
the Legislature to see that the latter were protected from any
attempted mal-administration of the funds placed in the hands.
of these pensioners or bankers. It had been said that the
feeling of the Canada, was in favour of the measure, but he had
recently received a letter from a gentleman in Montreal, which
stated that the news of the measures of her Majesty'. Govern-
ment had depreciated property there at least 50 per cent. The
residents of the colony considered faith had been broken with.
them in regard to the Canada Corn Bill, passed in 1842..
It was the duty of the Government to protect the colonies
from the competition of their neighbours, instead of exposing
them to that competition, as would be the case with the
Canadas and the United States. They ought to bear always
in mind the opinion of Burke, that it was most dangerous to
tamper with agriculture. Even the greatest political econo-
mists, Mr. Deacon Hume, Mr. M'Culloch, and also Mr.
Ricardo, and Dr. Adam Smith, opposed absolute free trade in
corn as chimerical and inexpedient. They on"ht to be guided
by the wisdom of their ancestors, which the Hon. Member for
Liskeard (Mr. C. Buller) had attempted to turn into ridicule.
According to that Hon. Member they were to abandon the
light of Bacon and Thurlow, and the wisdom of Hume, with
the other great luminaries of English law and history. All
these, as well as the wisdom of Burke, and Pitt, and Fox, and
Sheridan, and Grattan, were to be set aside as nothing by
the Honourable Member for Liskeard, and the Honour-
able Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Vernon Harcourt).
He had listened the other evening to the speech of the Hon..
and Learned Member for the university of Dublin ( Mr..
Shaw)---a speech which was most satisfactory, and one it
would not be easy for the supporters of the present measure to
grapple with. That speech the Government had not yet re-
plied to, and the Noble Lord the Member for the city of
London (Lord J. Russell) had not thought it prudent to touch
it. In fact, that Noble Lord left the Right Hon. Baronet to
fight his own battle, waiting till a favourable opportunity, after
the passing of this measure, occurs to turn him ont of office and
take his place.—(Hear, hear.) Yet the Lord Chancellor
asked them on that side, what measures they intended to intro-
duce, if they were able to form a government, with his Grace
the Duke of Richmond at their head. It was for her Majesty
to name the ministry, but it was for the individual Members of
the I-Touse to give an honest vote; and could they, therefore,
vote for the measures of the Right Hon. Baronet, believing
as they did, that those measures were not calculated to be of
benefit to the country? He was anxious that it should be in-
derstnod that he recorded his vote against this measure, not be-
cause he wished to oust the Government, but becausehe could
not shut his eyes to the extreme consequences that would
follow it. He trusted that the interests of the agriculturists
would long, despite of these measures, be one of the objects
to be recognised by a British House of Parliament. He
trusted that the interests of the agricultural labourers would
not be left to the tender mercies of the manufacturer. He
thanked the House for the attention paid him, and he hoped
that Hon. Gentlemen opposite would follow the example of the
Gentlemen on his side of the House, and never rise till they
had something to say—(Laughter)—and having said so, to sit
down again immediately.—(Continued laughter.) He would
oppose the measure introduced by Government.
Afr. CHARLES BULLER said that he was exceedingly
obliged to the Hon. Member for Evesham for the very flat-
tering personal compliments he had paid to him, but the Hon.
Member did him less than justice when he accused him of
laughing at or ridiculing Hon. Members opposite for following
the wisdom of their ancestors.—(Hear, hear.) What he did
marvel at was the extraordinary perverseness of those Hon.
Gentlemen opposite; who adhered to the obsolete dogmas, the
" wise sayings" of their ancestors, while neglecting the grand
landmarks of true wisdom and experience. The lion. Member
for Evesham came forward with great self-complacency, and
quoted these sayings, as in favour of the policy he himself
!
advocated, and Hon. Gentlemen behind him vigorously cheered
these quotations, whether happily applied or not, so long as they
were made by one of their own party.—(Hear, hear, and
cheers.) If he (Mr. C. Buller) had wished to quote the
wisdom of their ancestors against restrictive laws ou the
food of the people, he should assuredly have quoted the
same sentiments which the Hon. Member had more
than once quoted from the celebrated Burke, as warning them
of the folly of tampering with the food of the people.
There had always been one great feature in the wisdom of our
ancestors compared with ourselves, and that was the compara-
tive brevity of their debates.—(Laughter.) He did not be-
lieve that there was a parallel, either in our own or any other
country, to the fact of a debate lasting three weeks upon a
single subject. He was willing to do justice to the strength
and variety of the arguments of Hon. Gentlemen opposite, but
he must say they would have done their arguments just as
much justice if they had made their speeches shorter. He
would not now enter into the question of free trade. It was
too late in the stage of the business to discuss that subject.
The good sense of makind had made that the general opinion
of the world long ago. Since the year 1815, the whole course of
the policy of successive Governments had been to diminish the
pressure of the corn-laws upon the people. They had
shown by their policy that the corn-laws were an exception
to the sound principles of trade ; and, in dealing :with
the corn-laws, their main object had always appeared to be to
get rid of them as speedily and as safely as possible. Hon.
Gentlemen opposite had thought proper to applaud Gentlemen
fr theirconsistency.
seif, because,
u
Hep
to twocouldc o
claim
toion mhiersiitdoenotfhthatealcicoournt for
himself,
,voted d
defended
restrictionded th e R ig
hotn
Hon.the trade
Baronetin
corn.th r e e yeNavr
hs
opposite, be was defending himself. For some time past, it
i ago,le, therefore, ea rd e
had been evident that the opinions of the Right Hon. Baronet
were undergoing a change. For several years the arguments
which had been used to support the corn-laws had been given
up one after the other, until nothing was left for them to,
stand upon. He thought the Government might have
commenced their change of opinion earlier. He would,
however, put it to any reasonable man, whether, under
the present :circatristances of the country it would have been
possible to maintain the corn-laws longer. He would frankly
avow that his opinion had been very much changed since be
first entered that House. Who could say that they had never
ne could tell the precise
alluded always was gradual, and no o
Gentlemen opposite had
changed their opinions ? A change like that to which be
moment when it occurred. Hon.
been pleased to laugh at the famine in Ireland, and would not
admit that as an argument in favour of the. present measure.
Now Hon. Gentlemen opposite had in this shown their incon-
sistency, for nothing could be more marked than their tone in
the first debate on this subject. They then admitted the great
distress in Ireland, and that it was the duty of the Government
to provide immediately for it.—(No, no.) It was not until
they found their own argument cut from under them that they
denied that they had adopted such an argument. It did appear
to him to be most extraordinary for Hon. Gentlement to come
forward and on such evidence deny the existence of such an
evil as the famine in Ireland. They now came forward
and said there was no
.famine in Ireland, and yet they had
only a short time ago said that the Government ought to have
provided for it by a temporary measure. The Right Hon.
Alember for the University of Dublin, (Mr. Shaw) came for-
ward with private letters, and with stories told by one mart
to another; and upon this authority he denied the existence
of the famine. The price of potatoes had been quoted as an
argument. Whyithat was worth nothing. The potatoes were
perishing, and, therefore, they were lavishly consumed in
Ireland, and this, of course, would have a tendency to keep
down the price, because all dealers would be anxious to get rid
of their stocks. In an article that was not se immediately
perishable, the supply of course would affect the price, and
by the price the extent of supply could be judged of ; but in
the case of the famine in Ireland, the argument as to the
price of potatoes was not by any means a sound one. But
even this argnmentiwas notsiupported by the facts, as the price of
potatoes in Ireland had doubled within the last few months.
This terrible condition of the Irish people was one which
Hon. Members opposite could not deny, but, as he had al-
ready stated, they admitted its existence ; and while doing so
some of them have thrown out suggestions as to the mode in
which it ought to be relieved, but these had been sufficiently
answered by the Government themselves. They were going
to relieve the immediate wants of the Irish people, aided by
the assistance of private individuals ; and, as a proof that some
Hon. Members opposite admitted the soundness of this policy,
he might direct attention to the fact that the Hon. and Gal-
lant Member for Lincoln had offered to subscribe 3001. to-
wards carrying out this object.
Colonel SIBTHORP—I never made such an offer, but I
should like to know what you intend to subscribe.—( Cries of
" Order, order.")
Mr. CHARLES BULLER said he had no intention of

offending the Hon. and Gallant Member, in alluding to this
circumstance; on the contrary, he thought he was stating
something that was to the credit of the Hon. and Gallant
Member, and he was under the impression that the Hon. and
Gallant Membs r, feeling it to he so, when reminded of his
promise, would come forward and stand to his word. To re-
turn, however, to the subject before the House, the people of
Ireland were starving, and the Government had adopted a right
and proper contrivance for removing this distress. Some Hon.
Members, however, complained that the Government ought
not to have proposed a repeal of the corn-laws, but to have
met the exigencies of the moment by throwing open the ports.
Did Hon. Members, however, imagine that the ports could be
opened without an alteration in the corn-laws following such
a proceeding? The ports were thrown open, in 1826, by Mr.
Canning, and what followed that step ? Why, the Govern-
ment came down to the House of Commons, and, after asking
for an Act of Indemnity to themselves, called upon the House
to make an alteration in the then existing laws. Now, he
wanted to ask Hon. Members opposite a question with regard
to this temporary suspension or the law under the pressure
of the Irish famine. He wanted to know when they would
propose to shut the ports? That was a material question.
Would any Hon. Gentleman take upon himself to say how
long the potato disease was likely to last? True, one Hon.
Gentleman had consoled them, by producing a sample of po-
tatoes grown by the Duke of Porland. This potato was free
from disease ; but they could not conclude, from such a fact,
that the disease was at an end. By examining samples of the
crop at the present moment, who could tell whether the po-
tato crop of next year would be a failure or not ? The example
of America was before them, and it afforded a terrible warning
of the increasing nature of the disease. How could any Go-
vernment, then, with these facts before their eyes, avoid taking