The Sun.
London, England, 1851-02-14 00:00:00

arguments which he laid before us, and that I was ready to
abide bythelesne" Upon the Ease which he then submitted.
_(Hear) But it is my duty, seeing: the present state of
• the House, to enter into the consideration of this important
motion—a motion which I must say, introduced, as it was,
by a speech of great ability and great moderation—(Hear)—is
in itself, I conceive, as fraught with injustice and dangerous
consequences, if approved by the House, as any motion that
in the whole course of my public life I ever recollect.—
' (Hear.) The Hon. Gentleinan laid down a great many pro-
positions with regard to. the state of the landed interest—
propositions which seemed to many Members of the House,
believe, to be a series of propositions intended for their
• serious consideration ; but which, I conceive, were merely in-
. tended to disguise the real object of the motion.—(Hear.) The
Hon. Gentleman told us, in the first place, that it was a very
great hardship that the landed interest was not allowed to
grow tobacco. The easy and simple answer to that is, that
if you took a just course— if you either remitted the whole
of the duty, or if you 'kept up the duty and enforced an
• Excise duty of an equal amount upon the grower of tobacco,
and obtained payment of the duty (and these are the only
two ways in which equality could be established), no to-
bacco would be grown in the United Kingdom.—(Hear,
hear.) The Hon. Gentleman next instanced the case of beet-
root sugar as a similar argument, with respect to which I
would make a similar grievance. The Hon. Gentleman then
talked of the hardship of the tax on malt ; but, without en-
tering into that argument, I would only say that the emi-
nent leader of the party to which the Hon. Gentleman be-
longs (Lord Stanley) has declared that so large a portion cf
revenue ought not to be remitted, and that, if he were a
Member of this House he would give his vote against such a
proposition.— (Hear. ) Another question which the Hon.
Member brought before us was the question of tithes. Upon
that subject I shall only say—following the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman the Member for Ripon, that if there is any disad-
vantage in that bargain, it is a disadvantage which
lies upon the titheowner, and not upon the landlord.—(Hear,
hear.) It is of no importance to consider at present what
was the original tithe ; but in the present state of the law it
is a rentcharge payable to the titheowner; and, according to
the Hon. Gentleman's own showing, if the present prices
were to continue, the titheowner would receive in a few
years 751. for the 1001. which he received at the time of the
commutation.—(Hear, hear.) I must really protest, there-
fore, that if any such policy as the Hon. Gentleman suggested
were to be adopted—if there should be a re-settlement of the
question with the view of diminishing the amount payable to
the titheowner—a more flagrant act of injustice I cannot con-
ceive,—(Hear, hear.) I cannot believe, however, that the
Hon. Gentleman really contemplates any such re-settlement.
Another measure, which he threw out at equal length and
with equal ingenuity for our consideration, was the change
of the present local rates for the poor into a national rate.
That is a matter which has been frequently discussed in this
House; but I believe most men who have considered the
- subject have come to the conclusion that a scheme more de-
structive of economy, more discouraging to industry on the
part of the poor, or more dangerous to the finances of the
country, could not be devised, than the commutation of the
• local rates for the poor into a national rate.—( Hear, hear.)
With respect to that subject, also, I cannot believe that the
Hon. Gentleman is in earnest in recommending it. His own
scheme of last year, for transferring 2,000,0001. from the
local rates to the consolidated fund, did not meet with much
• favour, and the arguments against that proposition had been
so fully entered into that I shall not trouble the House with
any remarks upon it. But the Hon. Gentleman, in the
• whole course of his speech, rather reminds me of a direction
which a friend of mine told me he once received when he
asked which way he should go. He was told there was a
way to the right, but it soon led to a swamp, and he had
better not go that way; that if he went a little further there
• was another way to the right, but it was a very intricate
path, and he would probably lose his way, and he had better
• not go that way either. If, however, he would just go
straight on, he would arrive at the place he wanted.—
. (Laughter) Now, it seems to me that the Hon. Gentle-
• man pointed out to us the goal which he did not mean us to
aim at for the purpose of introducing the object which he
really has in view ; for I consider that the object of the mo-
tion is that protection which was concealed during the greater
part of his speech.—(Hear, hear.) That seems to be the only
thing upon which a practical measure could be based; and
it is worth while for the House to consider what is the
course which the Hon. Member proposed that they should
adopt upon this subject. The Hon. Gentleman said that the
proposition for a return to protection was not one which he
. could expect to be adopted by the present Parliament; that
it could only be carried by the opinion of the people in
general, and even then that a small majority would not be
satisfactory, but that it ought to be a large majority, showing
unequivocally the opinion of the country. The Right Hon.
Gentleman the Member for Ripon has explained that allu-
sion by referring to the statement which was made by the
Duke of Richmond last year, to the effect that the object of
the Protectionists was, after gaining possession of the Go-
vernment, to dissolve Parliament, and to get the new Par-
liament to adopt protection. Let us consider this in con-
nexion with that which the Hon. Gentleman has said. He
told us that unless the country pronounced unequivocally in
, favour of protection the Government ought not to propose
its restoration. This might be all very well, supposing the
Government were a thing of itself, quite independent of
popular representation and popular election; but, supposing
the new Ministers to whom the Honourable Gentleman
alluded were to go before their constituents, why the first
question that would be asked by the counties would be,
a Are you for protection or are you not?" And they would
not be satisfied with the indirect kind of answer which the
Hon. Gentleman has signified he would give, viz., that pro-
. tection would be a good thing if the country in general were
in favour of it; but that if there was not a majority, and a
large majority too, is favour of it, the House of Commons
. ought not to vote for it. No considerable body of electors
anxious for protection would be satisfied with such an answer.
—(Hear, bear.) They would oblige the candidate to say
whether he was for protection according to the opinion of
his constituents, and whether the new Members or Ministers
would return to the House of Commons determined to act
in one way or another with respect to the question. And,
again, supposing they arrive here upon the sort of pledge
referred to, who is to say whether there would be a suffi-
cient majority to content the Honourable Gentleman ?
. (Hear, hear.) What is the meaning, then, of the proposal,
but that, without declaring directly and boldly in favour of
protection, they would throw the whole question again
upon the country, and say it is doubtful whether protec-
tion will be restored or not—that it would be a good
thing if it could be restored with the consent of the coun-
try, but that it must be matter of doubt and uncertainty
for a year or two whether it will be so restored or not.
Now, I ask the House to say whether, if this course were
adopted, there could be conceived a proposal more mis-
chievous to the country, or one more likely to lead to a
revival of all those angry feelings which the Honourable
Gentleman declared it was his wish to terminate by his mo-
tian or not? a (Hear, hear.) In the first place, if this course
were seriously contemplated, the immediate consequence
would be that the merchants and manufacturers would doubt
and hesitate with respect to their orders; and their corre-
spondents would say, " We cannot say whether to send you
corn or not in return for your manufactures, because we don't
know what articles you want, or what import duties may be
imposed ; we do not know the nature of the measures which
the Government or Parliament of England are about to adopt
with respect to your commercial policy." The consequence
would be that orders would cease, that the general employ-
ment, which the Hon. Gentleman himself admits is now
given to the working classes, would be diminished ; that
the workshops would be idle; that the factories would
be closed; and that the whole country would be waiting
far a measure the passing of which, after all, de-
.pended upon the doubful fact of there being a vast majo-
rity of this House in its favour.—( Hear, hear.) But there is
. a good deal more in this question, because, as has been truly
said, the great mess of the working classes in this country,
whether employed in manufactures or in agriculture, now feel
themselves interested in this question.—(Hear, hear.) When
the question was under debate ten years ago, it was com-
.monly said, by those who were strongly in favour of protec-
tion, that the working classes could gain no benefit by the
relaxation of the corn-laws, because, whatever might be the
.cheapness of food, their wages would be reduced in propor-
tion. I believe that that argument was very successful
with the working classes for a considerable time, and that,
whatever might be the opinion of the merchants and ma-
nufacturers, and others of the middle classes upon the sub-
ject, the working classes were disposed to believe that
, they would not be gainers by the change. But what is
the case now?—(gear, hear,) Do they not know that the
reduction in the price of food, and of bread more especially
is greatly more than commensurate with the
reduction ie'
their wages ?—(Hear, hear.) Do not the whole people
now feel an interest in the question they never felt before?
and won't you rind that the maintenance and continuance of
.the old protective system is a totally different question from
that of the imposition of a new tax upon corn, which they
believe. at all events, whatever may be said by the Right
Hon. Gettleman, the Member for Stamford, would increase
the price of the bread they consume ?—(Hear, hear.) Take
the case of a man with twelve loaves of bread per
.week for his family. If he now pays sd. for each loaf,
and if he expected that the new tax would raise it to
.6d., here is ls. a week which he can at present lay out
in the purchase of sugar and coffee, and in paying
.for schooling for his childrn, which he would have to pay
as an additional price for his bread.—(Hear, hear.) Do you
think they would be indifferent to that question? Do you
think they would calmly see you attempt to raise that ques-
tion again and propose thatit should be withdrawn? I
think those gentlemen who now propose to do so very
mech deceive themeelves if tbey imagine that there
would be any hope for the country,i or that there would be
the least chance of tranquility thaeretransaction of
these measures. It might be thaart
stand by those measures, and that they eyvould proposei!re
aretdo do
so; but that is not the proposal of the Hors. Member (Mr.
Disraeli). The proposal of the Hon. Gentleman is to have a.
continued discussion and agitation of this question—to have
nothin.• settled, but to leave it for a time in abeyance. I
differ from him altogether. Hon. Gentlemen should either,
I think, come forward ami say, however excellent the sys-
tem of protection, it is now past, and cannot be obtained
again—or they should say, "We are ready to stand by pro-
tection; if it can be enforced, we are the persons who ought
to govern the country, but if not, it should be for those who
oppose us." I say it seems perilous, as well as unfair, to
wart this subject again, and that the Hon, Member, having
done so, eti
t-0 t. ,vveciiitild neither take one aide or the other with respect
be under , Sir, during the time in which this question would
greatest uncertainty
there would be, as I have said, the
would be aco litY in all commercial transactions, and there
tuplete change of that which we have seen—
astherewould be a doir hanging over the minds of every one
to the nature of proposition to be made. Now, the
Honourable Gentlemane taaysevery fairly, and I do not object
to the remark, that I
the management of figueevs, neither inclination nor skill in
House: I own, Sir, ern a" in matters of finance in this
with respect to those ques-
tions, to consider the politicak7
much as the commer-
Intswthat I always thought
dial and social interests involved,
it was a most dangerous proposition regard to the corn-
laws, that those who directed diseento
against Parliament
allogrweaer to say nearly
on this subject, ehould have it in their
the whole of the 'Luse of Lords, and
Inca twPortion of the
questliteoi,themselves
Homo of Commons, are composed of
az,earntd who
are landlords, who are interested in this
are making you pay their incomes out of the
sour industry.—(Hear, bear.) I thought this at all times
(4.
times
4.very dangerous part of this question; but that danger
would be multiplied tenfold if, after protection was
pealed, you should attempt to reimpose it. The most wild.
of Chartlats could wish for no better topic than to be able to
say to the people—" Look at your Parliament, look at your
House of Peers and at your House of Commons ! They ate
making a difference in the price of corn which (as the Noble
74°1*(1, the Marquis of Granby stated to-night) would amount
tp not less than C 0,000,000/., and which another Hon. Mem-
ber said amounted to 55,000,0001. They are making you
thise immense sum in order to add to their in conies."
,e?on, Sir, the House will consider that dangerous aspect
of toe question before they again set loose for public agita-
tiou a matter of
-nlearta
land. is buidenedeieninap enFe se great. Well, but it is said
should receive specialsa manner, and that the owners
friend of mite, who is novrti°n. Why, I remember when a
Islands, year after ernor-General of the lonian
year attempted to gain a select committee
for the purpose of considering what were the burdens upon
the land, that those gentlemen who are most clamorous for
protection never could bear to consent,lo . and used to come for-
ward to beg that there might be z
Attain $t hayeatiption; and posy
and to atop
i all
it APPean that, wth-
._

4% - 54

% -lip