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

THE

struggling thus, as I believe, in vain against machinery,
is embarrassed by this peculiar difficulty—that it is the
manufacture into which the largest quantity of raw
cotton enters. It is a heavy cotton containing
the largest quantity of the raw material. It hap •
pens most unfortunately that the price of raw cotton has
greatly risen, and the employers of handloom weavers
have been increasing their power of machinery to meet the
difficulty, and in order to encounter the high price of cotton
are passing from handloom weaving to the greater use of
power-looms. (Hear, hear.) This is a peculiar circumstance
of recent origin, but I am hound to say I have always felt
and thought that the days of handloom weaving were all but
numbered, and that the struggle with the power-looms must
end in defeat. But this is a question of the price of cotton,
and, strange as it may be, it opens out a ray of hope even to
the landed interest. Whence does this ray come ? Why, it
comes from the quarter whence they least expected it
" Via prima salutis,
" Quod minims reris, Graia pandetur ab urbe."
It is from the mills of Messrs. Bright and Co.--(Cheers and
laughter.) It is from Rochdale that this light of hope opens
on the landed interest.—(Cheers.) Hopes are entertained,
confident hopes—that by a new management of flax stalk
it may be used in large proportions with great advantage and
diminution of cost in mixture with cotton wool, sheep's wool,
and even with silk wool.—(hear, hear.) And, Sir, for my
part, I cannot conceive any diepensatioii of Providence more
merciful than that science and skill should succeed in ever-
coming this difficulty, whereby we should be rendered in a
great degree independent of foreign supply, while a great
stimulus would be given to our malmfacturee ; and if, hap-
pily. this encouragement to the cultivation of flax here
should succeed, I ant very confident we shill hear no inure
of the distress of those handloom weavers, and that the cut•
tivation of land will be largely improved by the introduction
of capital in growing this new plant, and that this
plant will be of peculiar service to the agriculturists from its
being peculiarly adapted to increase the fertility of the soil.
I pass from the handloom weavers to the tanners and land-
lords of Cumberland. I know none of the cases to which the
Hon. Member alluded of my own knowledge, but he ad-
verted to a farm which has been recently re-let in Cumber-
land at a considerable diminution of rent. The Noble Mar-
quis has spoken of his labourers. Perhaps I may here be
permitted to say a few words of mine. I have already
stated to you the infinite obligations I am placed under by
the conduct of my tenantry, but I stand here this moment
without an acre of land unlet which I wish to let.—(Cheers.)
I have not for the last five years changed two tenants who
pay me above 1001. a year, and 1 have not an arrear of
300/. on my whole rental.—(Cheers.) That is the
state of my county, so far as lam concerned. But I
look to the estate of my neighbour, of my colleague,
and of my friend, as I am proud to cell him—the
Duke of Buccleuch ; one of the greatest proprietors in the
south of Scotland, and one who differed from me as to the
policy of free trade. He has not in Roxburghshire and
Dumfries let land falling out of lease —and those leases are
usually for nineteen years—at any diminution of rent. A
case has been mentioned again of a farm in East Lothian, and.
I dare say some Hon. Member more conversant with the de-
tails of that property than I am will speak upon that point;
but, as I am informed, the farm in question had been pre-
viously in the hands of the owner, and had never been let
before the last letting—that it was never calculated to be
worth more than 1,8001. a year—that some speculative far-
mer took it at 2,200/., that he made an imprudent and im-
provident bargain, and that a remission, therefore, has taken
place, reducing the rent below 1,800/. a year, but not much.
I have friends in East Lothian, and I have made it my bu-
siness to inquire into these matters, and I am told farms
let freely as they fall out of lease without diminution of rent
whatever—(Cheers)—and also I am informed that the
value of the fee-simple, which is the real test among the
shrewd and sagacious people of Scotland has increased since
the repeal of the corn-laws.—(Hear.) I have said I have
no farms to let; but I have perceived that since the repeal
of the corn•laws there has been a competition for land,
airsing among a class of persons with whom there was for-
merly no desire to occupy land, while there was the uncer-
tainty which attended the operation of those laws.—
(Cheers.) Shopkeepers retiring from business—(Laughter)
—small merchants in country towns—(lronical Protectionist
cheering)—these persons, attracted by the pleasure of an
agricultural life—(Renewed ironical cheering and laughter
from the Protectionists.) Yes, you laugh at that.—(Cheers.)
But I thought country gentlemen would have been the last
to laugh at that—(Cheers)---or to undervalue the attrac-
tions of securing health and fresh air for which those
persons sought a country life.—(Cheers and laughter.)
But I repeat it, that small traders of little capital in coun-
try towns are now waiting the moment to make in-
vestments in farms; the competition for farms on the
fall of the lease is unusually great, and I know of
my own knowledge that on any change of the
present occupiers I could find men with good capital to take
them. So much with respect to the state of affairs in my
own immediate neighbourhood. rut now let us try another
test. Are enclosures falling off?—(Hear, hear.) Is there
any indisposition to bring land into cultivation in this coun-
try? Now, lam reminded of a melancholy event, because
it relates to a Noble Lord with whom I once lived on terms
of great intimacy, and though partial differences may have
estranged us before his lamented death, I will never cease to
speak of him as a man of great talent, of ability, and integ-
rity, of great perseverance in the pursuit of his objects, and
of great sagacity in the selection of them. I speak of the late
Lord George Bentinck. He was a great promoter of what
has been called winning from the sea a new English county.
—(" Hear, hear," from Lord J. Russell.) Before his death
the enterprise was not completed. Has it been abandoned
since ?—(Hear. ) I hear that it is going on as vigorously as
ever, and that half of the Victoria county is to be gained—
[Lord H. BENTINCK—`• 600,000 acres"] - that, as my Noble
Friend the Member for Lynn says, 600,000 acres of land are
about being recovered by sagacious men, who have formed
themselves into a company for the purpose of reclaiming half
an English county from the sea.—(Cheers.) The great dif-
ference of prices has also been touched on by the Noble
Member who has just spoken; and here I cannot avoid men-
tioning it cursorily, that the cost of production in a long
series of years must regulate the price of every commodity,
but that the market price is constantly for short periods not
regulated by that rule. There are disturbing causes, which
make for short periods the market price infinitely below the
cost of production. Now, the Hon. Member for Bucking-
hamshire rather sneered at: the doctrine that the present
prices are exceptional. But I should like those who sneer to
answer a case of fact.—( Hear, hear.) There is a country
under high protective duties on corn close to our shores, and
yet disturbance of price has taken place in France even
greater than here. lam informed that the price of wheat in
the neighbourhood of Bordeaux not long ago was 28s. a quar-
ter, and that under a high protective duty. The market price
being below the cost of production, the natural consequence
necessarily follows, and capital is rapidly withdrawn front
the cultivation of the soil. lam told that at the time of the
revolution there were 200,000 fundholders in France. There
are now 800,000 fundholders. What shows still more the
charater of political disturbances, to prevent persons em-
barking their capital, there is in France at this moment a
powerful disposition to hoard, as is evinced by the rate of
exchange, and still more by the rise in the price of silk. It
is true that in calculating the sources whence corn might be
expected to be imported into this country any supply from
France was not anticipated, and it now turns out that while
those who were afraid of an over-abundance of bread in this
country thought the imports from the United States would
be overwhelming, they have been far less than were antici•
pated, while from France, which was excluded from these
calculations, the largest import of any foreign country has
been drawn. What do I infer from this? I ask this
question—Have we always been very accurate in our
calculations?--(hear, hear.) Have we, for instance,
always been very accurate with respect to the cost of
production, and as to what is a remunerating price in
this country?—(Hear, hear.) lam unhappily grown old in
these discussions. I remember in 1815 being told that 80s.
was the minimum of remunerating prices. I may be told
that was under a depreciated standard of currency. I lived,
however, to see the discussion renewed in 1827, after the
standard was restored, when the lowest remunerating price
was declared to be 60s. I remember another discussion on
the corn-laws in 1842, when the remunerating price of 60s.
was abandoned, and 565. was declared to be the proper
amount. And now, I believe, the landed interest, and I use
that term in the meaning which has been given it in the
debate, as signifying landlords and farmers, would be quite
content to abandon 565., and would be most thankful and
satisfied with a permanent price of somewhere from 483. to
466.—(Cheers.) I therefore cannot but observe that this
matter of remunerating price is one which largely depends
on the exercise of skill and labour. You talk of disturbing
causes, but there were no disturbing causes under your
old corn-laws, and yet they were far more disastrous
in their effects, and the low prices were more ruinous.
The Noble Marquis, accustomed to the old rule of
reasoning on this subject, spoke of our natural produce
being 24,000,000 quarters; but, grant that to be true, and
what was the result? If in an abundant season there was
an excess of 1,000,000 quarters and it was impossible to
avoid such an occurrence in the change of seasons—the
effect on the market was more instantaneous and powerful
than any which can now occur. Why, I remember the year
1822, when Mr. Western moved for his Committee, when
there had been some had harvests, the result of which
was to have a greater breadth of land sown than usual, that
there was a good season, that there was a great redundancy
of supply, and down went the prices at once to 445. a quar-
ter, and •I
believe for six weeks they were even under 40s.
—(hear.) But that case is not so strong as that which
took place in 1835, when .the average fur the year was
only 395. 2d., and for some weeks the price fell below any
that had been yet reached. But, Si:, anxious as lam to
admit any ground of complaint, I cannot, while I acknow-
ledge the distress which unhappily prevails, lose
sight of the fact that the Channel Islands, in
view of the English coast, did enjoy perfect freedom
in the trade for corn, and from their vicinity to Eng-
land there was the greatest temptation held out to have as
much corn stored up as was necessary fur their own con-
sumption, and yet what was the price of wheat during the
protective system? For a long series of years it was, as I
remember, but 48s. Now, I will not venture to make any
prediction with respect to the price of corn in future, but
this, Sir, I say, that be the price what it may, the time has
arrived when it must be left to its natural level, and
that for any Government or for any Legislature artifi-
cially, and by power of law, to enhance it —I say the
day is past.—(Cheers.) And why do I say so? I say
there is not a ploughboy who treads the heaviest clay in
England who does not feel practically his condition im-
proved within the last three years and he knows the reason
why. —(Cheers.) I tell you there is not a shepherd on the
most distant and barren hill of Scotland who does not now
have daily a cheaper and a larger mess of porridge than be
ever had before—and he also knows the reason why--(Re-
newed cheering.) I tell von again there is not a weaver in
the humblest cottage in Lancashire who has not fuller and
cheaper meals, without any fall in his wages, than he had
before —and he knows the reason why.—(Cheers.) Now I
must tell you the whole truth. The time has arrived when
the truth fully must be spoken.—(Cheers.) I will speak of
another class still. There is not a soldier who returns 'to
England from abroad that does not practically feel that his
daily pay is augmented, that he has a cheaper, larger, and
a better mess, and that he enjoys greater comforts—and he
also m
v knows
Hon.t he
Friendsr reason.—(Loud ason.—w (hLo o ulch beloweer ngm to be on their Sir, I en-
treat. Row,
guard. You may convulse the country—you may endanger
property—you may shake our institutions to the founds-
tion—(" Heir, hear," from Lord J. Russell, and cheers from
the Government benches)—but I am satisfied that there is
no power in England which can permanently enhance by
force of law the price of bread.—(Renewed cheering.)
Now,_ that is my honest and firm conviceion. The peace
of this country, my own possessions, are as dear to me as
to any Hon. Gentleman who sits on the benches below
me ; but I feel we have arrived at the period when it is
necessary to speak the truth, and I have spoken it with-
out reservation.—(Loud cheering.) And now to look upon
this question as one of taxation, as the Noble Marquis
says it is. He put it in the fairest possible manner.
He says the question we have to decide is in what way
revenue can be raised wi h the least burdens on the
great body of the community. I accept that definition.
Nothing can be more fairly put. The Noble Marquis had
observed on the fact that the labourer in this country was
heavily taxed ; that he paid taxes on his tobacco, his sugar,
his tea, his beer. Now, the question that naturally presents
itself to me when I hear that is, what is the reason why
he should pay a tax on bread also?—(Cheers) The
Noble Alarquis asks, how is the deficiency of revenue to be

SUN,

made good if you remove the taxes on articles of primary
neces,ity ; and I was astonished, considering his high posi-
tion, to hear him say that the question was not one for him
or for any Hon. Member on his ';L.!e of the House to consider.
Now, Sir, in my opinion, that is an important question, and
there is not a Member in this House who is not affected by it.
If the establishments of the country are to be maintained, the
deficiency arising from taxation ought to be the primary
consideration of every Hon. Member in the House.—(Cheers.)
Now, the question is short and simple. Will vou tax Is-
hour, or will you tax capital, to the relief of labour, beyond
its present burdens? In other words, will you revise your
financial system and reimpose on industry those burdens from
which released capital asks to be relieved? That was the
great question which was deciled in 1842 and here let me
observe that this discussion has not been unproductive. I
ant speaking in the presence of her Majesty's Ministers, and
of the Right Hon. Gentleman at the head of the Home-office.
In 1842 I warned the House of the danger of continuing that
system of taxation. It has been changed, and the Right
Honourable Gentleman, I think, will be able to tell us
that there has been more social order and less seditious
movement for the last three years than at any former
time, and I attribute that fact to our fiscal policy and

to the relief which yon have given the people, without
reference to their occupation.—(Cheers.) And now I am
brought to the objections I entertain to this motion,
winch are, that it is in effect, though not avowedly, an
approximation to the reversal of that policy. I feel tho,e
objections still more, because the %cords in which it is framed,

though claiming to be plain, are studiously elusive, mid
present nothing tangible.— (Cheers.) 1 t was said by the
lion. Member who moved it, Ido not ask your votes in
favour of any specific proposal. It is not my duty to bring
it in." Well, then, I say it is my duty to refuse my convent
to a motion the entire extent and tendency of which I can-
not understand.—(Cheers.) Now, there is a studious am-
biguity not only in the motion but in the very able speech
in which that motion presented itself to us. Observe what
that speech did. It presented to our consideration a great
many things declared to be objectionable, but which the
mover did not seek to remove, and a great many things
which he indicated as remedies he refused to press. The
Hon. Member referred to the prohibition of the growth of
tobacco. Now, lam surprised that with all the astuteness
of the Hon. Member it did not appear to the Hon. Member
that, whether the extremely high duty upon tobacco were
remitted or continued, one of two inevitable consequences
would be produced. If the duty upon the importation of
foreign tobacco were remitted it would be impossible
for it to be grown in this country.—( Cheers.) It would
come to us from all quarters of America and from many parts
of Europe, where it could be produced at a much cheaper
price, and we should make a great sacrifice of revenue with-
out conferring the smallest advantage upon the landed in-
terest.—(Hear, hear.) But, on the other hand, if you con-
tinue the present high duty upon foreign tobacco, you will be
introducing protection in one of its most flagrant, most ab-
surd, and most objectionable forms.—(Cheers.) You will be
offering a premium to the growth of tobacco to the full ex-
tent of the duty, and you will besides offer irresistible
temptation to frauds upon the revenue and smuggling.—
(Hear, hear.) The same objection applies to the growth of
beetroot for sugar. If you grow it subject to no duty, and
continue the existing duties upon foreign and colonial sugar
there is protection. If you remit the duty on sugar
you will sacrifice 10,000,0001. of revenue, which must
be supplied in some other way, while the British
farmer would not derive the least benefit from the
change, for he would be just as unable as he is now to
compete with the grower of foreign sugar.—(Hear, hear.)
I now come to the malt-tax. I do not know what the Hon.
Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) may have said upon this subject
in former years. I do not think, however, that he is in
favour of its repeal, and I am sure that the leader of this
party in the other House, Lord Stanley, is not, for that Noble
Lord, in and out of office, has said that it would be inexpe-
dient to repeal that tax ; that it was paid, not by the pro-
ducer, but by the consumer, and that its repeal would carry
with it no benefit to the land commensurate with
the loss to the revenue. These are, then, the
first class of difficulties with which the Hon. Gentle-
man said the agriculturists had to contend, but which he
did not seek to remove. I now come to the second class of
remedies, which the Hon. Gentleman indicated as de-
sirable, but which were not pressed by him. The first was
the cultivation of land en commandite. Now, the Hon. Gen-

tleman the Member for Nottingham (Mr. F. O'Connor) has
had some experience of the cultivation of land en commandite.
—(Laughter.) He has tried the experiment. I do not
know whether he is favourable to the plan, but I believe his
partners were not.—(A laugh.) [Mr. O'Cosxon—" They
would not pay their rents."] And I believe the only parties
who derived any benefit from the scheme were the gentle-
men in Westminster Hall.—(A laugh.) At all events, the
experience we have had on this subject would not induce me
to look for relief to the agricultural interest in this direction.
The law of settlement was next adverted to by the Hon.
Gentleman. Now, I rejoice that the Right Hon. Gentle-
man at the head of the Poor-law Board (Mr. Baines),
who is now a part of the Government, has expressed an in-
tention of dealing with the law on this subject. I have be-
fore expressed my opinion that the landed interest will gain
extremely, by an alteration in the law of settlement, and
gain in the most legitimate manner, because the labourer is,
after all, the principal sufferer from the present state of the
law. His labour is his only property, but by the force of
the law you restrict the free employment of his labour
within 1,500 narrow circles. But, by adopting a union set-
tlement in the place of a parish seetlement, you do a great
deal to emancipate the labourer, for you widen the sphere of
his llabour and enable him to seek employment within 600
circles. But I warn the Hon. Gentleman if he has not well
considered this matter.--(Hear.) There are lions in his
path.—(A laugh.) He will, if I mistake not, encounter the
opposition of some distinguished representatives of the landed
interest. The Hon. Member for Dorsetshire (Mr. Bankes),
and, I believe, the Honourable Member for Oxfordshire (
Henley), will be against him, and I suspect that the landed
interest will be found very much divided in opinion as to the
benefits of such an arrangement, and whether it would be
desirable to introduce a union settlement and a union
rate. But that is not the plan of the Honourable Mem-
ber for Buckinghamshire. He opened to our view the
much larger measure of a national rate.—(Hear, hear.)
It is true he did not pledge himself to support it, and
I for one know no course that the House of Com-
mons could take more dangerous in every respect than a
measure having such a decidedly Socialist direction as insti-
tuting a claim to this national main. enance.—(Cheers.) A
national rate for the relief of the poor would, as I believe,
hand over the property of this country and the industry of
this country to the idleness and the poverty caused by indo-
lence. Such a measure would be Socialism, and Socialism
in its mcst dangerous form.—(Cheers.) The Hon. Gentle-
man also adverted to the commutation of tithes. Well, now,
I say that the less the landowners say on this subject the
better. —(A laugh.) I, as a landowner, am entirely satisfied
with the bargain we have made.—(Hear, hear.) We had
before the Tithe Commutation Act passed an ugly copartener
in the soil,—(A laugh)—who, contributing nothing of in-
dustry or capital, yet shared in all the produce of that in-
dustry and the profits of that capital. That growing claim
to the increasing value and produce of the soil was cut
short and ousted by what was certainly a very stringent,
and, as I thought, very politic measure. But what was
the effect? I think that the poet's advice to the domestic
chaplain—

" Stick to thy pudding, friend,
And hold thy tongue,"
—(A laugh) —is applicable to us. The parson was rot
well pleased with the Act, but the country gentleman has
every reason to be pleased with it. The parson in future
shares in a fixe I and immutable quantity, however much in-
creased the amount of produce may be. He gets no share
in any increase in quantity, and yet he shares in the dimi-
nished value of that quantity through the fall in the price
of wheat.—(Hear, bear.) My advice to the Honourable I
Gentleman is, then, to let the Tithe Act remain untouched.
—(Hear, hear.) The Honourable Gentleman then came to
the repeal of the Banking Act of 1844. Now, I would ask '
him when the supply of bullion in the coffers of the Bank
has been more abundant than since the passing of that Act?
I should like to know when the issues of paper, both by
the Bank of England and the country banks, coincident
with and justified by the amount of bullion in the Bank,
have ever been more sound or more unrestricted? I
should like to know when the rate of interest has ever
been lower for commercial transactions or mortgages than
during the last three years ? ( Hear, hear.) And I tell
the country gentlemen that if they seek to operate through
the medium of the currency, they must go much further
than the Bank Act of 1844.—(" Hear, hear," from Mr.
Spooner) The Honourable Member (Mr. Disraeli) went on
to say that the best course which he, as a leader of Opposi-
tion, could take was, to recommend that certain unenume-
rated local burdens should be placed upon the consolidated
fund. Now, if we look merely to the tactics of a leader
of Opposition, that may be so ; but if we look at the public
welfare, and the interests of public economy, then no more
dangerous course could be pursued by the Government.—
(Hear, hear.) I have had some experience, and I have
observed that all charges once placed upon the consolidated
fund are seldom revised, seldom abated, and never removed.
—(Cheers.) That is my experience, and I am therefore
jealous of placing local charges upon the consolidated
fund. But then I may innocently ask, what is really in-
tended by this motion ? What does the Noble Marquis
(Granby) ar.k the House to do? The Hon. Member who
introduced this motion does not ask you to return to pro-
tection. But the Noble Marquis is better satisfied with
frankly declaring that, in his opinion, it would be better to
return to protection.—(Hear, hear.) Now, I say that if this
motion does not mean that we are to return to protection,
what in the name of common sense does it mean ?—(Cheers.)
The Hon. Member in his preliminary observations had this
remarkable object in view—he implored us to forget the
past. Now, this struck me as very much like administering
a dose of chloroform before a capital operation.—(Laughter.)
It was not a soporific, certainly, but it lulled the senses very
sweetly.—(Continued laughter.) However, I have since had
time to analyze this invitation, and I have come to the con-
clusion that it is our duty to look to the past. (Cheers. )
The Hon. Member told us the other night that he adhered
strictly, severely, and religiously to all that he had said on
this subject in a former debate when he introduced the sub-
ject of agricultural burdens. I have compared the declara-
tion of last year with the declaration of this year—(Hear,
hear)—and. I hope shall net say anything in the least
displeasing to the Hon. Gentleman if I quote the important
words used by him in the debate last year, and contrast
them with some of the expressions used by him this year,
because, in a case where we are not quite sure what is really
intended, it is important to compare his words, and see what
is meant. The Hon. Member last year, on bringing forward
his motion relative to the burdens upon land, said
" On this side of the House we believe that this depression
has been occasioned by recent legislative enactments ;—by
the recent repeal of die laws which regulated the importa-
tion of foreign agricultural produce. We believe that the
surest course, the most safe, the most efficacious, the course
which, in the long run, would be most advantageous to the
community, and most popular with the community, would
be the re-establishment of laws regulating the importation
of that foreign produce."—(Hear.) "Speaking for those
gentlemen with whom I have the honour to act, I can say
that we do not in any way shrink from an argument on this
subject. We have seen nothing at all which in our opinion
confutes the conclusions which, in good report and evil re-
port, we lisve attempted to advocate in this House with re-
gard to this great subject. We still believe that the princi-
ples on which you have constructed your commercial code are
fallacious." These words are strong, but still they are not
so strong as those which were quoted by me in the debate
of the 21st of February, which were taken down by me
when spoken, and not disclaimed by the Hon. Member (Mr.
Disraeli) :—" I do not bate one jot of what I have always
les
fromnger
declared. I adhere to every argument and every opinion
on this question; and I tell you I think it would be wiser
protection—norteovenoeonartic
longer
to moreto politic
h
abroad, including corn, and thus indirectly to raise
revenue having the effect of protection."—(Cheers.) Words
ose to return
of
more clear could not be used (Hear, hear)—and they
indicate a distinct policy, which is known to be advocated
by the great body_of the party of which the Hon. Gentleman
is at the head. Now, what were the words used by him
upon the present occasion, the night before last? I have the
words before me, and I cannot find in them anything ut
variance with the language used last year. The Hon. Gen-
, tleman told us on Tuesday night—" I last year said what
I now adhere to severely, strictly, even religiously. I said
then, that I would not in this Parliament make any at-
' tempt to bring back the abrogated system of protection."

• Observe, the Hon. Gentleman says, "in this Parliament"—
(Hear, hear.) "It would be most disastrous for the
community that you should accord those claims which, in
the spirit of severe justice, the agricultural interest has a
right to prefer." Ouserve, this points to compromise; what
is that compromise? It has been proposed by Mr.
M'Culloch that the deficiency in the revenue might be sup-
plied by a fixed duty on corn. I say that we cannot admit
that a fixed duty, or a countervailing duty, is au arrange-
ment in favour of the agricultural interest. It is an arrange-
ment which, as Members or as Ministers, we may think
would, on a balance of circumstances, make what was called
the best bargain for the community. lam not called on to
say what might be the effect of imposing a 55., or an Bs, or
a 10s. duty. They are propositions which may be considered,
and they may be in the nature of a compromise, in which,
like all persons receiving compensation, the land would not
be likely to receive more than half its due."—(Hear, hear.)
Reference then is made to the financial exercitation of the
Right Hon. Member for Stamford, with which we were
treated in 1848, whereiu he leboured to prove that a mode-
rate fixed duty fell on the foreign grower, and would not en-
hance the price to the consumer. New, here; is the difficulty.
I am hound to put the Lest interpretation I can upon the
mvstical expressions need last year and this year, and,
reading them by the aid of the glossary of the Duke
of Richmond, 1 put an interpretation upon them
last ye ir, and to that I now adhere. Remembering that
it is said that the Ministers would have a right to inifer.e a
(lute upon foreign corn, and that it is als ) said it would not
be right to attempt to imp se that duty in the present Par-
liament, I come to the conelneien that the object of the lion.
Gentleman and his party is in turn out the present Admi-
nistration—(Cheers)—to dismiss the Parliament, to return
to Protection in the next Parliament. and to re-impose a duty
upon corn—(Cheers.) That is the interpretation I put upon
the Hon. Gentleman's speech last year, and that is the in-
terpretation which, upon the whole, I am disposed to put
upon it now. Frankly avowed, there can be no more legi-
timate policy for a party. I know not what the result of
that attempt might be. I think it would be a dangerous
attempt, inconsistent with the preservation of the peace of
the country and with the safety of property, and an attempt
which I could not agree to see made.—(Cheers.) On the
other hand, I see very plainly that we are on the eve of a
great and a serious struggle.— (Hear, hear.) I see a party
of gentlemen in this and the other House of Parliament,
powerful in numbers, powerful in he respect in
which they are held for their personal and hereditary vir-
tues, having great influence in the country and great posses-
sions. They are an interest which up to the present moment
has commanded great influence with the Government, and
with the main body of the community at their back, they
exercise a power upon any question that is irresistible. This
powerful party have in this House no insignificant leader.
The Hou. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) is the accredited leader
,of that party. I may say that very early I appreciated the
great talents of that Gentleman —( Loud cheers)—and the
time has now arrived when it is impossible to underrate or
undervalue his great and commanding ability as a debater
in this House.—(Cheers.) The leader of this party in the
other House ( Lord Stanley) is a Noble Lord, ever foremostilin
the battle, of dauntless courage, of eminent ability, and of
spotless character.—(Hear, hear.) I have sat beside him in
the fray, and I know how formidable his vigorous attack
is upon his enemies. I know also the breadth of his shield,
ever stretched out to protect his friends-
----" experto credite, quantus
In clypeum assurgat, quo turbine torqueat hastam."
We must gird up our loins. I know not that even now the
words of " Up Guards and at them," have not been given. We
must prepare for a serious conflict. We must stand on our
arms and close our ranks, and prepare ourselves for a firm,
manly, uncompromising resistance —(Cheers.) There is a
point on which I would wish to touch before I sit down, but
my heart is so deeply grieved that my tongue refuses to utter
what I feel. The author, the champion of that policy which
I think it is the tendency of this motion to reverse, has been
withdrawn from us. He has ceased from his labour—he is
at rest, and takes no longer a share in these angry strifes
and contentions.—(Hear, bear.) But alth.ugh he is dead,
he still speaks, and from his tomb, as it were, I hear the echo
of his voice in this House. Well do I remember the me-
.nd
belief,
econdl
foeai ni
thatowaonnot
rddomyst
earnestly
ennerfeieofis
drttegilheysenec tsut
lesspeech
ts—otwi
thatlwhlw ihaclhedhi nmhe
he
ahhryelee
to
acdolae oolymris
evaeyebdrl
beforeeetoht e,
iun ppi
ro( wordse, rnnfoera—ratnr thaedi
dtc:
s
may never live to see the day when the House of Commons
will retrace its steps." He, indeed, is gone—but may the
omen be averted that the House of Commons is about to re-
trace its steps. His gigantic strength is wanting to us ;my
voice is feeble—my power insignificant—but my part is
taken. I hold it to be my sacred duty and sacred trust to
defend that policy to the best of my ability. As a proof of '
my sincerity, as an earnest of my zeal, I will give an un.
hesitating vote against this proposition.—(Loud and con- 1
tinned cheering.) The Right Hon. Baronet seemed deeply i
moved when he alluded to the late Sir R. Peel.

Mr. BOOKER (Herefordshire) said, that as he was the
representative of a great agricultural county, and that his
personal interests were connected with the manufacture of
the land, he felt it to be his duty to take a part in the pre-
sent discussion. The Speech from the Throne had been read
from the table, and to one portion of it only did the Hon.
Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) allude in a speech of the most
transcendent ability. He would now beg the permission of
the House while he particularly referred to the last para-
graph of that Speech. The Sovereign is made to say that—
" Notwithstanding the large reduction of taxation which
has been effected in late years, the receipts of the revenue
have been satisfactory." Thus he considered that the
Chancellor of the Exchequer was satisfied with a retro-
grade movement, if not with a falling off of the revenue.
He held the accounts up to the sth of January, 1851, and
he could not deduce from that document that the in-
come was more than the expenditure, the amount being
2,579,600.. 3s. 3d., as stated by the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer. The Hon. Gentleman then entered into several
statistics, arguing that, even though the details to which the
Right lion. Gentleman had adverted were founded on fact,
yet the increase of the population was not taken into account.
He would now allude to the next paragraph in the Royal
Speech, which states that "the state of the commerce and
manufactures of the United Kingdom has been such as to
afford general employment to the labouring classes." He
admitted that the employment alluded to was partially true,
but he denied that there was a sufficient opportunity for the
safe outlay of capital, a matter which was equally worthy
the consideration of the Government and of the Leisislature ;
for in looking to the shipping interest it would be found
that there was a decrease in outward tonnage in comparison
to the inward tonnage of no less than 233,1)00 tons in 1851,
and a proportionate decrease also in the number of vessels. He
would next allude en passant to the three staple trades of
this country, and show the House that the woollen, the
cotton, and the iron trade were very much deteriorated by
the withdrawal of a just protection. He could not avoid ex-
pressing his astonishment that the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer should assert that the woollen and the cotton trade
were of late years prospering and increasing, while in reality
the contrary was the case, tor he could prove that there was
a decrease of e,526,7001b., and also that there was a decrease
of over 5,000,0001 b. in the cotton trade. The iron trade was
one that he was well acquainted with, and he had no hesi-
tation in stating that it was falling off very much, even to
the amount of 2,000,0001, both as to the employment of
labour and capital, for there was a diminution of price, and
consequently labour was suspended, and the outlay of capital
was not risked owing to a diminution of 45 per cent. in the
price of iron within the last year. All the landed interest
wanted was fair play and justice at the hands of the Legisla-
ture, and all the Hon. Member for Buckinghamshire re-
quired for them was a relief from their present difficulties.
He then thanked the House for their kind attention to his
first essay in that House, and pledged himself that he would
never be found to advocate any cause but that of justice and
fair play.
Mr. LABOUCHERE said that he was aware that the
House must be gratified with the speech of the Honourable
Gentleman (Mr. Brooker) who had just sat down. The
policy of reversing the present commercial system had been
so combatted by the arguments of the Right Honourable
Baronet the Member for Ripon (Sir J. Graham), and also
by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that he would totally
leave the motion of the Ron. Member for Buckinghamshire
to their irrefragable proofs. There never was a period when
the great branches of industry were so well, so contented,
and so well employed as at present. It was generally
known that the woollen and cotton trade were never so
prosperous, and the falling off in the iron trade was not to
be attributed to anything but the excessive speculation of
persons at the head of such factories, for their outlay
in the construction of furnace! for railway uses, which to-
tally disappointed their expectations. He contended that
it was not from a failure in the export trade that the iron
trade was deteriorated, for the exports in 1845 were
352,000 tons; in 1849, 701,000 tons; and in 1850,
772,000 tons, showing an increase in the exports in those
several years, but that the whole disappointment and de-
teriorationg to an excessive speculation. So
But there was another important
muchfor the wasiron oNtvriande.
branch which had been affected which had been alluded
to by the Honourable Gentleman who had just sat down,
and which it would be inexpedient to altogether overlook,
when they were taking a revision of the effect produced by
their commercial policy on the trade of the country. He
alluded to the effects which had resulted from the change
which had recently taken place in the navigation-laws on
the shipping interests of the country; and he did not hesi-
tate to assert, that so far from the predictions of those who
affirmed that the alterations of those laws would prove the
ruin of the shipping and ship-building interests, any one
who examined properly into the matter would find that the
change had produced results altogether in the opposite di-
rection, and that instead of ruining the ship-building, and
shipping interests, it had conduced to the prosperity of both.
In the year 1843 the amount of tonnage, foreign and Bri-
tish vessels, entered inwards and cleared outwards as re-
gtoanrsde; d
ittibleBp4o9r,tist
woafathlel,sUonli,ootedo
tlonisn,gdanomd ,
inw as181500:6i0t0,w00as0
12,100,000 tons, thus showing a considerable increase on
last year.--(Hear, hear.) He admitted that if they came
all vnigaatitoionns,
it
was to analyse the list, it would be found that there was a
small falling off in the number of British ships entered
theo
take advantage of the act. lie was,
however, r
inwards, and a considerable increase of foreign ships so en-
tered; but that as a matter of course must be so, for when,
-laws,
portsbbyou wt t tehhveteeosrr, e thee
neaat lisohoni
offswouldps
prepared to prove that, so far from the result of
the change, taken as a whole, being to diminish British
shipping, it had been productive of the very opposite effect,
for it had greatly conduced to its interest. The shipping of
those countries who were considered their most formidable
rivals, had increased but in a very trifling extent, and the
only increase which had taken place was from other nations
from whom they had least reason to expect any formidable
rivalry. The Right Hon. Gentleman seemed, however, to
think that the American tonnage entered inward and cleared
outward in this country had much increased; but he found
that in 1843 the American tonnage
entered inward was
598,000 tons, and cleared outward 549,000 tons. In 1849 the
tonnage entered inward was 587,000 tons, and cleared out-
ward 680,000 tons; and in 1850 the tonnage entered inward
was 585,000 tons, and cleared outward 770,000 tone. So that
the opinion of the Right Hon. Gentleman was not borne out
by facts to the extent he would infer. But, he would ask,
had there been no new sources provided to strengthen the
shipping interest in consequence of the additional channels of
trade which the repeal of the navigation. laws hal opened
up. In that respect he must say that the result had been
most satisfactory, in fact, beyond the most sanguine expee-
tatious of the advocates of the repeal of those laws. He
was not in a position to state, as he had not yet the correct
returns, the number of voyages British shipping had made to
foreign ports, from which they were, previous to the repeal
laws, prohibited ; but from one most
had a statement which would
the advantages which bad
iorgmefi svputeohl tree daann at
Ninisgppaeotteribitils: specimen
s po fe
ct . He held in his hand a
return which bad been received from the British Consul at
New York of the number of the voyages made by British
shipping entering that port with full cargoes during the
past year from ports which they were previously prohibited
from entering. According to this return there had entered
New York from Cuba and Hayti, 50 ships, B,gtN tons:
from other ports, 60 ships-16,800 tons; from Brazils, 9
ships-7,000 tons; from other ports in South America, 6
ships-1,246 tons; from China, 4 ships-1,530 tons; from
other ports,
Rese-I';e2 tons; making in all 149
British ships, 11 shi
withents tonnage of 30,829 tons, which had
• entered the port of New York, with full cargoes, from
' ' ports which they could not have -traded with before.—

EVENING,