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

, - eeeniente which he laid,before us, and that I was ready to
..',',]eby the issue upon-the case which he then submitted.
- , Hear.) But it is my duty, seeing the present state of
iie House, to enter into the consideration of this important
e aioti—a motion which I must say, introduced, as it was,
: .-- a speech of great ability and great moderation—(Hear)—is
itself, I conceive, as fraught with injustice and dangerous
3nsequences, if approved by the House, as any motion that
in the whole course of my public life I ever recollect.—
'lieer.) The Hon. Gentleman laid down a great many pro-
positions with regard to the state of the landed interest—
pronositions which seemed to many Members of the House,
I believe, to be a series of propositions intended for their
serious consideration ; but which, I conceive, were merely in-
tee Jed to disguise the real object of the motion.—( Hear.) The
Hen. 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 ideept 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-
lengs (Lord Stanley) has declared that so large a portion ( f
revenue ought not to be remitted, and-that, if he were a
Member of this House he would give his vote against such a
preposition.— (Hear.) Another question which the Hon.
llember 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,
bear.) It is of no importance to consider at present what
was the original tithe; but iu 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 100/. 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—af 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.
Auother 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
lion. 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,
" 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, in 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 sufft-
C'ient majority to content the Honourable Gentleman ?
(Veer, 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 ? (Hear, hear.) In the first place, if this course
were seriously contemplated, the immediate consequence
weuld 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
v. ith respect to your commercial policy." The consequence
would be that orders would cease. that the general employ-
= nt, 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 mass 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?—(Hear, 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 in
' their wages ?—(Hear, hear.) Do not the whole people
now feel an interest in the question they, never felt before?
and won't you find that the maintenance and continuance of
Ilia 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 Is. a week which he can at present lay oat
in the purchase of sugar and aoffee, and in paying
for schooling for his children, which he would have to pay
ac 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 that it should be withdrawn? I
think those gentlemen who now propose to do so very
mech' deceive themselves if they imagine that there
would be any hope for the country, or that there would be
tie least chance of tranquility. during the transaction of
these measures. It might be that they are prepared to
stand by those measures, and that they would propose to do
50; but that is not the proposal of the Hon. Member (Mr.
Insraeli). The proposal of the Hon. Gentleman is to have a
continued discussion and agitation of this question—to have
nothing settled, but to leave it for a time in abeyance. I
differ from him altogether. Hon. Gentlemen should either,
I think, come forward and say, however excellent the sys-
te'44', 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
Oiopygoosveehurniss.the country but if not, it should be for those who
:lib
ile
estayl
herit
isn'e,eamnsd
start t
perilous,at tb Member, having
done so, should nas well as
.unfair, to
I i it. 'W ell, e_r,e., take one side or the other with respect
It under discussion
01 during the time in which this question would
therel would be, as I have said, the
1
greatest uncertainty in' commercial transactions, and there
would be a complete change' of that which we have seen—
there would be a doubt hanging anging over the minds of every one
a. 3 to the nature of the proposition to be made. Now, the
Honourable Gentleman 1434
fainl:ery, and I do not object
to the remark, that I have neither inclination nor skill in
the management of figures; or initers of finance in this
House. I own, Sir, lam apt, withi
respect to those
aaques-
tions, to consider the political fully much as the commer-
cial and social interests involved, and that I always thought
it was a most dangerous proposition with regarlto
the or
laws, that those who directed discontent against Parliament
on this subject, should have it in their power to say nearly
the whole of the House of Lords, and a great portion of the
House of Commons, are composed of men who themselves
are landlords, who are interested in this question, and who
•
are making you pay their incomes out of the exertions of
your industry.—(Hear, hear.) I thought this at all times
a very dangerous part of this question ; but that danger
would be multiplied tenfold if; after protection was re-
pealed, you should attempt to reimpose it. The most wild
of Chartists 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 are
making a difference in the price of corn which (as the Noble
. Lord, the Marquis of Granby stated to-night) would amount
to not less than 60,000,000/., and which another Hon. Mem-
, her said amounted to 55,000,000/. They are making you
pay this immense sum in order to add to their in comes." I
i•. ‘
(
1 .•-)• i ilp ibpieSir, the House will consider that dangerous aspect
- , _ _
...If_ithe'ea* stion before they again set loose for public agita-
tipe tter of importance so great. Well, but it is said
-, ; is dened in a speciaUrnanner, and that the owners
~ 'should eive compensation. 'Why, I remember when a
t •-• . —..tawf.:o .. in e, who is now Governor-General of the lonian
ertnA
; reliii6,4 ar after year attempted to gain a select committee
- - • i:for tte.a .pose of considering - -
i the F . . that those gentlemenerho are most clamorous for
• --Lis; ec • in never could bear to consent, end used to come for-
N. TB , opt. to beg that there might be no
_inquiry, and to stop all.
aertempts at investigation; and now it appears that, with- ..