The Sun.
London, England, 1850-05-15 00:00:00

LONDON,

WEDNESDAY EVENING, MAY 15, lB5O.

duce; " and then," said he, " I will be a Free-trader like
the rest."—(" No, no," and cheers.) Wby, the Hon.
Gentleman was in favour of free imports with the excep-
tion of agricultural produce, provided that our goods
were taken by the foreign state. But what advantage
was it to the needlewoman, the glover, the shoemaker,
and the rest of oar domestic industry? What compen-
sation would it be to them to allow the free impor-
tation of foreign goods such as they made, because the
French, Germans, and Belgians agreed to take the
manufactures, the cotton, and iron of this country,
free of duty?—(Hear.) He (Mr. Cobden) would ad-
mit the advantage of reciprocity in a direct trade. The
Hon. Gentleman said, let the agriculturists have com-
pensation for the special burdens on land. But what
said the tenant-farmers at the Crown and Anchor the
other day. They resolved that no remission of taxes
could be a substitute for protection, and that the Legis-
lature must maintain a protective duty upon foreign
grain, or the farmer could not carry on a competition
with the foreigner.—(Hear.) The farmers were not so
blind to the incidence of taxation as not to know that it
was one thing to tax the raw material, which was land,
and another thing to tax the produce of that capital
which belonged to the farmer.—(Hear.) Now the Hon.
Member for Bucks proposed to remit the taxation upon
land, and then he would admit foreign corn. But the
firmer was for protection, and they were much mistaken
if they thought he would allow that to be taken away
from him as compensation because they chose to remit
the taxation upon land. And the farmer would see like
the clumsy process by which these burdens upon land
were proposed to be remitted, because the lion. Gentle-
man took off the tax from real property of all kinds—
houses, mills, railways, and the rest. He (Ur.
Cobden) did not see how that would be a com-
pensation to the farmer.—(Hear, hear.) The Right
Honourable Gentleman (Mr. Berries) told the House
they could not protect the manufacturers, for they
had arrived at that point, and by the absence of protec-
tion too—(Cheers)—that they were able to send their
produce to Germany, and pay 30 per cent. duty, and to
America, and pay 20 per cent. duty; and yet, after pay-
ing these duties and transit charges besides, they were
able to sell cheaper than the foreign manufacturer. But
the lion. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) differed from the
Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Berries), for the Hon.
Gentleman objected to the motion, because it did not
include manufactures of all kinds.—(Cheers.) He found
fault with its partiality. But Mr. Herries, with more
candour, said, "You cannot be impartial, and the protec-
tion you enact must be for that interest which cannot
compete with foreigners at the expense of the manufac-
turers who can compete with manufacturers abroad after
paying 20 per cent. on the cost of transit."—(Hear,
hear.) The proposal of the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dis-
raeli) was to exempt the land from taxation, and then
to bring in foreign agriculture into competition with our
i
farmers at home. And then, e order to make that ac-
ceptable to the country, he included in his speech some
claims to protection for the Bradford stuff manufactu-
rers, a branch of our industry of which we might well
(Cheers.)bo prou ,
Butand thesewhich m
manufacturers
a entou r
erivalrs would
laugh at and
in the world.—
offerto t
repudiate
sucake them
haPr
into °Pc)saLTheywould not listen to
this partnership with Hon. Gen-
tlemen opposite, when in return Hon. Gentlemen oppo-
site proposed to tax their bread.—(Cheers.) The in-
dustrious operatives of Lancashire, Yorkshire, Scotland,
and Ireland were laughing at such a proposal as that
which the Hon. Gentleman was making. The Protec-
tionists had gained a convert in the Hon. and Gallant
hmteer.) Why (con-
gi
the pick of
Member for Gloucestershire (Mr. G. Berkeley), and he
(con-
tinue, n wishedued
A,tihre.mc
oj obyd
eonf)
him.—oti( jiMaudc
vaeung
this House, and had said to me, Make a present of one
of your colleagues," I would have presented you with the
Hon. Gentleman.—(Continued laughter.) The Hon.
Member for Gloucestershire had done right in coming
forward frankly and boldly, as be was sure to do every-
thing, for he was a bold and
~ gallant man in his very
looks—(Laughter)—and saying, lam for putting a tax
upon your bread," and he did not attempt to mystify
the thing by talking of cotton all the while.—(Hear,
hear.) They had been talking all night about the price
of corn as if they were in Mark-lane, or sitting in a
counting-house. They were indebted to the Hon. Member
for Paisley (Mr. Archibald Thistle) for giving this turn
to the debate, which he regretted, and the Hon. Member
had been followed by the Hon. Member for Wakefield
(Mr. Sanders). I would vote on that side (continued
Mr. Cobden, pointing to the Opposition benches and to
Mr. Sanders) if I were he. His speech was on that
side. Take courage! (said the lion. Member, pointing
to Mr. Sanders, and addressing that gentleman in a
taunting and ironical tone) and vote for the motion.—
(Cheers and laughter.) The Honourable
.Member had
been followed by others, who had taken pains to show
the price of corn, and the whole discussion had been a
pure waste of time and wholly beside the question. Nay,
more; he would say it was disoreditable and derogatory
to that House, when they had gentlemen there who
were supposed to be interested in the price of cornand
cattle, that they should be spending a whole evening in
discussing whether the price of corn should be 365. or
565. a quarter. What would be thought if his Honour-
able Friend the Member for Manchester, who was
a great spinner of yarns —(Much laughter and cheering)
—were to produce his list of prices and say, " see how
my yarns have fallen in value" ?—(Laughter renewed.)
Would that not be thought derogatory to the character
of the House ?—(Hear.) The case was precisely the
same as regarded the complaints of the agricultural
Members, and that they did not perceive it was only a
proof of the inveteracy of the habit in which they in-
dulged.—(Hear, hear.) In that House they had nothing
to do with the price of corn. As far as he was concerned
he did not regret that the price was so low. The people of
this country had a right to obtain corn at the market
price of the world, and as long as they could get it at that
rate he was satisfied, let it be 355., 405., or 455. It had been
said that the present prices were exceptional, and that
a great experiment was. going on; but for his part he
did not look upon the existing system as an experiment,
nor did people out of doors so regard it. If a Cabinet
Minister in another place had dropped the word " ex-
periment," it would meet with no response from the
people, who bold that they were entitled to the cheapest
supply of corn the world could furnish. The advantage
of a low price of corn must be tested by experience, and
the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his able speech said
all that could be urged upon that subject.—(Hear.) Those
who wished to re-enact a corn-law should endeavour to
invalidate the facts which the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer had stated. If Hon. Gentlemen opposite were as
sured that they had facts and experience on their side,
they should court discussion. Was it true that, with a mo-
derate range of prices fur the prime necessaries of life,
pauperism—that curse of the country—had greatly
diminished ? 'Was it true that crime bad de-
creased in gravity and amount ? That question
did not refer to the manufacturing districts only,
but was equally applicable to the rural dis-
tricts. A considerable diminution of crime was apparent
in the counties of Wilts, Berks, and Hants. At the
Easter Quarter Sessions held in the rural towns of
Devizes, Salisbury, and Winchester, there was not a
single prisoner to be tried—(Hear, hear)—and at Ando-
ver there was only one. Was it true that the revenue
had increased during the prevalence of a moderate price
for food? Was it true that our exports had increased
concurrently with an augmentation of the quantity of
gold in the coffers of the Bank? If these things were
so, then he was justified in saying that the advocates of
an increased price of corn wished to augment pauperism,
to diminish exports, and to reduce the people to misery
and want.—(e Oh, oh," and Hear.") But Honourable
Gentlemen did not dare to propose another corn-law in
that House. and they endeavoured to escape from their
dilemma by saying that the House was not prepared to
reverse its former decision. Defective as the represen-
tation was, the House in the third year cf its existence
usually followed pretty closely any change of public
opinion. But if there was no change in public opinion
upon this question, how could a change be produced ex-
cept by discussion? Could the advocates of a corn-law
speak from a more lofty pedestal than that House? Their
speeches would be advertised in every journal, and
their arguments addressed at once to the whole com-
munity. Why did they not avail themselves of those
advantages? The Hon. Member for Somersetshire said
it was useless for them to talk because they were in a
minority in that House, but when a general election
should take place they would carry their object. But if
they had a majority they would not want discussion.—
(Hear, hear.) Majorities could only be created by dis-
eussion in that House, but Hon. Gentlemen avoided dis-
cussion because they knew that argument, facts, and
experience were all against them.—(" No," from the
' Opposttion .) " Then, said the Hon. Member, "if
arguments, facts, and experience are on your side, what
miserable debaters you must be." --(Cheers and
laughter.) It had usually been his lot to talk to mi-
norities during the ten years he had sat in the House,
and if the Hon. Gentlemen opposite were in earnest in
what they said out of cloors, they would not shrink
from addressing a minority in the House of Commons.
—(Hear.) You allege that the farmers are suffering
distress, and yet you
advise them to sit with folded
arms and calmly await a dissolution of Parliament. The
present Parliament might endure three years longer,
and in that time the farmers must be ruined if the re-
presentation given by their. friends of their present con-
dition were correct. It did not seem likely that the
landholders would aid the farmers in Passing through
the ordeal said to be prepared for them by any remis-
sion of rent. When gentlemen talked of a dissolution
they did not know what they were preparing for them-
selves. They could not be aware of what would be the
result of a general election on the question of the corn-
laws. It would be very agreeable for the county Mem•
hers to go down to their districts and be re-elected, but
other Members would have to undergo a severe ordeal.
When there was some talk of a dissolution, in 1846, he
told Hon. Gentlemen opposite what he now repeated,
that this great metropolis, with its 2,500,000 of inhabi-
tants, would not return one of their body, and he believed
that no Protectionist would be returned for any place
having a population of more than 20,000.—(0h, oh.)
It must not be forgotten that not more than one-sixth
of the adult males in this country had a vote at elections,
and that this was a cause of great discontent. Would

it be tvisein Hon. Gentlemen, in connexion with-the
question of the people's bread, to bring on their backs
the question of the people's representation ? If by a
y
dissolution the Hon. Gentlemen .opposite could obtain
I)—(Murmurs.)
of
ft
he t
w o majority—whichmem be
rhsefodid s
Stamford not brd
elteve—would the votes
be e
qual to those of
tihiee
wMaesmnboetr safforraiMd
oartyalebdoisnseolourtFicinn.sl.l4uestion.) That
was the question, fur he understood that Gentlemen op-
site were going to lay up the question of the corn-laws
until the dissolution of Parliament. It they were sin-
cere in wishing for a dissolution they should support
the motion for triennial Parliaments.—(, oh, 0h.,,) If
the wishes of Gentlemen opposite were realised, they
would bring about the most complete democratic revo-
lution that the world bad ever seen.—(Divide, divide.)
Mr. NE WDEG ATE rose amid loud cries of " Divide!"
and, with frequent interruptions, proceeded to say,—
, That the lip. Member (Uri Cobden) had appealed

with confidence to the result of a dissolution. He would
ask him, however, whether it was true that in a speech
delivered out of doors ho had said, "I am told on good
authority, that if a dissolution took place next year 90,
at least, of the 105 Irish Members would come up
pledged to restore the corn-laws?"—(Cheers.) He asked
if that language was consistent with what they had
heard from the Hon. Gentleman that night?—(" Hear,
hear," " Divide!") He believed the Hon. Member had
spoken the truth at Sheffield.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon.
Gentleman had showed an excessive anxiety for discus-
sion in that House, and spoke of the propriety of dis-
cussion being carried on even by a minority. But he
forgot that he had himself told his constituents at Leeds
that he only wasted his time in that House, and it was
useless for him to discuss questions of national reform
there unless they were, taken up by ' the country.—
(Hear, hear.) They (the Protectionists) were following
therefore, the example of the lion. Gentleman; and if
they did not at this time promote discussion by the in-
troduction of their measures it was out of deference to
those who were showing that their opinions were chang-
ing upon this question.—(" Oh, oh!" and " Divide.") He
appealed to the House whether the statement which the
Hon. Member (Mr. Cobden) made with reference to the
measure of 1546 was not doubly true now that a large
number of the majority were voting against their con-
victions.—(`` No, no, and "Divide.") The Hon. Gentle-
man told his constituents that he could not find in that
House 200 men who voted heartily for the repeal of the
corn-laws; and as to the Upper House, ho said he had
gone through the list, and could not find twelve men
who voted,heartily for the measure.—(llear,:hear.) Tho
Hon. Gentleman used two languages—one language in
the West Riding, and another in that House.—(Cries
of " Divide.") The Hon. Gentleman endeavoured to
find some fanciful diff,Tences between the arguments
used by the Hon. Member for Buckinghamshire and the
Hon. Member for Stamford; but he differed from both
of them in this, that he urged the blind application of
the privilege of unrestricted intercourse with reference
to the policy of other countries, and without any consi-
deration of the state of the people of this country—
(Hear, hear)—and all this for a class purpose, for the
benefit of the manufacturing against the industrial
classes.—(Hear, hear.)
Colonel DUNNE, in consequence of what had fallen
from the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli), begged to say
that at no moment of his life was he ever a Free-trader,
or ever had any sympathy with the Hon. Member for
the West Riding in his free-trade views. Ireland had
not received the slightest advantage from free trade;
for, in truth, there was not a class in Ireland that was
not suffering. It was folly to talk of the condition of
the people being improved when there were millions in
Ireland subjected to every kind of misery that human
beings had ever been called on to endure.—(Divide.)
Mr. G. BERKELEY replied. Ho did not propose an
8s duty as had been stated by the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, but only asked the House to consider the
whole subject of the corn-laws. The Hon. Member for
the West Riding said no reciprocity had been broken
through; but he asked, if no reciprocity had been broken
between this country and Brazil?—(Hear, bear.) The
same Hon. Gentleman said no borough with 20,000 in-
habitants would return a man opposed to free trade; but
what did he say to the case of Cork?—(Hear, hear.)
llere
regretted
hadthd thenatotfa
NoyboluerLel the Houserdatthe withofhead
the
government his

opinion.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the motion 184
Against it 298
Majority against the motion ... —ll4
The announcement of the numbers was received with
cheers from the Ministerial side of the House.
FACTORIES BILL.
Sir G. GREY, in answer to a question from Mr. P.
Howard, stated that since the recommitment of the
Factories Bill was fixed for the 23d inst., he had had
communications with certain gentlemen interested in the
subject, and as that day was considered inconvenient, he
should fix some other time for the recommitment, though
he could not name the day at present.
KINGSTOWN AND HOLYHEAD MAILS.

The following gentlemen were nominated on this
Committee:—Sir Richard Bulkeley, Mr. Cowper, Mr.
Parker, Mr. Corry, Mr. Hayter, Admiral Bowles, Mr.
French, The Lord Mayor of Dublin, Mr. Mangles, Mr.
Frederick Peel, Mr. Childers, Mr. Osborne, Mr. Chi.
cheater Fortescue, Mr. Henley, and Mr. Henry Herbert,
with power to send for persons, papers, and records;
five to be the quorum.

High Porte had hitherto thought it a duty to place
upon the refugees must now, of course, be dis-
pensed with.
" The prevailing opinion," adds the Wanderer,
"is that this last phrase is intended as an official
announcement to the Courts of Russia and Austria
of the impending liberation of the refugees at
Kiutahia, and of the employment in military ser-
vice of those among the fugitives who have adopted
the Islahometan creed. The Porte, placed as it
is under the guardianship of five Powers, was com-
pelled to have recourse to that note for the purpose of
declaring its intentions respecting the renegades, for
in so far as Kossuth and his companions are con-
earned the Porte is strongly supported by the Em-
bassies of Great Britain and France."