The Sun.
London, England, 1844-06-18 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY MORNING, JUNE 18,

a double Eense—first, on the ground of a differential duty be- ;
tween our colonial possessions and foreign c-Juntries,-supposing
them to be placed under similar circumstances; and secondly,
on the consideration of the difficulty which the We-t India co-
lonies had to obtain cheap labour. y The Government gave a ,

differential duty of 10s. against foreign free grown sugar, and a
high rate of duty against foreign slave grown sugar. The
amount of protection offered by Government was identical with
the protection asked for by Hon. Member- for Brsitol. It was
not disputed that if the propositions of the Hon. Member for
Bristol were carriel into operation that the revenue would

suffer very considerably. The reduaion of duty Would not be-
nefit the consumer or the West Indian interest—it would be ul-

timately most injurious to the latter. It had been objected,
anti complaints had been made, that they did not state the whole
project of their plan on the sugar duties ; but they did not be-
cause it was a part of the great financial system proposed for
the consideration of Parliament next session. But we have in-

tiinti,ted to all pat-ties the principles upon which we were to act
and the degree of protection which we were to esta-
blish. They gave notice that foreign free labour sugar
would be admitted into competition after a certain period
with West Indian sugar ; hut there should have certain

and permanent protection against slave grown sugar.
The Government found themselves bound in honour, as they

held themselves bound in opinion, to maintain these sentiments
with respect to this question of protection to the West India
interest. He knew that the Government, in the late division,

had been defeated by an agreement or concert.--(Cries of
" No, no.") It was rather difficult to select a word that would
suit.—( Laughter.) At all events, those Members who usually
supported her Majesty's Government, had not supported them
on that occasion. He believed that this measure of the Go-
vernmen would afford an adequate protection to the West
India interest; and he also believed that the. West India body
would find that tha measure of the Hon. Member for Bristol
would be injurious to their interests. He b.lieved that the
measure of the Government, by increasing tke demand in this
country, would greatly benefit the producer. He was, however,
free to confess that the Government would not attempt to follow
the example of the late Government, by retaining off ,e against
the will of the House of Commons, and when all confidence by
that House had been withdrawn from them.—(Cheers.) He
hoped that they would not be asking too much when they
called for the confidence of Parliament under the circum-
stances in which they were placed. He believed, that upon
investigation those of their supporters who had not-toted on
this question with the Government, would feel that the views
of the Government were correct on this matter, although on
the first blush, those Hon.- Gentlemen might be unable to

reconcile tlientseiveq to it. The Governm-ent had to state

firmly, but with respect, that the Government would adhere to
their proposition; and in doing so, he believed that they
were substantially benefitting the West India interest.
Lord PALNIERSTON said, that as the only question the
House had to determine was the question depending on the
motion of the Hon. Member for Bristol, he should not he
prepared to affirm it. The great objections which he felt to
the measure were the same which he entertained

to the proposal of the Government—that it made
a distinction which he thought untenable between
sugar the produce of free labour, and sugar the produce of sla-
very. He thought the discussion which had taken place on
this subject had convinced him that this distinction could not
be maintained in practice, for it seemed to have now very
little approbation from either side of the House. Another
ground of objection to the abstract proposal of the Hon. Gen-
tleman was that it was founi!el upon the principle of protec-
tion. He admitted, however, that if any case could justify the

existence of protection it was that of the West India islands.
He, therefore, was not disposed to oppose that degree of protec-
tion which this vote proposed on the supposition that
it would not be permanent. The Government had
declared that unless the vote of Frid ty night. last were
reversed they would cease to retain their office. Hon.
Gentlemen on his (Lord P.'s) side of the House thought this
threat could have no effect. But towards their own sup-
porters, it was a threat which the Government ought not to
have indulged in. —( Cheers.) When a Government had lost
the confidence of Parliament., it was becoming in them to re-
tire from an office which they could no longer retain with

_ .
credit to themselve; or with advantage to the public. But had
that principle always actuated Hon. Gentl men oppo,ite ? Did
they forget the Government of 1835? They were beaten, not
once, twice, or three times, but something li':e eleven times,
before they determined to take these successive defeats as proofs
that they had lost the confidence of Parliament ; and not only
did they stand those numerous defeats, but they were not in a
majority on any one question of importance—(Hear, hear)
aed they said, ferther, it was not consistent with their duty
i,thtly to desert their posts; and, in truth they did not do so
till proof after proof was given that they had no hold whatever
on the confidence of the country.—(Hear, hear.) Another
doctrine, however, was advanced now. On the -Fac-
tories Bill, when a vote, 'adverse to their opinion, was
given by the House, Ministers came down and said
they would not be responsible for the conduct of affairs unless
that votes was reversed. The vote was revel sad and much loss
of character they sustained thereby.—( Hear, hear.) And
what were they told now? Why, that this is not a question of
importance, and yet that they would not remain in office unless
the House reversed the decision it bad arrived at. Why what
did this come to? That this House was a me-e cipher, called
together for the sole purpose of registerirg the edicts of the
Government.—( Loud cheers.) If the difference between the
Government and its supporters was of importance, then those
supporters were to be affronted by being required to reverse
their votes; and if the difference was, as stated in this instance,
of a slight character, still the vote was to be reversed, and thus
was the affront made more pointed than ever.--( Loud cheers.)
This did appear to him (Lord Palmerston) a doctrine utterly
new in the practice of a constitutional Government—one most
dangerous in its consequences to the independence, the utility,
and the character of that House.—(Cheers. ) Were he a sup-
porter of the Government, however much he might value the
stability of the Government, he should value his own character
more, and he should say to the head of that Government, I
cannot and I will not give a vote which is not consistent
with my honour.—( Loud cheers.) Never in his life
was he (Lord Palmerston) more surprised than when he heard
the course determined on by the Government. Every one
had speculated on what course they might take, but no matter
how they speculated they would have taken that which they
had resolved on. Government might have come down, and
with much grace, and fair credit to themselves, have said they
were prepared to acquiesce in what appeared to be the opinion
of that House.—( Hear, hear.) They might have said, since
Parliament had chosen to sacrifice so much revenue, Parlia-
ment must make it good. This course would have been in-
telligible, honourable, and just.—( Hear, hear.) Or the Right
Hon. Baroret (Sir R. Peel) might have said, there was such a
manifest difference of opinion between his Government and the
House, that he should appeal to the country—not as an appeal
was usually made against his opponents—but against his own
supporters—(A laugh)—or ask of the country to return him a
body of Members more disposed to support the general senti-
ments of the Government.--( Hear, hear, and a laugh.) Then
there was a third course which the Hight Hon. Baronet and his
colleagues might have taken with dignity and honour. When
they saw how the votes stood the other evening they might
most fairly have said, we perceive a progressive increase of
difference of opinion between ourselves and our supporters—
we are satisfied we have lost the confidence of many of our
friends, and it will be better to resign on this plain and tangible
ground, rather than call upon our party to rescind a vote to
Iwhich they have deliberately come.—(Cheers.) Had the
Ministers have done this there would have been no blush.—
( Cheers, and a laugh from Lord Stanley.) But they had
raised a blush—and it was not the first, and it would not
be the last.—( Hear, hear.) When on the Opposition benches
Ministers were strongly averse to the principles of free trade—
having changed to the other side, they liked those principles
kphe:c!aternYne
in on the free-trade
in the abstract, but they said they liked them not in practiee—
and now they sported them occasionally they were afraid to
wear them out by too much use, and kept them, as it were, for
high days and holidays.—( Hear, hear.) But they still pre.
served specimens of the—he should rather say our—principles,
laine
in order to show that they did Rot altogether repudiate them.
They opposed our proposal for a fixed duty on corn, but on
the frontiers of Canada they had the fixed duty in operation.
All the corn that came from America through Canada came
in on the fixed duty principle. They opposed the principle of
of having ,
unaodtefrathllat,ht
eetxocoe.pt mTheereleyorfnorthrea-t
Ashburton treaty,
duty at all.—(Hear, hear.) Thus
re-
gistration. tpfhirlooetnl
they
eatynhTdseehesempßyt
aaerihtdudeantd(
s)ofnwaoi.scs
free
throughttrade,
e ,Nt eh:'
camegpthri soi value these principles on the one hand,
they took care to use them as little as possible; on the other
hand, they took care to have specimens of them in operation,
that they might be able to say for the future that they not only
agreed with them in the abstract, but had applied them as far
as the application was possible. He thought then that the
great question they had to consider to-night was, whether
they would surrender their independent will, and their sincere
conviction, to the dictates of the Government—whether the
Gentlemen who voted upon their own opinion, and their own
deep convictions, on Friday night, would vete on Monday ac-
cording to these convictions, persisting in their consistency,
although at the risk of losing a Government which they wished
to keep in power. If the question were between maintaining
that consistency and losing the Government they generally
supported, he thought the sense of honour, and a regard for
the character of Parliament, would leave them no alternative
in such a choice. But let - them not deceive
themselves by such an apprehension ; let them not
imagine, if they did persist in their former vote,
that their doing so would lead to any change in the Govern-
ment. They need only look at this House, and see how it was
composed, to see what were the relative positions of parties,
when any question was really at issue between the opposite
sides, and they would be convinced that this threat was an idle
one—a threat that would not, and could not, be carried into
execution. When the Government said that it had lost the
confidence of the House, what did it mean ? He (Lord Pal-
merston) said that it meant, when a viial question was put be-
fore the House, not the mere rescinding of a vote, but when
the Government knew beforehand, that a default must be the
consequence of the vote about to be given. Well, when
questions of that sort had come before them what indications
had there been of a want of confidence ? Why, the Govern-
ment had. a majority varying from 90 to 100, and he would
venture to say, that whatever might be the decision to-night,
if on any day during the present week, any Gentleman on the
Opposition side of the House should propose a resolution, as-
serting a want of confidence in her Majesty's Government, it
would be negatived by a majority of not less than 90 or 100.
—(lronical cheers.) Away then with this nonsensical
pretext of a want of confidence.—(Loud cheers.) Away
with the pretext that it was necessary that Gen-
tlemen should unsay what they had said to forfeit all cha-
racter and title to independence and consistency.—(Cheers.)
He said that the Government could not be in earnest when it
said that it had lost the confidence of the House. The recent
votes of the House proved the contrary, and not wishing to
say anything more severe than had been already said, he did
believe that the vote which the supporters of the Government
were called on to give to-night had been most accurately described
by the Hon. Member for Shrewsbury, when he said that how-
ever anxious the Government might be to put an end to slavery
in other parts of the world, yet they still wished to keep in
chains those who sat behind them on the Treasury benches.
—( Cheers.)
Mr. STAFFORD O'BRIEN said he was unwilling to let
the debate come to a conclusion without tendering his thanks
to the Noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, for the
manner in which he had answered the Noble Lord, the Member
for Sunderland. He begged to assure that Noble Lord that,
however slight might be the fiiendship of the Right Hon.
Baronet, yet the agriculturists of England considered the hos-
tility of the Noble Lord and his party to be so inveterate and
implacable, that it would be long ere they would lend him their
countenance. The Noble Lord had stated that a friendly dis-
position had existed on the whole between her Majesty's Go-
vernment and the agricultural body. As the Right Hon.
Baronet had told them, now was the time to speak out; he
wished the tone of his speech had enabled him to feel that the
Right Hon. Baronet entertained that feeling also. But he
asked the House and the country to remember what the con-
duct of the agricultural body had been since the present Go-
vernment came in to power. That was described to be the hour
of victory and the hour of triumph for the agricultural party.
,He asked the House whether the agriculturalists had availed
themselves of that hour of triumph, or used that hour of victory
to demand any fresh protection for themselves?—(Laughter
and cheers.) That the agriculturalbody did not merit the thanks
of the other side of the House was nothing ; they never
expected them. But they did look for the approbation of the
country ; they did expect the approbation of posterity.—
(Laughter.) When it was remembered that in their hour of
triumph they submitted to a revision of all those duties which
affected their own interests, and acquiesced in the lowest degree
1 of protection, what had been the conduct of the agricultural
ody since? When they were driven to a demenstration of