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

rnE N, LONDON, IittSDAY EVENING, JVNE 18, 1844.

themselves on the hustings, and join the advocates of
free trade—(Hear, hear)—acid the sustaiiiment of the
Right Hon. Gentleman its office was thought by them a
sufficient excuse for this desertion. But they were now
called upon not only to abandon those principles
upon which they _ fuemtriy acted, but the most
recent convictions of their own mind. I repeat, there
never weee harder terms imposed on any supporters than
those which the Right Hon. Gentleman impeded on his.
The Right lion. Gentleman said that the proposidon of
the lion. Member was the efroct of political combination
of some of their own supporters, and of others opposed
to him. The Noble Lord then explained, in order to
show that there was no preconcerted plan between him-
self and the Right Hon. Gentleman the late President of
the Board of Trade ; in fact, seeing Mr. Miles's motion
was quite accidental, his Rght Honourable Friend,
as soon as he heard the nature of the motion
which Mr. Miles had originally made, and which he
subsequently altered, announced his determination not
to support that motion, but at the same time sated the
nature of the proposition which he (Mr. Labou !here)
could support, and if the Hon. Member framed his mo-
tion so as to obtain that support, it surely could not be
called combination. Ido not see (said the Noble Lord)
how the Right lion. Gentleman at the head of the Go-
vernment can, after the open declaration of my Right
Hon. Friend in this House, term our votes the result of
a "constructive conspiracy."—(Laughter, and cries o'
" Hoar, hear.") Hon. Members on this side of the
House, remarkable for their advocacy of free trade prin-
ciples, voted for the Government. If there has been any
combination or conspiracy it is surely among the ordi-
nary supporters of Government.—(Hear, hear.) I think
those Hon. Members on this side of the House who voted
with the Government will find it difficult to reconcile
their objections against a duty of 345. and 245., and
their support of a duty of 63s.—(Hear, hear, and laugh
ter.) Perhaps they think the Right Hon. Gentleman
after all the most effectual promoter of free trade prin-
ciples. Well, now with respect to the former part of the
Right Hon. Gentleman's speech, I do not think it is
nteessary to advert in this debate. I do not mean to
enter into the question which was so fully dis-
cussed on my proposition with respect to the
duty on free-labour and slave-grown sugar. With
respect to the income-tax I do not wish to follow
the Right Hon. Gentleman at any length. The Right
Hon. Gentleman said that the reduction of the interest
on the Three-and-a-Half per Cents. was one great ob-
jection to the re-imposition of the income-tax. But this
reduction was decided on in March, and we need not
have waited until after Easter for the consideration of
these subjects. The Right Hon. Baronet says that a
great many legislative measures have been passed. No
doubt there was the Bank Charter, a most important
measure, but we had also several other measures of le-
gislation which were not of so much importance. I will
take, for instance, the Ecclesiastical Courts Bill, the
Irish Registration Bill, and other Bills, which the year
1845 would have been quite soon enough to have sub-
mitted to the consideration of the House. I think the
Right Hon. Gentleman might fairly have said, " Here
are great questions relative to finance—we have reduced
the interest on the Three-and-a-Half per Cents., and we
have now to bring before you questions of commercial
policy, and the question of the eontinuance of the in-
come-tax." I think that the House in that case would
have felt that it was desirable to turn all their attention
to those great subjects. I should have distinctly stated
that any loss to the revenue would be met better in three
years than it could be met in two years, and I should
have proposed the continuance of the income-tax from
the next year. Now, the Right Hon. Gentleman talked
much about the disadvantage of making a prospective
reduction in November, but I cannot understand either
from him or from the Right Hon. Gentleman the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, how that proposition, which is
so beneficial with respect to foreign free-labour sugar,
can be so very injurious to colonial sugar.—(Cheers.)
But that, in many respects, it is injurious, I am quite
ready to admit. But the Right Hon. Gentleman the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, the other night, in arguing
that question, and putting the case of colonial sugar,
said, " Nobody will be ready to buy because of the pro-
posed reduction ;" but when he came to his own propo-
sition, he said " Everybody will be ready to sell because
they will be glad to get rid of an article on which there
will be a reduction in November." It, therefore, as I
understood him, must be beneficial in one sense, and not
in another.—(Hear, hear.) Now, Sir, with respect to
the important part of this subject, the reduction to 345.,
I own that it does seem to me, generally speaking, to be
a fair proposition that the raw article should not be sub-
jected— supposing both are the subjects of duty—that
the raw article should not be subjected to competition with
the manufactured article at exactly the same duty. It,
therefore, does not seem to rue to be a fair principle on which
the Hcn. Gentleman is proceeding. But, on the other
hand, if that proposition should be adopted, I think that
if there is a distinction with regard to foreign sugar, we
ought to make a similar distinction with regard to colo-
nial sugar. It appears that such was the opinion of Mr.
Deacon Hume, and that appears, from a letter in the
newspapers, to be the opinion of Mr. Gladstone. He
proposed a duty of Sc. additional in case of colonial
sugar, and 7s. 6d. in regard to foreign sugar. I think
we have the practice in the United States and Holland
in favour of that example. I should be glad to hear
from the Hon. Member for Bristol, when he comes to
that part of the proposition, why it is that he thinks it
absolutely necessary to entertain a duty of 345.;
or what objection he can have to a 245. duty
in the case of colonial sugar? But, Sir, this is matter of
detail in regard to the Hon. Member's proposition.
What the Right Hon. Gentleman now proposes is, that
the House should agree to that which they negatived
the other night—that they should positively affirm that
as expedient which they then declared to be inexpedient.
The Right Hon. Gentleman, as I understand him, does
this as much on political as on commercial grounds.—
(Cheers.) He declares that it is necessary to him to
have that confidence from his supporters that they will
be ready to agree with him in this proposition. I should
say, as I commenced by observing, that it would be a
melancholy proof of their own subserviency.—(Cheers.)
That question has been fully argued, and in that full
argument, and by the number of twenty in a full House,
the Committee decided against the proposition of the
Government. Again I say, that I see no reason for that
majority to change their votes. But let me tell those
who voted the other night, that if they now agree to
the proposition of the Right Hon. Gentleman, the Righ
Hon. Gentleman will treat them with the same disre-
gard in future—will treat their opinion in the same
overbearing manner.—(Cheers.) Let them depend on
it, that however they may consider themselves as a ma-
jority of the House of Commons, that their opinions and
their views will hereafter have no weight ; that the
Right Hon. Gentleman being once assured of their sup-
port, would be enabled to make propositions which they
might think most injurious to the country ,• but having
given this proof of subserviency, they will find them-
selves unable to recover their independence, which will be
gone at once and for ever.—(The Noble Lord resunied
his seat amidst loud cheering.)
Mr. MILES—I trust, Sir, that I shall not be trespassing
on the time of the Committee if I now make a few observa-
tions. The Right Hon. Gentleman at the head of the Go-
vernment told us that he thought some conspiracy had been
entered into with the other side of the House. That, Sir, I
beg to deny in toto.—(Cheers. ) The Noble Lord, the Mem-
ber for the City of London, has correctly stated the reasons
why I altered the motion of which I originally gave notice. It
is quite true that 1 gave notice for a reduction of the duty from
245. to 20s. in the first instance on sugar, the produce of our
colonial possessions. in the first debate which took place on
that question the Right Hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of
the Exchequer, asked me what hope I could have of perma-
nently maintaining that duty. In that same debate the Right
Hon. Gentleman, the Member for Taunton, said, as I under.
stood him, that he would support a reduction of duty to 203.
and 305., and he also seemed to say, from what I could gather
from him, that he would be inclined to support a dis-
criminating duty. I also recollect that the Noble Lord, in
1841, proposed a dis:limina.ting duty of 6s. I hope that her
Majesty's Government will give the West India body credit
for having gone to them on several occasions, and told them
that they considered that this measure, in the present state of
the West Indian colonies, would amount to almost ruin, and
that it ought not to be proposed until after a large immigration
of Coollie labour had taken place. But, Sir, her Majesty's
Government refused to listen to them, and it was for that
reason that they framed this measure, which was calculated
to give them a larger amount of protection than the proposition
of her Majesty's Government. I confess, Sir, that I heard
with regret the declaration of the Right Hon. Gentleman that
he intends to persevere in his Bilk I think, Sir, that it
would only have been paving a due deference to the majority of
this House for him to have postponed his measure until another
; he would not then have placed a large body of his
supporters on this side of the House in the painful position of
either supporting him or withdrawing altogether from the
House. I have undertaken tl.e responsibility of advocating the
cause of the West Indian body, and I do not now intend to
shrink from that duty.—( Loud cheers.) I can only say, in
addition, that I will certainly take the sense of the House on
the amendment which I have proposed.—( Cheers.) The
Noble Lord opposite put a question to me about the discrimi-
nating duty ; I can answer that I think the whole of the West
India body would have no objection to a discriminating duty
of 4s. on colonial sugar, but there is a very great opposition to
it from the East India body.—( Hear, hear.) I can safely say
that I myself have no objection to a discriminating duty of 4s.
I now, Sir, move the amendment which has been placed in
your hand.
Sir R. PEEL moved that the blank be filled up with 245.
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Greene) said he apprehended
that the course they would have to pursue would be, to make
amendments in the proposition as they went on, and that the
proposition should then be put as amended.
Lord HO WICK wished to know whether, after they had
discussed the question of amount of duty, they could make any
alteration as to the time at which the duty should commence ?
The CHAIRMAN apprehended that they must amend the
proposition as they went on.
Mr. BERNAL said, there were two very important points
for their consideration. He entertained very considerable
doubt himself as to whether in a Committee of a fiscal nature,
the Committee having determined that the duty of 245.
should not be imposed, they could reconsider the imposition of
the same duty.—(Hear, hear.) Ile had not examined any
precedents on the subject, but it was his opinion, that they
could nut reconsider that question. That Commitee was an ad-
journment of a former Committee on the B 11. In the course
of the former Committee, they rejected the propo-
sition originally introduced, that 245. duty should be imposed
on a cwt. of sugar. That was rejected, and when the motion
of his Hon. Friend was brought forward to reduce that annual
charge on the public, it was held that they could re-open the
question of the Ms. duty. This was one objection he had to
make. The second was that the 20s. being the lower duty, it
ought to he first put to the Committtee, and that if that should
be rejected, then the higher duty of 245, should be sub-
mitted.—( Hear, hear.)
The CHAIRMAN was understood to say, thet the question
of a 245. duty could be reconsidered as part of the proposition.
wouldlower
dutyTlie Ilmonu.stGe
bntelempaunt
wafisrstr,ightanidn saxeng
qutheasttiunthe
therefore be, that 11. stand part of the proposition.
Sir R. PEEL apprehended that as the duty of three guineas
bad been negatived by the Committee, it was competent for
them to propose the 245. duty as a substitute.
After a few words from Lord J. Russell, Mr. Hume, and
Mr. Roebuck, which were inaudible in the gallery,
Sir G. GREY said that the Right Hon. Gentleman, by the
present amendment, proposed to adopt pro tanto the words
which were negatived the other night. He (Sir G. G.) wished
to ask, before they came to a vote, whether, supposing this
vote to be carried, the Right Hon. Gentleman intended to pro-

pose the tame fate df fluty on foreign sugar, the produce of
free labour, as part of the proposition, and whether he intended
to propose any variation on the proposition that was submitted
on Friday night?
Sir R. PEEL said that in case the House should affirm the
245. duty, he would propose the same amount of duty on
foreign free-labour sugar as was originally proposed.
Mr. B. COCHRANE said, that on Friday night last, he
considered it his duty to support her Majesty's Government in
preference to the motion of his Hon. Friend near him. Her
Majesty's Government were then defeated by 20; and he
understood that it was now their intention to put the same
question unaltered again to the House. He had objected to
the course taken by her Majesty's Governtnenton the Factories
Bill. He considered that something more was due to the
opinion of that House when once given than that it should
have the same question submitted for its consideration again.
He thought, therefore, that this question had ceased to be one
with respect to the amount of duty—he considered it was now
a question of the independence of that House.—( Loud
cheers.) It was a question involving the Privileges of the
House ; he would say more, it was a question involvingr the
personal honour of every ember who formed port of the
majority of Friday night. Under these circumstances, painful
as it was to him, and taking that extended view of the case,
he could not support her Majesty's Government by voting
with them that night.—(Laughter and Cheers.)
After a few words from Mr. COLLET I' which were totally
inaudible in the Gallery.
Mr. KEMBLE said, he was one of those who generally
supported her Majesty's Government, but he yet felt that
there were questions on which he could not go the full length
of supporting the Government; and he, therefore, felt he
ought to justify the vote he was about to give on the
present occasion. He was as independent of the
dictation of the Government as any individual either
in or out of that House. On two occasions, two
important occasion., he had :voted against her Majesty's
Government. He alluded to the factory question, and, not
withstanding the declarations of the Prime Minister on that
occasion, he had still felt it his duty, as an independent Mem-
ber of that House, to support the line of conduct which he had
adopted on those two former occasions; and the third time he
again voted in the same way. On the present occasion he was
not about to alter the vote he had given before on the ques-
tion before the House. The Hon. Gentleman who had just
sat down had supported a principle which he believed to be
right, and he stood forward as the advocate of consistency
'against her Majesty's Government, and in support of that
consistency he turned round and declared that he would re-
verse the vote which he had given for the benefit of the coon-
try.—(Loud cries of "No, no.") If he had misunderstood
the Hon. Gentleman he begged his pardon. He (Mr. Kem-
ble ) felt it necessary to maintain his consistency. With respect
to this question of the amount of duty, he had no hesitation in
saying that he was opposed to the proposition of the Govern-
ment, and was equally opposed to the proposition of the Hon.
Member for Bristol, and on that account he had abstained
from voting on Friday night, because he could not satisfy him-
self by voting either one way or the other. The question on
which they were about to vote was, whether the duty on co-
lonial sugar should be reduced to 20s. or not. He considered
that the question was of too great importance to be entertained
in that incidental way on that occasion. He said that the
question was one of large importance, and he had no hesita-
tion in declaring it as his opinion, that if the duty on colonial
sugar were to be reduced, a reduction of 4s. per cwt.
was not that which would give substantial benefit
to West India interests, or be beneficial to the public. He had
not had the opportunity of hearing the discussion on a former
occasion, nor had he heard the Right Hon. Baronet that even.
ing, but he considered that this was a matter of great import-
ance with respect to the finances of the country. The income-
tax was about to terminate, and it was of the highest import-
ance that the financial situation of the country should be looked
boldly in the face, and, therefore, this question of the sugar
duties required their most serious attention. For these
reasons, he should vote against the proposition of the Hon.
Member for Bristol.
Mr. WARBURTON said the character which the Hon.
Member for Bristol had given of his amendment, contrasted
with the proposition of the Government,:namely, that it afforded
more protection to the West India interest, had induced him to
vote against it. That was the reason that induced his vote on
Friday last, and, therefore, unless the Honourable Member for
Bristol was prepared to do away with the 4s. discriminating
duty and leave the duty as 20s. on colonial and 30s. on foreign,
he must repeat the vote he had given upon the former occasion.
Sir H. DOUGLAS begged to state it was his decided in-
tention, under present circumstances, to vote with the Govern-
ment.—(Shouts of laughter.)
Mr. LABOUCHERE said there was not only the impor-
tant question of the sugar duties before them, but there was
this still more important question, how the course it was pro-
posed to adopt would affect the haracter of that House?--
(Loud cheers.) He was fully aware that circumstances
might arise when—a Minister having committed an error or
the House acting from misinformation—it would he justifiable
to rescind a vote which had been come to. He had himself sup-
ported Lord Althorp when the vote upon the malt-tax had been
reversed, and he had supported the Bight Hon. Gentleman
(Sir R. Peel) in his conduct upon the Factories Bill, and had
approved the course the Government had taken. Those
were both great and important questions, justified by the cir-
cumstances in which they stood ; but his fears now were upon
the grounds on which the Right Hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Peel)
had himself put the present question. In the very unimpor-
tance which had been made of the question, his (Mr. La-
bouchere's) anxiety rested and further, the language in
which the Right Hon. Gentleman had addressed that House,
was language which no Minister ought to address to it—lan-
guage which Mr. Pitt, even in the plenitude of his power,
would never have ventured to use.—(Loud cheers.) With
regard to the question itself, he had stated his reasons for his
vote so fully on Friday last, that he did not feel it necessary
to enter again upon the subject. As he said then,
so he thought now, that whilst the measure was far
from perfect, still, in the amendment of the Hon. Member for
Bristol (Mr. Miles), he found so much more benefit to the con-
sumer than in the proposition of the Government, that he must
give it his support. He begged, however, to give notice that,
at the proper time, if no one else proposed it, he should him.
self submit a proposition to the House, to put an extra duty of
4s. on the highly-refined sugars from our own colonies—that is,
to make the duty on the fine clayed colonial 245., and on the
the fine clayed foreign 345. He thought if they applied the
discriminating principle to the foreign sugars, it would be better
to apply it as well to the colonial. With regard to the charge
of conspiracy brought against him and his friends on that side
of the House, he wholly repudiated as inapplicable to any par-
ties, and least of all to himself. When the notice on the subject
of the sugar duties was given he was in Somersetshire, and on
his return to town he found that he had actually misunderstood
the purport of the amendment. The first time he heard of
the intention of his friends to support the amendment was in
that House, and if there was a conspiracy, all he could say was,
that it must have originated across the table of that House.—
( Hear, hear.) He should regret, indeed, if the House re-
versed that night the decision it had arrived at on Friday last,
because he was sure that such a step would have a tendency to
lower that House in the eyes of the people. He hoped the
time never would come when any majority of that House would
consent to support a Government upon such terms and in such
a manner as the Right Hon. Gentleman had considered it
essential to the safety of his Ministry to attempt to force upon
them.

Sir R. PEEL, in explanation, said the word conspiracy had
not been used by him. All that he had said was to express
his opinion that what had happened on Friday night had, to
repeat his words, " taken place with previous concert."
Mr. D'ISRAELI said he was not present at the debate on
Friday night, and therefore he was not acquainted with the
movements of those conspirators, who now were merely called
combinatory—( A laugh )—and therefore he was naturally some-
what astonished at that which had transpired. But he was
more astonished to hear that they were called, at four o'clock,
to witness the painful sight of the resignation of a Ministry ;
and, under present circumstances, and seeing how matters
stood, he could not refrain from congratulating the House that,
instead of witnessing the resignation of the Administration,
they had only witnessed the Prime Minister move an amend-
ment.—( Laughter.) There certainly were to be found cases
analogous to the present one. There was the case of the malt
tax, some years ago, when Lord Althorp induced the then
Hon. Members to rescind a vote they had deliberately come
to. He (Mr. D'lsraeli) was not in the House at that time,
though he had read and heard a good deal of the proceedings
which then took place, and he knew that step was
alluded to by eminent men of both parties in
the country as most extraordinary, and only to be
excused by the inexperience of a House that had
but then been reconstructed. Well, several years elapsed be-
fore a similar circumstance occurred, and that was very re-
cently, when they had been called upon to rescind a vote which
had vastly interested the great body of the nation, and the
House had submitted to that process which men of great ex-
perience some years before had accepted with great reluctance,
and as the result of an overbearing necessity.—(Hear, hear.)
And now only a month had passed—one month only—and that
House was again to be brought before the country—( Cheers)
—under circumstances, he could not help saying, that no man,
whatever side of the House he might belong to, could only de-
scribe as such as must have an inevitable tendency to degrade
the character of them all in the eyes of the people —(Loud
cheers.) It was possible that Ministers might retain power by
this stern process—(Hear, hear)—hut he for one certainly
mistook the character of the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir Robert
Peel) if he supposed he could much value power retained by
means so extraordinary, if not unconstitutional.—( Great cheer-
ing.) He thought the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel)
should treat with a little more delicacy his supporters under
these circumstances—(Cheers)—and, for his part, he thought
they had a t ight to hope that he should not unnecessarily drag
them through the mire.—( Loud laughter and cheers.) They
were dragged through in May—(Laughter)---they were again
to be dragged through in June (Loud laughter) or,
at all events, the Right Honourable Gentleman said
to them, unless you rescind the vote you came to, I will not
continue to bear the responsibility of office.—(Hear, hear. )
He did think they had a right to expect from the Right
Hon. Gentleman, after all that had happened, that he should
place them in a position as little degrading as possible.—
(Laughter and cheers.) In his (Mr. D'lsraeli's) opinion, those
who managed the details of these affairs should frame a sort of
tariff of Parliamentary disgrace—(Cheers)---that might tell
them at what price came the prospect of the shades of private
life.—(Loud laughter and cheers.) It would say to them "thus
far may you go and no farther ;" we have guaged your inde-
pendence--go no further or you will have to submit to the pub-
lic disgrace of recanting your own votes, or we must submit
to retire into private life. —( Roars of laughter.) Why, in the
year 1841, when the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) op-
posed the motion of the Noble Lord (John Russell), he
said he bad never entered into, and never would enter into the
slavery cry, and he never would enter into that of cheap sugar.
only two years had elapsed, and they now found what he said
and did, not only about slavery, but about cheap sugar—(Loud
cheers)—and seeing that, he chooses to stake his ministry upon
this conduct, and expets his supporters to lose their characters
in order to sustain his ministry.—( Loud cheers.) He detests
slavery in every place except on the benches behind him.—
( Great cheering.) He repeated they must recollect this was
the second time this session they had been called upon to res•
cind their votes, and therefore it would be better for the honour
of that House—better for the honour of the Prime Minister
himself—that that system should terminate.—(Loud cheer-
ing.) The Right Honourable Gentleman himself, from his
undoubted talents, deserved a better fate than that he should
constantly be replaced and continued in power by menacing his
friends and cringing to his opponents.—( Cheers.) The Right
lion. Gentleman denied calling them conspirators ; he merely
deniedt
charged them as conspirators, which reminded him (Mr.
ho
d bieeding thatar htyc had
od a
enteredD'lsr ae 1 i
intoo of thea conspiracy,defenc b
defence of
oFt,.
acknowledgede sebi
, who
combination.—( A laugh.) Ile obtained power through the
votes of the men whom he tried to coerce—he offered to them
no distinct policy of his own—(Cheers)—nothing that they
could count upon—no distinctive line whatever—( Hear, hear)
and yet he started amazed if any one dared to oppose any
new doctrine which he himself might think fit to take up.-
-( Great cheering.) lie thought that his system—and he was
at least learned in Parliamentary ways—was the right one to
adopt ; but he (Mr. D'lsraeli), for one, believed that it could
not tend to the honour of the House, or the honour—which he
respected—of the Right Hon. Gentleman himself—( hear,
hear)—and he might be excused, if, en this, as on a former
occasion, he reg.istered his vote for the same purpose, and in
the same spirit, and if he did not follow the example of the
Gallant Officer (Sir H. Douglas), but endeavour to show that,
at least, as he had given it not without thought, so he should
not change it without purpose.--( Hear, hear.) And whatever
might be the consequences so mysteriously referred to by the
Right Hon. Gentleman, certainly he, for one, if he should have
to appear again on the hustings, should not think he had a less

claim on the confidence of those who sent him to that House,
because he had not, within forty-eight hours, changed his vote,
from being menaced by a Prime Minister.—(Cheers. )
Sir HOWARD DOUGLAS begged to say that he had
changed neither his opinion nor his vote. He had disapproved
of the proposition of the Government and had voted against it ;
he disapproved also of the proposal of the Member for Bristol,
and should oppose that also.
Lord S A NDON said he thought the proposal of the Hon.
Member for Bristol was a good one, and he should continue to
approve it, and he regretted that the Government did not
adopt it, or something of the kind. He had also heard with
regret what had fallen from his Noble Friend, not so much in
connection with the present question, as from the principle he
seemed to lay down, which seemed to be this—that on no oc-
casion was the Government to be left in a minority that it
would not be considered as a vote of want of confidence. If the
minority were small, still it showed a want of confidence ; if it
were large, the inference would be still stronger ; and whatever
the subject might be,whether sugar, or a bishopric of North Wales,
whenever there was a combination of parties he was afraid the
decree had gone forth that a vote of a majority of that House,
whenever it did not agree with the opinion of the Government,
was to be considered a vote of want of confidence. This was
a scheme of Government which had never been tried by any
party, Whig, Tory, or Radical, and in a country like this would
not only render this but every other Government impossible.
He the more regretted this, as he should, in consequence of it,
he debarred as an independent Member from lending it that
efficient support which he could wish. With regard to the
particular question at issue, he believed that the proposition of
the Hon. Member was an improvement on that of the Govern-
ment. He begged the West India interest not to exaggerate
the crisis. He believed the natural advantages of the West
Indian colonies were so great, both with respect to climate and
soil, that when the system of free labour should be developed,
they would have no reason to despond.
Mr. SHEIL wished to say a few words on this subject. He
should not follow the example of Hon. Gentlemen on the other
side, who had spoken more unkindly of her Majesty's Govern-
ment than he was disposed to do. As for the Noble Lord who
had just sat down, he seemed to be ane of those who, in the
words of Pope, could
condescend
Sometimes to call the Minister his friend !"
He could assure the Right Hon. Baronet that he was under a
mistake if he supposed that there had been any combination or
conspiracy on this question. He believed the Right Hon.
Gentleman was under an entire misapprehension if he thought
there was any premeditated arrangement between his sup-
porters and those who generally opposed him. This was the
question, putting individual considerations aside. The
proposition was one for making sugar cheaper. In
reference to this discussion, he looked back to the debate
on Mr. Huskisson's proposition in 1819. That proposition was
agreed to by the Cabinet, and was one for reducing the duty
on foreign sugar to 283. Mr. Huskisson then argued that,
though the Chancellor of the Exchequer anticipated from it
a decrease of the revenue to the amount of 500,0001. annually,
yet the reduction of price would benefit the public more than
it would injure the revenue. Now, if the doctrine of Mr.
Huskisson were correct, let them try the two propositions be-
fore the House by the principle thus laid down, and they must
come to the conclusion that a reduction in the price of sugar
must be the result of one proposition in a far greater degree
than of the ether. That being conceded, he thought there
ought to be no difference with respect to the choice they ought
to come to.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER met the ar-
gument
quoted from Mr. Huskisson in the same manner as he
had met the argument of the Hon. Member for Taunton, by
contending that an increased demand for sugar, consequent on
a reduction of price, would immediately throw a great advan-
tage into the hands of those who alone had the means of at
present supplying the market. This would raise the price to
the consumers, and he contended that it was absolutely neces-
sary, before making a large reduction in the sugar duties,
they should give such notice to those countries producing free-
labour sugar as to enable them to furnish a larger supply of that
necessary article. It had been stated that the course taken by
the Government on the present occasion was quite unprece-
dented, because they called for the revision of a vote to which
the House had previously come.
.They were told that to sub-
mit to the House a question which had been previously
negatived or affirmed, was degrading to it.—( Hear. )
In that case, of what use were the forms of the
House which enabled them repeatedly to bring the same ques-
tions under consideration ? It was admitted that this was done
in a very signal manner on the subject of the malt-tax, when
the House was galled on to rescind its vote not as now during
the progress of the Bill. The Hon. Member for Shrewsbury
had indulged in a speech affirming that the Right Hon. Baro•
net had not the confideuce of all who supported him. He had
seldom heard a speech so derogatory to the character of the
House—( Hear, hear )—and the Hon. Gentleman should, at
all events, be the last to complain, for, from the tenor of his
speech it was evident that he had for a long time harboured
in his mind the sentiments which he displayed.—Hear, hear.)
He should be the last person to complain that the Government
abused the confidence reposed in them. The question under
consideration was, whether they should take off 4s. from the
245. duty. With regard to that proposition, they thought it
would injure the revenue without benefiting the consumer.
'fhe estimate of loss to the revenue was pretty much the same
as when Mr. Huskisson brought the subject under con-
sideration. They had been asked what consideration a loss
of 500,00 1. was when they had such a large surplus ? Why,
the way to contract debts and to have a deficient revenue, was
to proceed in such a course. It was on this ground that he
should continue to resist the motion of the Hon. Member for
Bristol.
Mr. P. MAXWELL STEWART said that none
of the grounds alleged by the Government in support
of their proposition were well founded, in his opinion.
He did not agree with the Right Honourable Gentleman
the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the ev.imates which
he made of the sugar which would come in under this pro-
position. He denied the statement of the Right Honourable
Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade with respect
to Java. He had it, on the authority of a Java planter, that
sugar was produced there under a forced system, which might
be considered a description of mitigated slavery, under which the
produce of sugar had increased twenty-five times in the course
of ten years. But he did not mean to say that ought to exclude
them under this Bill. The Government had, by their propo-
sition, produced the greatest stagnation in the West India
trade. They had now the lowest average price for six years.
The price that day was 345. Id., and the stock in hand was
8,000 tons more than the stock in hand in the corresponding
period of last year. It was impossible that the adoption of the
motion of the Hon. Member for Bristol could increase the suf-
fering which had prevailed in consequence of the conduct pur-
sued by the Government. Persons did not know what to do,
because they were doubtful of what would be the result of their
deliberations in that House. Was that a fitting way to treat
a great colonial interest ? But there was more than this.
The Right Hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of
Trade, told them that they were in a state of transition. He
had been an advocate for an alteration of the duties, but the
Government had by their conduct treated the colonial interest
with insult, not meant perhaps, but certainly real. The ar-
gument of the Right Hon. Baronet was unworthy of him. He
put forward the alterations of the tariff, but the Right Hon.
Gentleman had not allowed time to see what the effect of
the tariff was, for he had himself altered it in essential points.
He denied that the proposition of the Hon. Member for
Bristol would risk the revenue, and that it would benefit
the consumer he thought there could be little doubt. His
Hon. Friend the Member for Manchester and other free
traders were standing on this occasion between the con
sumers and the colonists.—( Hear, hear.) His Hon. Friend
said he was going to vote for the Hon. Member for Bristol,
but he was enlightened by going to the other side of Temple-
bar--(A laugh)—and voted with the Government. His Hon.
Friend had given an explanation of his conduct, and said
that he thought this was a trap. He (Mr. Stewart) was
of opinion that his Hon. Friend did not mend matters by
his explanation, and he would have been more discreet if
he followed the "Trappists'—(A laugh) —and remained silent.
He was sure they ought, looking to the interests of the
consumer and the colonist, to uphold the vote to which they
had come on Friday evening.
Several Members here rose to address the House, among
whom was Mr. Entwisle, for whom loud cries were made from
all parts of the House.
Mr. ENTWISLE said it was with the greatest pain that
he found himself compelled, at such an early period of his in-
troduction to that House, to oppose the measure brought for-
ward by her Majesty's Government, as a supporter of whom
he had been sent to represent his constituents ; but it had been
in defence of a principle to which he had taken frequent occa-
sion to announce his adherence, namely, that of affording a
fair protection to the produce of the labour of all British
subjects.—(Hear, hear.) It was en that principle that the
contest was fought in which he was lately engaged, and he
should not desert that principle now. —( Hear, hear.) They
had an admission of the Government that their measure was
hardly equivalent to the necessities of the case. It seemed
to be agreed on all hands that there was a strong necessity
for immigration of labour into the colonies, and that without
such immigration it was impossible for the West Indian proprie-
tors to cope with the foreign grower of sugar. In the state of
transition which had been so frequently alluded to, it appeared
to him that the protection proposed by the Government must
be insufficient before an immigration of labour had taken place,
and it was en that ground he conceived that the measure of the
Hon. Member for Bristol was proposed, for giving increased
protection. Whatever might be the effect upon the revenue,
it was brought on by the proposal of the Government them-
selves. However, having recorded his vote in favour of the
Hon. Member's proposition on a previous occasion, he would
not further mix himself up with that party opposite, to whose
views he was opposed. He would decline on that occasion to
register his vote in connection with theirs.
Mr. B. ESCOTT said he could not understand how this
proposition could be supported both on the ground of increas-
ing the supply of the people of this eountry and increasing the
protection of the West India proprietors. He agreed with
much that had been said on the other side, and amongst
other things in which he agreed, was the evil of holding one
opinion one day and the opposite on another.( Hear, hear. )
He had heard an Hon. Member opposite (Mr. P. M. Stewart)
in one part of his speech argue for increased protection, and
in another part for an increased supply ; but he could not at
all understand such an argument, nor could he understand how
his Hon. Friend the Member for Somersetshire (Mr. W.
Miles), or any other Hon. Member in that House, could sup-
port the proposition of the Hon. Member for Bristol on such
grounds. Allusion had been made to the possibility of the re-
signation of Ministers, but he believed the Right Honourable
Baronet, the Secretary of State, would strengthen his position
in the country if he were to adopt that course.—( Hear, hear.)
He believed that the people of England were not attached to
these antiquated monopolies which some in that House were
inclined to support.—(Opeesition cheers.) Although, on the
other hand, they were not disposed immediately. to abolish all
protection to British interests,n e
protested.
r.eawega ir:s.lhAniesrdt.v to
the. g
Miles)
ojui ner
course
e)g
trpoludprusrauolevl
dye
with the work of amendment, because that was the only way
of proceeding safely.
by the Hon. Member for Bristol, and sup)poriiteed
cbhyalsioenmgaendytohne
that
Hon. side
Memberof t h
for
rHEo House.—(
how the adoption of hisS—H4nlie.resaßertilative's motion could help the
West Indians nut of their difficulties.—( Hear, hear.) In con-
clusion, he begged to say that he could not give his support to
the proposition before the House.
Lord Howick, Mr. Miles, and. several other Members
here rose to address the House, amidst loud cries of " Divide,
divide," all of whom gave way to
Mr. W. MILES, who said that although he himself was not
interested in the West India colonies, yet, as his nearest and
dearest connections were, he could not give his vote on that oc-
casion without making one or two observations. When his
lion. Friend the Member for Winchester had so far forgotten
his position in the county of Somerset, that when scarcely two
or three years had passed, lie could gulp down all the senti-
ments indeedeit was not
nients for which he contended at two contested elections for
They should not
measure their corn by the Winchester bushel.—(Cheers and
tfhorehwimestteorntaldkivaibsoiount
porfintchiaptlec.7ou(ntcyh,eethrse.n)
laughter.) He had been perfectly astonished at the doc-
trine which the Honourable Gentleman had laid down.
whilst taunting with inconsistency many of those by whom
he was surrounded. The language which he had used ap-
peared
het heismt Itnodibaen
at the same time? Now what was the Government propo-
sition ? To reduce the duty on foreign sugar from 635. to 245. ;
manodst the extraordinaryconsurnercould
both be benefited
but they did not reduce by one farthing the duty now paid
upon West Indian sugar. If his Hon. Friend had only listened
to what had fallen from his relative when making his proposi-
tion, he would have understood the position which they
assumed. After the noble sacrifice of twenty milions,
the West India proprietors did not expect that they

would be able to maintain the discriminating duty of
635. They had always looked for a reduction of the duty on
foreign sugar, but at the same time they expected some
benefit for themselves.—( Hear hear.) Without going at all
into the question, how the reduction
in price was to be dis-
tributed, no doubt existed in his mind that both the planter and

the consumer would be benefited by the proposed reduction of
4s. The condition of the West India planter was precisely the
same as that of the English agriculturist. These were his reasons
for supporting the proposition of his Hon. Relative. He was
sorry that the question had been taken up as it had been by the
Government of the country.—( Hear.) He thought that when
it had been intimated that the sugar duties were next year to
be put upon a different basis, they would have come forward
and stated what their proposition was, in order that the
House miga to, either assent or dissent from their proposal.
But, instead of this, they had determined, notwithstanding an
adverse decision, to force upon the House their own proposition.
He could assure the Government that those high Conservative
principles which they advocated were his own ; but, at the same

time, he must have the power of freely and independently ex-
excising his vote ; and he conceived that he raised his party
higher by exercising that power when, in questions of detail,
he differed from the Government, than by obsequiously follow-
ing every movement of the Government.—( Hear, hear.) He
trusted that the majority which had supported his Hon. Rela-
tion the other night would not forget the duty they owed to
themselves, to the country, and to those who had sent them
there; but that whatever might be the effect, they would again
record their opinions in favour of the West Indian agricul-
turists.—( Cheers. )
Mr. B. ESCOTT said he had been so severely attacked,
that he trusted the House would allow him to say one word.
He called upon his Hon. Friend, in justice to him and to his
own character, after charging him (Mr. Escott) with renounc-
ing his former opinions and contradicting his former principles,
to point out one single instance in which he had avowed prin-
ciples or opinions inconsistent with those which he had avowed

that evening.—( Hear, hear.) -
Mr. W. MILES said, of course, he could only speak on the
authority of the newspapers. His -Hon. Friend (Mr. Escott)
however, had opposed his Hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Sand-
ford) as a complete protectionist.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. B. ESCOTT—No, no.—( Laughter. )
Lord HO WICK said he certainly did think that the Hon.
Gentleman who spoke last had very sufficiently answered the
charge made against him. He had, however, heard with great
satisfaction the statement of the Hon. Member (Mr. B. Es-
cott) that the people of England were not in favour of anti-
quated monopolies ; and he trusted that when they came to
discuss the corn-laws they would have before them in his speech

and vote the undoubted -proof of his sincerity.—(Laugliter. )
But his object in rising was to say that it really did appear to
him most extraordinary that the House should be
called upon to rescind its former vote upon the
grounds which had been stated that evening.—( Hear, hear. )
He thought that those gentlemen who had heard the statement
of the Right Hon. Baronet and the speech of the Hon. Mem-
ber for Bristol must be satisfied that the arguments of the
Right Hon. Baronet were not such as could warrant the House

in retracing the step which they had taken.—( Cheers.) He
thought that the proposition of the Hon. Member for Bristol
was a just and fair one.—( Hear, hear.) He thought that
everything which could be done to assist the West India inte-
rest in their difficulties ought to be done. What he understood
from the measure of the Government was, that the West Indies

should have a protection of 105. against the produce of free
labour. The Member for Bristol had not objected to re-
duce the duty upon foreign sugar, but he wished at the same
time that colonial produce should also be favoured by a reduc-
..

tion of duty, which would have the effect of cheapening the
article, enlarging the market, and benefiting at once the West
India interest and the consumer._ He thought that was a

most just proposition.—(Cheers.) His Right Hon. Friend near
him had made a proposition which would remove any difficulty
which might exist in coming to such an arrangement. He
was confirmed in that opinion by what had fallen from
the President of the Board of Trade, on the subject of the dif-
ferent duties to be imposed upon different qualities of sugar.—
( Hear, hear.) There had been but one objection argued by
the Right Hon. Baronet, which seemed to him to have con-
siderable force—that was, that the effect of the proposition of
the Hon. Member for Bristol would be to throw an undue

advantage into the hands of those traders who had stock, and of

the retailers, who would gain at the expense of the public.
However, that objection might be met by bringing the altera-
tion into effect at an earlier period, say the sth of July.—
( Cheers.) As to the distinction between slave-grown sugar
and the produce of free labour, it was only the Government
that set any value on that argument.—( Hear, hear.) But then
the Right Hon. Baronet said that they were bound by the
treaty to place Brazil upon the same footing with the most fa-
voured nation. Why then should the Brazilians not be placed
upon the same footing as the most favoured nation, and give
them what advantage they might obtain in three or four months,
until the treaty could be settled? That could not encourage
slavery in Brazil. He hoped the House was not going to re-
scind the decision to which it had come. He had

heard with astonishment the statement of the Chan.

cellor of the Exchequer, that the object of Bills
being read several times was to . give the House an op-

portunity of reconsidering its opinions, and of preventing
surprise. It was true the object of the forms was to prevent
surprise, but it certainly was not to institute or keep up a cus-
tom of rescinding deliberate votes, at the will of the Ministry.
The Right Hon. Gentleman had told the House three or four

times, that if they did not rescind their votes, he should regard
it as a withdrawal of confidence.—(Cheers.) This had oc-
curred on the Factories Bill, the Welsh Bishoprics, and on a
financial measure. He thought if such obsequiousness to the
Government was expected from the House, it would save much
trouble if, at the beginning of the session, the House should
pass a vote of unlimited confidence in the Ministry.—(Cheers,
and laughter.) But it was not in the power of the Right
Hon. Baronet to resign upon this question. It was impossible
for them to go to the country upon a question of a differential
duty of 4s. per cwt. But the Right Hon. Baronet had in-
formed the House that there was something behind, that there
were other and less ostensible differences between bins and his
ordinary supporters.—(Cheers.) He (Lord Howick) believed
that this was the case. He believed that the Government was
supported by gentlemen who did not agree with the Govern-
ment on the important question of trade and finance.—
( Hear, hear, and loud cheers.) That was a state of
things not creditable to the Government, or to the
House. 'Two or three times Ministers were on the point of
resigning office, and were only enabled to retain their places I.y
compelling their supporters to rescind their votes. The circum-
stance from which that had arisen had been stated by his Noble
Friend (Lord J. Russell). When the Right Hon. Baronet
was out of office, an impression prevailed in the House and in
the country, that he entertained opinions on trade and finance
very different from those upon which he had acted since he
came into power.—(Cheers.) The Government was now
under the pressure of enlightened opinion out of doors, with
which the convictions of their own minds agreed, and they held
the opinions of free trade as much as he did. There was a
feeling of disappointment on the minds of those who supported
the Government, and Hon. Gentleman and Noble Dukes were
heard to declare that they were not satisfied with Ministers,
but were more dissatisfied with those who might take their
places.—( Hear, hear, and a laugh.) The Government had
not the support of those who advocated protection for do-
mestic interests, and on the other hand those who were opposed
to mischievous impositions, such as the present corn-laws
were, could place no confidence in them. The consequence
was, that doubt and uncertainty to a most pernicious extent
agitated every interest in the country, agricultural, ma-
nufacturing, and commercial. The only way to put an end
to such a state of things was by the Government adopting de-
cidedly and boldly either the principle of free trade, or express-
ing a bona fide determination to uphold things as they were.—
( Great cheering.) They claimed to have a majority of the
House and the country, and if they honestly held that opinion
there was nothing to prevent their adopting one decided
course. If the contest was to end in removing restrictions, the
sooner, surely, it was put an end to the better. He did not,
from all had he seen, anticipate at present any change in
the manner in which the affairs of the country would be con-
ducted. There was a rottenness in the present state of things,
and the moment the country was subject to tempests such a
state of things must be done away with. Was it not better
then :to endeavour to do away with them when the country
was in a state of peace ? He was persuaded that the continu-
ance of this sort of anarchy—for he could call it nothing else—
would be attended with the worst results to the best interests
of the country.—( Hear, hear.)
Lord Stanley, Lord Clive, and Mr. Borthwick, rose together,
amid loud cries of " Divide, divide." Lord Stanley caught the
Chairman's eye, but gave way to
Lord CLIVE, who stated it to he his intention to vote that
evening in the same way he did on Friday night.—( Hear.)
Lord STANLEY then addressed the House. The Noble
Lord on the other side of the House had appealed to the pride
and sense of honour in the House whether it would re-
scind a vote it had formerly given. The Noble Lord had
done injustice to his Right Hun. Friend in supposing that in
his observations he had held out any threat. What he had
stated was, that standing in the situation of the Government,
it was their bounden duty to state to the House the position in
which they felt themselves placed by the vote of the House,
though not exclusively on Friday. He stated that they thought
it was due to the position of the Government to consider
the situation in which they stood, not on this
question alone, but other measures that had been brought for-
ward in the present session ; and his Right Hon. Friend at the
same time stated that if they did net possess the confidence and
support of the House, it was idle for them to attempt to carry
on the affairs of the country. The Noble Lord had drawn a
picture of this country, which, if true, was a conclusive argu-
ment for their declaring that if they had not the confidence of
either party, it was incompetent for them to carry en the busi-
ness of the country. The Noble Lord had also said that the
present Government had created a very different notion as to
the views they entertained on commercial subjects when out of
office to what they had done whilst in. Now, where, he would
ask, had they created that sentiment? Certainly not in the mind
of the Noble Lord opposite, for he had said it had not come
upon him unexpectedly. The Noble Lord had said, you admit
the principles of free trade, why not carry them out ? Why, had
they not beers taunted by the other side with only being free
traders in the abstract ?—( Cheers.) The Noble Lord had then
said that it was admitted by all that we ought to buy in the
cheapest and sell in the dearest market. He admitted that
doctrine in the abstract, but in the application of it they would
not injure those great interests that had risen up in this country
and the colonies. The Noble Lord then stated
that the Government were supported by a body of men
who only supported them because they disliked their
opponents' views. That was the condition of every Govern-
ment ; but he believed that the Noble Lord was entirely mis-
taken in taking the view he had done of the great Conserva-
tive party in this country. He believed that the whole of that
body were perfectly satisfied with the cautious course pursued
by his Right Hon. Friend, and that the agriculturists were not
likely to be deluded by the friendship of the Noble Lord to
ruin themselves by advocating the principles of free trade. The
Noble Lord had stated it was time the present state of
things should be done away with, and which might be
done in two ways ; but he (Lord Stanley) did not be-
lieve that either of the ways pointed out by the No-
ble Lord would attain the ends he had in view. What-
ever might be the fate of the Government, so long as they
were supported by a majority of that House, they would con-
tinue to maintain that steady, cautious course—( Laughter and
ironical cries of "Hear, hear," from the Opposition)—they
would advocate temperate and well-considered measure of im-
provement which would be best calculated for the rational pro-
tection of the main and leading interests of the country, and
for the development of our national resources. But if the
Noble Lord could not succeed by an appeal to the passions and
pride of Hon. Members on that side of the House, if he could
not foment any dissensions, or produce any divisions in the
Conservative ranks—if the agricultural Members would not
be attracted, he thought lie could succeed in placing the advo-
cates of the West Indian interests under his guidance and pro-
tection.—(Hear, hear.) The Government, he candidly ad-
mitted, called upon the House to reconsider its vote of Friday
night, and the plan proposed by the Government. He ad-
mitted that the measure of the Government had been con-
demned by a majority of ten. —( " No, twenty.") Yes, twenty.—
' (Laughter.) He would not go into any question of previous
consent or combination between the Noble Lord and Hon.
Members on that side of the House.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL—There was no combination.
Lord STANLEY—What no concert between the Noble
Lord and—
Lord JOHN RUSSELL (advancing to the table with
marked emphasis)—The Noble Lord is entirely mistaken.
Lord STANLEY would not, as he had already said, enter
into the) question of any previous concert ; but he asked the
House to deliberate and compare the project of the Govern-
ment with that of the Honourable Member for Bristol. I
admit that the West India interest are entitled to protection in

a double sense—first, on the ground d a differential duty be-
tween our colonial possessions and foreign countries, supposing
them to be placed under similar circumstances; and secondly,
on the consideration oc the difficu!ty which the West India co-
lonies had to obtain cheap labour. The Government gave a
differential duty oe 10s. against foreign free grown sugar, and a
high rate of du y rgainst foreign slave grown sugar. The
amount of protection offered by Government was identical with
the protection asked for by Hon. Member for Bristol. It was
not disputed that if the proposition of the Hon. Member for
Bristol were carried into operation that the revenue would
suffer very considerably. The reduction 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,
and 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 they had in-
timated to all parties the principles upon which they meant to act
and the degree of protection which they intended to esta-
blish. They gave notice that foreign free labour sugar
would be admitted into competition, after a certain period,
with West Indian sugar ; but they 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. lie knew that the Government, in the late division,
had been de`eated 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-

vernment would aff )rd an adequate protection to the West
India interest ; and he also believed that the West India body
would find that By-, measure of the Hon. Member for Bristol

would be injurious to their interests. He believed that the
measure of the Governfncnt, by increasin; the demand in this
country, would greatly bonefit the producer. He was, however,
free to confess that the Government would not attempt to follow

the example of the late Government, by retaining office 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, gilt upon
investigation those of their supporlers who had not voted 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 themselves to it. The Government bad to state

firmly, but with respect, that they would adhere to their pro-
position; and in doing so, he believed that they were sub-
stantially benefiting the West India interest.
Lord PALMERSTON 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 founded upon the principle of protec-
tion. He admittesl, 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 Friday 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 ti re-
tire from an office which they could no longer retain with
credit to themselves or with advantage to the public. But had
that principle always actuated Hon. Gentl men opposite? Did
they forget the Government of 1835? They were beaten, not
once, twice, or three times, but something like 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)—
and they said, further, it was not consistent with their duty
.ightly 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 vote was reversed. The vote was revel sed and much loss
of character they curtained 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 had arrived at. Why what
did this come to? That this House was a mere cipher, called
together for the sole purpose of registering 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 Goverdment, 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-
honourable, and just.—( Hear, hear.) Or the Right
Hon. Baronet (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 Right 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
which 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
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,
in order to show that they did not 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
free trade, that of having no duty at all, except merely for re-
gistration. They had a specimen of that too. The corn that
came from the State of Maine, nnder the Ashburton treaty,
through New Brunswick, came in on the free-trade
principle and paid no duty at all.—(Hear, hear.) Thus
though they seemed to 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 vote on Mondayin ac-
cording to those convictions, persisting 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 vital question was put be-
fore the [louse, 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 nensensical
pretext of a want of confidence.—( Loud cheers.) Away
with the pretext that it was necessary that gentle-
men should unsay what they had said so forfeiting all cha-
racter and title to indeperklence and consistency.—( Cheers. )
He said that the Government could not be in earnest when it
said thst 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 be en 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 Lanca,hire, for the
manner in which he had answered the Noble Lord, the Member
for Sunderland. Ile begetel to assure that Noble Lerd that,
however slight might
be the friendship 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 agriculturists 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 agricultural body 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.) Why n 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
of protection, what had been the conduct of the agricultural
body since? When they Weiss driven to a demonstration of