The Sun.
London, England, 1845-05-09 00:00:00

and immediate advantage was an injury to our national into-
rests. te
rests. He wished the Government to take some means' of
allaying this alarm, for he thought that it was not right, how-
ever great or important the agricultural interest might be, that
on every proposition for improvement in commercial policy,
the m...cm,nbderospopfosteheitloanndtehde shouldginroteurnedstofitdownemreas this
should
otuhladt
s being detrimental to
"^ thought that such a power
.-.-sest, for it had shown by its con-
tutus,. ....
their welfare. a....
restion of econo-
not lie intrusted to that in,'
duct that it was unable to view any gree:
mical or geographical science aright. There ha(; been great
alarm some time back on the proposal to reduce the duty on
Arririeatt lard, and yet, by the reduction of that duty, the
revenue had heat largely increased. The duty on American
lard had last year been 2Lt0,090/., in consequence of the re-
duction of the duty from Bs. to 2s. per cwt., and yet no person
in this country could say that he had received one farthing
less for his lard. No doubt it would be a very comfortable
doctrine if the juste milieu system could be adopted, and duties
could be remitted without any injury to the home producer.
If the tar stick of the custom-house officer could be intro-
duced into a firkin of butter, and render it unfit for home
consumption—if When Canadian or foreign corn was imported
it could be imbued with anything that could render it unfit
for human food, there would not be the slightest objection on
the part of Gentlemen opposite to its introduction. But what
they w anted was that wheat might be introduced
for the bread- eater from every part of the world on the most ad-
vantageous terms. In a discussion in another place, the other
night, on the union of the sees of Bangor and St. Asaph, a Noble
Lord had stated as a reason for enlarging the establishment of
Bishops that the population was increasing at the rate of 1,000
a day. He would use the very same argument, and would ask
the House to provide a table for this increase of 1,000 a day.
He imputed no dishonourable motives to the gentlemen of the
agricultural interest, but he wished that that interest would
stand forth in the power of its native strength—that it would
trust to no unworthy support, but that it would lay aside its
crutches, throw off its bandages, and rely solely upon its own
resources. It would not be filled with such an unnecessary
alarm and come down to the House to contest such matters of
small importance as that of the introduction of wheat
evidently was to the landed interest of this country.
He thought with his Hon. Friends the Members for
Manchester and Hull, that this was not a case in which the opi-
nions of the country were to be led by the influence of a man
on this side of the House or that. He rejoiced to see that
there was a breaking down of parties, and that the people of
England were fast coming to the conclusion that there was a
unity of interest in all parties of the community, and that no
one, whether agricultural or commercial, was to be sacrificed
to the other—that all were to be taken into the same common
consideration. For these reasons he was glad that the question
had been brought to: ward, and he should most readily vote for
the motion of the Hon. iii,amber for Gateshead.
Mr. S. O'BRIEN thought ii would have been better if the
Hon. Member for Durham had cot; net himself to the simple
question before the House, instead of entering into the
whole question of agricultural protection. "Protection was not
confined to the agricultural classes ; for, if he resZembered
aright, some years ago, the importers of cotton had called ppon
the Minister of the day, and expressed their apprehension 111'3
their trade would be greatly injured in consequence of foreign
competition, if some degree of protection were not afforded
them. Their application was, however, wisely resisted. and '
the result proved that their apprehensions were groundless, and
they now stood in a position, as respected their commercial
prospects, which proved the wisdom of that Minister. He
(Mr. S. O'Brien) was ever opposed to the total, the immediate,
and the unconditional surrender of protection to agriculture,
and he thought that the Hon. Member who had brought for-
ward this motion, and the lion. Members who had supported
it, had altogether" lost right of the complicated interests
which were involved in the settlement of the ques-
tion.—( Hear.) How did the Australians themselves consider
this matter? They stated in a return laid before that House,
that the agriculture of the country was comparatively nothing,
but they :Armed that the pastoral interest was with them all
in ail. For free trade, or no trade, in agriculture they eared
not ; but they prayed that the pastoral character of their
colony might not be interfered with, as in that trade consisted
all their wealth and all their prosperity. If they entered on
this question at all, he thought it better that they should take
it as a whole, but that was perhaps too late now. He thought
they had no right to take this question piecemeal, and he
should therefore support the Government in opposition to the
"notion of the Hon. Member.
Mr. WARD thought the Right Hon. Baronet had great
reason to congratulate himself on the clearness of the argu-
ments used by the Hon. Members who generally supported
him. The Hon. Member who had spoken last thought that
they should not take the question piecemeal—that they should
at once enter on the whole question. This was neither more
nor less than the Peebleshire argument—(Loud laughter)—of
voting agai, st the trivial grant, and conceding the round sum
at last.—(Continued laughter.) So the Hon. Member for
Northampton thought, that instead of doing justice to Australia
in detail, they should, in the Peebleshire fashion, take the
whole question of the colonies at once into consideration. The
Hon. Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire was afraid,
that if they conceded this motion it would stimulate Canada to
make still larger demands upon this country. The time must
shortly come when the agricultural, like the cotton trade,
would cease to tremble for its own interest, and when it would
merge those individual interests in the general desire to add to
the prosperity of the community.
Sir R. PEEL said that the argument of the Hon. Gentle-
man who had last addressed the House was not in any great
degree calculated to induce Hon. Members on that (the Mi-
nisterial) side of the House to vote for this motion, Hon. Gen-
tlemen on that side had stated, on the occasion of passing the
Canada Corn Bill, that no American corn would be introduced
into this country through that colony. Other Hon. Members
had invited votes by affirming that corn would be imported in
this manner, and the Hon. Gentleman in addressing the House
had expressed his satisfaction that an immense importation of
corn would take place from America, smuggled into Canada,
and transhipped into this country.
Mr. WARD explained. The Right Hon. Baronet was en-
tirely misquoting him. He had not stated so.
Sir R. PEEL.—It certainly was his own intention to vote
in opposition to this motion. There were two other proposi-
tions on the subject of free trade in corn, which would come
before the House in the course of the session. One was a pro-
posal for the total repeal of the duty on corn, and the other
proposition would be discussed in a fortnight, on the motion of
the Noble Lord the Member for London. His motion was to
this effect, that the present corn-law tended to check improve
ments in agriculture, and to impose an unreasonable restraint
upon farm speculation, and that the House should take the law
into its consideration with the view to arrangements which
would be found beneficial to all classes of her Majesty's sub.
jects. They were to have a discussion on the policy of alter-
ing the existing statute, and another on the propriety
of making liberal arrangements, with the view of
benefiting all classes of her Majesty's subjects.
These two proposals were to be set before the House ; but not
satisfied with the proposal of the Hon. Member for Wolver-
hampton, and of the Noble Lord the Member for Lond n. here
they had another brought forward by the Hon. Gentleman the
Member for Gateshead, the effect of which was to admit the
produce of one part of the colonies to the same privileges which
Canada possessed. The Canada Bill was passed in 1825,
and he would just ask the House to refer for a moment to
the circumstances under which that measure was passed.
The maximum of the duty was fixed at a sum which was con-
sidered commensurate with the resources of the colony, and the
circumstances of the mother country. He thought that if
Gentlemen would dispassionately look over all the debates that
had occurred upon this question of Canadian preference—
An HON• MEMBER—I did not say so.
Sir R. PEEL said that he was not aware under what circum-
stances the Honourable Member had denied his authority, but
it was quite clear, from the facts which the Hon. Member him-
self had stated, that the condition of the Canadian colonies re-
quired arrangements of a different character from those of our
other colonies. He did not think it would be wise- to take
the case of a single colony. It ought to be the duty of the
Legislature to take into consideration the circumstances of all
the colonies, and not to make Canada an exception, or to
point out a colony in another portion of the globe, as exempted
or wronged. He believed the evil of the proposition of the
Hon. Member for Gateshead would outweigh the good. If
the claim of Australia was founded in justice, it ought to weigh
with them ; but he contended that the case of Australia was not
identical with that of Canada, and he was, therefore, unwilling
to extend the provisions of the Canadian Bill of 1843 to that
colony.—( Hear, hear.)
Lord HOWICK said he'never heard the Right Honourable
Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Government make a
speech in which he had failed so much. It was evident that a
very painful task had been imposed upon him.—( Hear.) No
one who had listened to that speech could entertain
a doubt
,:f the justice of the motion of the Hon. Member for
Gateshead
( kJr. Hutt). The Right Hon. Baronet had endea-
voured to get up 3 laugh at the terms of the resolution, and
said there was no use in their discussing the present motion,
as the subject of the corn--laws was shortly to be discussed. It
was true they were going to !sliscuss the corn-laws, but it was
also well known how the Hotege would go on that question
whenever it was brought forward. From the
_existing Parlia-
ment, no material alteration in the cern-laws was to be ex-
pected. How, then, in justice could ',bey refuse to accede
to the motion before the House? It was Old by the Right
Honourable Baronet that the cases of Austraiel and Canada
were not precisely the same, and he endeavourer, to show a
difference. But. he (Lord Hewick) wished to know if Aus-
tralia was less an integral part of the, British empire than
Canada, and if it was so, as he contended it was, then wa." it
not enti led to the same privileges? The only. difference that:
he knew between Australia and Canada,was that in Canada there
was an opportunity for smuggling into this country foreign
grain as colonial produce, which could not be the case with
Australia. While Canada could get American corn and
introduce it at 35. per quarter, Australia was not in a position
to do anything of the kind, for the nearest place that any
grain could be got from was Chili. This would require a
long and expensive voyage, and the freights would be so
great that they might rest perfectly assured that foreign corn
could not be introduced through that channel. It was clear
from this that the agricultural interest need not be afraid.—
(Hear, hear, and cheers.) It was completely secure as far as
danger from that quarter was concerned. With regard to Ca-
nada, there was no such security, as it was clear that a consi
derable portion of American corn crossed into Canada, as flour
without duty, and admitted into this country at
Canadian rates.—( Hear.) In comparing Australia with
Canada every argument told in favour of the
former erandt
against tho latter. He wished to know whethe h. Rhgh
Hon. Baronet es;
the' alteration would lead to the
two cases, from a fear that
posed the ass.milation of the duties in t ese
importation of too- rx;ch
l
friends? Or did he refuse itbecause
corn, and
the a l a r
boonhis
was a g rco ulst
mu ra al
it excited no fear amongst these sae
to the colonies that it would be .
Right Hon.
°f
agriculturalleltleservetofreimen'dtsh?"Oghn
sea;,d even a small
either
Baronet
Justified t e
in questionop poshmeg didt net:i.t'oottsti:k tThheeßimi
the opposer: oily of doing
I h been atomotuhnet
ocoflognramins
wasof being allowed allowe
so ought not by any mrantshet
roe a
bt
e,
andrefused. tan ob-
jected
Right Hon. Baronet. tha. it did
to the motion by
not include all the colonies, but he (Lord Howick) thot;:'..ht
his Hon. Friend (Mr. Hutt) had acted very wisely in the:
course which he had pursued. He had brought forward one
crying case of injustice, in order to have it remedied If this were
remedied. he was no doubt prepared to go further, anditloeextend his consideration to all other parts.—( Hear, hear.)
But if the Right lion. Baronet washidmiss(astiisrtißecl.
pweietlli) the
limited measure of his lion. Friend, let
in-
troduce a measure to include all the British possessions. and
lie would not oppose it.—(" Hear, hear," and cheers.)
b
)i:But
the real truth had not been stated respecting this
the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member fottir,eeyPortslc-'
mouth (Mr. Baring), when he said that
Go-
vernment acted with regard to Canada as the
acted elsewhere, they refused to a sense of justice what
they caneeded to intimidation.—(Lowl, cheers.) Their policy
in other quarters had been to lead parties to expect concessions
from threats and menaces, instead of from justice and reason.
This destroyed the grace of concession, and was a policy
which, instead of producing moderation and legiti-
mate results, led continually to further and increased
demands. A just and impartial • policy was that
a'one which could be safely pursued by those in power.
He did hope the House would be careful not to excite all the
British colonies 'by allowing such a policy to prevail. The
conduct of the Government was the more to be denounced
when it was remembered that it would induce Canada to be-
lieve that she was indebted nothing to England for the con-
cessions which had been made to her, and probably induce
other colonies to follow her example of demanding instead of
entreating concessions from the English Government.
Mr. NE WDEGATE added his testimony to the truth of the
statement of the HIM, Member for Sheffield, that the core
•