The Sun.
London, England, 1844-02-02 00:00:00

THE ANN, LO Nn oitl% XT AY ENTI47NING, PEERUARY 2, 1844.

devoted to the purchase of clothing and other things of which
the poor stood in need. It was obvious, therefore, that the
bounty of Providence had much to do with the improvement to
which reference had been made.—( Hear.) This was qaite
independent of any policy which might be adopted with respect '
to corn. The es:parienee of the las' year could hardly be quoted
in favour of any particular law ; for he doubted whether, if they
had a law prohibiting the import of corn, the effect would
nave been very different. But as the Hon. Member for
Montrose had spoken on that subject, he would venture to
say a few words as to the disadvantageous position of the
landed interest and the farmers as to the policy of the Right
Hon. Baronet. There were many schemes bearing upon
this subject. One was the old scheme of protection for all
articles of British industry. That policy still had numerous
advocates. Another opinion was the direct reverse of that, that
there ought to be no protecting laws at all, that there should
be no taxes except for the sake of revenue, and that they should
beware, in imposing taxes for the sake of revenue, that they
which the price of any article of
industrysould be enhanced. There was a third
domesticdi d not iopin:on, which was the opinion held by the Right Hon.
Gentleman, and very nearly that held by himself ; that although
anythingv by
the first opinion was totally erroneous, and although the second
was absolutely true, yet, in the condition of this country,
having to raise the interest of a debt of SOO millions—
having, also, to appoint numerous establishments—and having,
for these purposes, laid on many taxes at various times, and
of various kinds, some pressing on one class of industry, and
some on another—in making the change from what was erro-
neous to what was true, they should make it with great caution,
and they should rather look to having a fair competition, with
some advantage to their own consumers, who had been,
hitherto, unduly favoured, than go at once into a system of total
and entire freedom. Now this last principle was, he conceived,
that upon which the Right Hon. Baronet had founded his tariff
two years ago. But the fault of the corn-law was, that it did
not carry the principle far enough. The cosn-law, if it were
good for anything, was founded on the principle of protection
to British industry. All those who now defended the corn-law
defended it upon that ground. It was a law which was left alone;
it was a law which was repudiated by their policy with respect to all
other articles ; and it was a law which could not be defended,
except upon a theory which they themselves (the Ministry)
said was indefensible.—( Hear, hear.) Now that appeared to
him to be placing the whole landed interest at a disadvantage.
If they said. " Let all classes of British industry be protected,
for that is the true principle," they might tie up the corn-laws
in a bag with the rest of the laws, and they would then have
strength to resist any inroads which it might be attempted to
make. On the other hand, they might defend making corn a
source of revenue. But whilst, as regarded other articles,
they had adopted a moderate duty, as regarded that article in
which the majority, both in the House of Lords and in the
House of Commons were deeply interested, they had a duty of
40 per c nt., that duty shifting and changing in a way which
every commercial man declared to be irreconcilable with sound
principle. When, therefore, gentlemen attending agricultural
meetings expressed a hope that the Right Hon. Baronet
would come forward and declare that the corn-law WM
binding in all perpetuity, he did think that they made the
most extravagant request that ever he heard,—( Hear, hear.)
The Right Hon. Baronet told them last year that he did not
mean to alter the corn-law that session ; but that as regarded
the future he must be guided by the condition of the country,
and the probable effect of any new commercial law. He
thought that was the only answer which the Right lion. Ba-
ronet could fairly be expected to give ; but he would be much
surprised if he now found him saying, " I am so enamoured of
my law, that I am determined to stand by it."—( Hear, hear. )
He spoke thus much with regard to the subject introduced by
the Hon. Member for Montrose He did not know anything
more to add, than that he gave his concurrence to the address.
He did not want any addition made to it of the kind alluded to
by the Hon. Member for Montrose, and he would give his de-
cided negative to the amendment now proposed.—( Hear.)
Sir R. PEEL si.id that, before adverting to the motion of
the Hon. Member for Rochdale, or the observations of the Noble
Lord, he was sure the House would excuse him for expressing
the satisfaction with which he heard the speech of his Noble
Friend who proposed, and the speech of his Hon. Friend who
seconded, the address.--( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member
for Montrose, who was their political opponent, stated distinctly
that he never heard an address moved and seconded with
greater judgment or with more ability than on the present
occasion. —( Hear, hear.) He was sure the ability they mani-
fested, combined with the sincere and unaffected diffidence
exhibited on their own parts, gained for them the favourable
opinion of the House, and he hoped that the favourable opinion
of the House would induce them to overcome that feeling of
distrust and dididence, and to apply their abilities to the service
of the country.--( Hear, hear.) it was his duty to state his
decided opinion upon the amendment of the Hon. Member for
Rochdale. He apprehended that motion was intended as the
foundation of measures to be adopted for the purpose of stopping
the supplies. If he concurred with the Hon. Gentleman in
entertaining the opinion he entertained with regard to the
advantage of introducing more of the democratic prin-
ciple into the Constitution, he should be equally energetic
in deprecating the course indicated by him.—( Hear, hear.)
Ile could conceive nothing more injurious to the popular prin-
ciple of the Constitution than the abuse of the privilege which
a minority of that House possessed. The power of adjourn-
ment was one which it might be well to act upon on certain occa-
sions, but it was given under the greatest responsibility, and
unless used with great caution by Hon. Gentlemen they would
only injure the popular principle and those interests of which
they were the sincere—he was bound to suppose—and the
strenuous advocates.—(Cheers.) The Hon. Gentleman would
stop the supplies till the people obtained a redress of grievances.
But what various opinions were there with regard to those
grievances, anti the.mode of redressing them? and if the Hon.
Gentleman, and those who acted with him were to form the
Government of the country, and possessed a great majority,
they would be setting an example which might he used against
themselves, and a privilege, intended for other purposes, would
be used to obstruct the the public business.—(Laughter.) The
privileges of a minority were important as a protection against
an oppressive majority, but he had seen no case in which a mi-
nority would be justified in resorting to it. But, above all, that
great instrument which the House possessed of stopping the sup-
plies was one which it was of the utmost interest to them should
remain intact, and one which should not be inconsiderately and
unjustifiably used, bat reserved for some great and important
occasion.—(Cheers.) It was not to be resorted to because a
small minority differed from a great majority as to what was
right. He had seen many occasions in which, at the com-
mencement of a session, the Hon. Gentleman, and those who
sat on his left, came forward with strong declarations as to their
intentions, which in the course of the session they saw reason
to alter; and he had that confidence in the good sense and
sound judgment of the Hon. Gentlemen which induced him to
call upon them to reflect, and to consider whether, being the
guardians of this great ipopular instrument by which popular
privileges, interests, and rights, might have to be defended,
they ought to resort to it on trifling and unimportant occasions.
—(Cheers). With regard to the speech of the Hon. Member
for Montrose, he agreed with the Noble Lord that it was much

better to abstain from introducing anything into the speech
from the Throne which might lead to a division, and for this
reason, that if it were otherwise, the Government would possess a
great advantage. They knew the entire of the speech, and
if they wished to carry any particular paragraph in the address,
they might by a large majority do so by getting pledges of
opinions from some parties and by issuing summonses for their
trienda to attend. He thought, therefore, that it was better
if possible to avoid anything that would lead to a division.
l e for
Commonsthe mt too gtihvee the 23 consideration
paragraphs
othfatthite
The Hon. Gentleman (the Member for Montrose) had said
was
address in a few hours. He said that they should at least have
ui impossible
b
24 hours ; but he (Sir R. Peel) very much doubted whether
the important and various subjects alluded to in the
address could be satisfactorily decided even in that time.
The Hon. Gentleman did not show his usual modesty and dis-
trust in his own opinion, for notwithstanding the shortness of
the time he came prepared with three or four amendments,
and he called upon the House not to lose a moment in pledg.
ing themselves to them.—(Laughter.) He thought that it
was for the public interest that they should not raise a sepa-
rate discussion on all the matters introduced in the speech.
He was of opinion that the present practice was far preferable
to the ancient practice of reading it at the Council the day
before. He was glad to bear that the general tenor of the
speech met with the approbation of the Noble Lord.-
With regard to Ireland, the satisfaction with which he
heard that approbation of the Noble Lord was not
much lessened by the small taunts with which he indulged
in the course of his speech. With regard to France, the No-
ble Lord, in his own vindication, referred to a period when
there existed a difference of sentiment and action between this
country and France. He would not refer now to the causes
which produced those differences, but he contemplated, and
he believed the House concurred with him in contemplating,
with great satisfaction the re-establisment of better feelings
between both countries—(Cheers)—and he thought it was
infinitely better not to disturb that feeling by any refer-
ence to former times till a period arose when they would
have an oppportunity of discussing the subject. The
discussing the amount of blame to which each party might be
liable, would be likely only to revive animosity, which could
effect no good purpose ; but he saw with satisfaction that the
House was almost unanimous in expressing their satisfaction at
the re-establishment of better feelings between both countries,
upon which the interests of peace and civilisation so much
depended.—(Cheers.) When in Opposition he never con-
cealed his sentiments as to the policy of having a good under-
standing with France, and it was better that he should explain
what he meant by a good understanding.—( Hear, hear.) lie
did not mean any secret engagement which might give offence
to others. That understanding ought to be patent and open.
They sought not to interfere with the prerogatives or rights of
others. —( Hear, hear.) They coveted no invasion of terri-
tory. They desired not to diminish the just influence of
others. They wished not to propagate opinions with regard to
the systems of other countries.—( Hear, hear.) Their ob-
ject was not to weaken the affections between the people and the
Sovereign—( Hear, hear)—but the time was come when they
were to ask, whether the interests of those countries were op-
posed to each other—whether there was any necessity for their
tomenting party feelings ?—(Cheers. ) If there was no
obstacle to a good understanding existing between
the two countries, it was for the interests of hu-
manity and civilisation that that good understanding
should become established.—(Hear, hear, and cheers.) Did
England covet any of the possessions of France, or France
those of England? Did the:, desire any extension of territory
at the expense of each other ? Were their institutions op-
posed ? They had each a representative Government, and
they had each responsible Ministers. On the part of this
country he would say at once that he was perfectly certain that
a good understanding could not be cordially or permanently
maintained at the expense to either country of any con-
cession of any point of honour, or any compromise of prin.
ciple.—( Hear, and cheers.) It was virtually necessary for a
cordial and permanent understanding between the two countries
that it should be known there were no secret engagements or
special contracts with which any other country could find fault.
On the part of England, he could say that no concessions were
made by France, or the French Government. There was no
compromise, no concession of any right, or of any kind, in any
particular whatever ; but, from the position of both countries,
standing as they did, at the western extremity of Europe, and
almost similarly situated with regard to that great quarter of the
globe on the other side of the Atlantic, and governed by similar
institutions, there was nothing to prevent a friendly under-
, standing between both countries. But if there was to be in every
country in the world, a French party and an English party,
he could only say that England and France would be the curses
of the world. There would be no advantages in constitutional
institutions. He had read that very day a letter from the re-
presentative of that country in Athens, that able and distin-
guished individual, Sir E. Lyons, which proved that a good
understanding should exist between France and England. It
was by the understanding which subsisted between them that
Greece now possessed a limited monarchy with all its preroga-
tives. The letter to Ewhich he referred was dated on the
10th of January last, and he rejoiced to know that M.
Placatory, the Minister of France, decidedly approved
of what had been done by both Governments. The
representatives of one class of opinions in that House—the
representatives, if he might presume to say so, of extreme po-
pular opinions, and the Noble Lord opposite, the head of a
great party in that House, declared their concurrence in the
sentiment he ventured to express. The great body of the
people of this country
.had no wish to refer to past animosities,
anti those national antipathies, which ought to be buried in
oblivion. They admitted the glary of France—that it was
inferior in military glory. to no country in the world—that it
obtained that reputation in war by the skill of its great com-
manders, and the national valour of its men ; but he hoped
that France herself—and her great and powerful—would not
think it necessary to stir up hostile feelings for the purpose of
securing to her a reputation of which she could not stand iu