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

need.—(Cheers.) He hoped that this general concurrence
of the House of Commons as to the value of having friendly
relations subsisting between both countries would prove to
France that this was also the honest opinion of
the people of England.—(" Hear, hear," and cheers.)
With respect to Ireland, he would imitate the example of the
Noble Lard. The opinions of the Government had bean de-
clared in her l‘L.j:styls speech regarding that country. The
law would be maintained, and those who violated it would be
tried before the legally conaitutcd tribunals of the country.
It was impossible to refer to the subject of the present legal
proceedings, without, in some manner or other, prejudiciniz
the parties who were the subject of it. The Notile Lord fixed
a particular day for his motion regarding Ireland, anticipating
that the trials would have then concluded. On

that occasion the political state of Ireland would
be brought under the consideration of the House, and
he would, therefore, abstain altogether from reference either
to the particular subject of the trials, or to the events neces-
sarily and immediately connected with them. The only other
subject of very great importance was the subject of the corn-
laws. The Hon. Gentleman stated that in 1840 he (Sir R.
Peel) had complained that the Government had not brought
under consideration the important question of the corn-
laws in the speech from the throne. He remembered having
made these observations, and considering the magnitude of the
subject, and the complicated interests involved in them, he
thought it was the duty of the Government, as they had made
up their minds regarding the question of the corn-laws,
to intimate their intentions through the speech from
the throne.—( Hear.) The Honourable Gentleman said
that as the subject of the corn-laws was not mentioned
in the speech from the throne, he apprehended that they did
not mean to alter the corn-laws.—(Load cheers from the
Ministerial side of the House. Amongst which the vehemence
of Colonel Sibthorp's cheer was distinctly audible, and excited
laughter from the Opposition.) If the Government had it in
contemplation to submit to the House a proposition for altering
the system of corn-laws, he would have thought it his duty to
mention it in the speech from the throne. The Noble Lord
said he thought the agricultural interest, which he sometimes
defended—(Laughter)—had a right to complain of the course
the Government were pursuing. The Noble Lord said there
were three different opinions regarding the corn-laws.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL—I said with respect to cemmer-

cial policy.
Sir R. PEEL—One of those opinions was, that it was de-
sirable to protect articles of foreign produce—that the present
protection was not sufficient—that they ought to be regardless
of the imports from foreign countries, but that the true policy
was the protection of native industry. Another opinion was
the total and immediate abolition of all duties—a protection

which merely existed as the means of raising the revenue should
be incidental. A third opinion was—and the Noble Lord said
that he thought he had the honour of concurring with him (Sir
H. Peel) as to the general principle, namely, that although it
was tine in a new state of society there should not be protec-

tion to native industry, yet in a country having such vast inte-
rests, burdened with so large an amount of taxation, it
would be dangerous at once to apply the abstract principle
of free trade, as they would thereby incur the risk of disturb-
ing capital and injuring vested interests by the removal of that
protection. He thought it would be wrong to apply to this
country the principles that might be abstractely right, and he
thought such application would produce confusion and distrac-
tion.—(" Hear, hear," from the Ministerial benches.) The
Noble Lord said the difference between them lay in the fixed

duty and the fluctuating scale. He ( Sir Robert Peel) re-
tained his own opinions, but he agreed so far in principle
with the Noble Lord regarding its application.—(Hear,
hear, and cheers.) The Noble Lord proposed protection by a
axed duty; he (Sir R. Peel) thought it was better secured
by a sliding scale. The Noble Lord said that the Members
of that House and of the other House of Parliament had sub-
jected themselves to an imputation by maintaining protection ;
but would they not, if a fixed duty were established, be also sub-
ject to that imputation ? The Noble Lord asked why this tax
should be hid upon foreign corn, and not upon home-grown
corn; and the Noble Lord instanced the cases of barley and
malt,as a proof that revenue was raised from home produce. If
revenue (he said) were raised on barley and malt, why
should it not be raised on home-grown corn ? Why not pursue
as to wheat the same course as to barley, and why not subject
the foreign and the home barley to an equal duty? He stated
last year, not because it was in the contemplation of the Go-
vernment to alter the present law, but when pressed to make a
declaration on the part of the Government—he did say that he
would not, under all circumstances, pledge himself to adhere

to the present law, for he thought that was a course inconsistent
with the duty he owed his Sovereign and his country. He did
not say that because he contemplated a change.—(" Hear,
hear," from the Ministerial benches.) The Hon. Member
said that there were two courses—either to maintain the pre-
sent law or to repeal it. As for the fixed duty, he thought it
would be impossiole for the Government to maintain that. He
(Sir R. Peel) thought whenever the present corn-laws were
repealed—whenever that revolution took place in the present
system of corn-laws, he (Sir Robert Peel) would not
be the supporter of it. He said now, as he said last
session, that though he would not think it consistent with
his public duty, he would not conciliate support by en-
gaging to adhere, under all circumstances, to a par-
ticular law he repealed, he did not contemplate any altera-
tion in the present law. The price of corn since the operation
of the present law—( Renewed cries of " Hear, hear," from
the Conservative benches)—the price of corn since the ope-
ration of the present law was as fixed as at any former period.
Let them look to the price of corn for the last 4 or 5 years, and
its variati.ms. He held in his hand a list of the prices of corn
for the last 54 years—since 1790—the average price of wheat was
50s. Id. In 7 years of that period the average price of wheat
was less than during the last four or five years. He thought the
present law had operated favourably. He hoped that the
general state of the country would justify the expectations re-
garding it in the Queen's speech. Trade had revived in some
of its most important branches. It should be remembered
that great changes were made in the commercial policy of this
country in the year 1843. When he (Sir R. Peel) last year
stated in that House that there were indications of the
improvement of trade, his observations were scouted with
derision—that nothing could be greater or more hopeless than
the depression. The iron trade was still in a depressed state,
but he hoped the consumption of that article in branches of
manufactures in which it was much used would cause its im-
provement. With respect to the revenue he would not pourtray
its condition in bright colours. In the present year the usual
deficiency had been avoided, and there was amply sufficient
to meet existing charges.—( Hear, hear.) He hoped the Go-
vernment had met Parliament under improved circumstances.
--(Crier of " Hear, hear," from both sides of the House. )
Looking to their foreign policy they had not adjusted all the
questions of difference in the United States, but they had re-
moved those immediate obstructions to a good understanding
which two years ago threatened the relations of amity between
the two countries. In France, without a concession of either
Government, he was justified in stating that a friendly under-
standing between the countries had been established ; that
friendly understanding would be mutually advantageous to
them in every quarter of the globe in which their
interests weree concerned. He hoped that that de-
pression which caused so much suffering among the
working classes—would at last be converted into grow-

ing prosperity. There still existed in many parts of the
country distress which they could not view without sympathy.
He hoped they had been justified in stating that they (the
Government had fulfilled their duty, and that they had met
Parliament after having fulfilled the promises which they made,
and the prospects which they held out, and that they had not
been wanting in their duty to the Sovereign er to the country.
The Right Hots. Baronet resumed his seat amidstgreat cheering.
Lord PALMERSTON said he had viewed with great satis-
faction some of the announcements made. It was very grati-
fying to learn that the distress which continued so long and
so severely was beginning to disappear—that the revenue was
beginning to recover, and, with the addition of the income-tax,
was likely to exceed the expenditure. Whether these results
would have happened earlier from the measures which the Govern.
ment, of which he (Lord P.) had been a Member, had proposed
was another question. —( Laughter from the Ministerial benches. )
He would imitate the example of those who had preceded him,
reduced.to
in not referring to the state of Ireland. He could not but
remark upon the dilemma which his Noble Friend and the
Hon. Memberst was o n
said that sidehat n of
e the
was House
fora wale
fixed duty
corn, and another for levying a duty upon all corn produced at
home. If the latter was admitted, it was said why not
abolish all customs duties. But there was no inconsistency
.saidd to
yo havenforeign
been
I whatever—they levied duties on the importation of many
articles coming from abroad, and there would not be any in-
consistency in imposing a duty on corn coming from abroad
without imposing a duty on corn produced at home. The doc-
trine of the Right Hon. Baronet was much more extensive
than they were aware of. They were for an indirect
duty, and no good reason had been shown why
foreign corn should not be subjected to an indirect
taxation as well as other commodities. He participated in the
general satisfaction at the successful termination of the opera-
tions in Canton, and which had been so satisfactory in their
results. A treaty had been laid on the table, by which he was
glad to perceive that all the privileges which had been granted
to England had been extended to every other country in the
world ; that was a very wise and fitting condition. Whether
the proposition was made by the English Government, or by
the Emperor of China, it was entitled to commendation.
Sir ROBERT PEEL—It was a supplementary treaty.
Lord PALMERSTON—No man could feel more strongly
than himself the desirableness of continuing on terms of
amity between this country and France, and which
would prove mutually advantageous. (Hear, hear. )
It had been lately stated in the French Chambers by one of
the greatest Ministers that country ever had, that between the
years 1830 and 1836 there was a most cordial union between
that country and England, and the effect of that union had had
a most material tendency in preserving the peace of the world.
They were constantly taunted during that period of six years—
certainly not by the Right Hon. Baronet, at the head of the
Government, nor by the Honourable Members at that moment
immediately surrounding him, but by persons of that party to
which he then belonged and with which he was now acting,
with being subservi,nt to the policy of France. He ( Lord
Palmerston) stated, whenever that unmerited reproach was
made, that that alliance would last as long as the interests and
policy of the two countries, real or supposed, were
identical ; and that when those interests, real or
imaginary, were no longer identical, whenever they began
to diverge, the alliance would at once become less cordial. The
interests of the two countries had become less identical, not
because England had parted from France, but because France
choosing, as she had a full right to do, to change her views,
the policy of the two countries necessarily became divergent.
But he must say that in that transaction in which divergence
became most apparent, the course which England pursued was
the same which she had marked out for herself long before,
and which she had steadily followed out with the co-operation
of France. Their course of policy from the first was to rescue
Europe from the dangers which threatened her from the un-
happy state of Syria. England never had any selfish objects
in view, and if she had had the misfortune to differ with
France, she at least differed from her along with the other Powers.
Glad was he now to find that the coldness and irritation which
succeeded those events had disappeared, and that now a cor-
dial and complete understanding existed between the two
countries. He could not, however, avoid expressing some re-
grets that the results of this cordial understanding were not in
all respects the same which so strongly and happily marked the
union of the two countries on the former occasion. The re-
sults which followed the good understanding between France
and England, from the years 1830 to 1836, were, he was
proud to say, conducive to the interests of liberty and happi-
ness of mankind in general. The result of that understanding
was, first, that Belgium was rescued from being subdued and
annexed by force to the Netherlands. The next result was
that Portugal was freed from the despotism of Don Miguel, and
admitted to the enjoyment of free and constitutional govern-
ment. The next result was, that Spain enjoyed the inestima-
ble advantages of popular institutions ; and another advantage of
that alliance was, that the two nations laid aside their
jealousies as maritime Powers, and agreed upon those treaties
of 1831 and 1833, which, by conceding the right of search,
aimed the most effectual blow in putting down the slave trade.
Now, if he looked at what might probably be the result of the
present union between the two countries, he was sorry to say
he could not see, nor dare he hope to see, fruit of the same
kind. He saw—whether in consequence or not remained to be
proved—he saw in Spain, that that person, who, by the admis-
sion of the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite ( Sir 11. Peel),
had been the main cause of peace and the chief preventive of
anarchy—he saw him expelled the country, popular liberty
suspended, military license triumphant, and Spain governed
by proclamations instead of by law.—( Hear, hear.) That was
the state of Spain. He greatly feared that another result of
this alliance would be, that the progress which had been made
towards the suppression of the slave trade would be interfered
with. That, indeed, those treaties which had produced this