The Sun.
London, England, 1845-03-20 00:00:00

Lord A. LENNOX said he would not have risen hut
for the extraordinary speech which had just been deli-
vered. Ile could not suppose that his Hon. and Gallant
Friend had meant to insult those who had returned him
to Parliament, but he did not think the Sussex farmers
were likely to elect him again a:, their representative.—
(Hear, hear.)
Mr. WARD said, as one who was himself connected
with land, he felt that it was a degradation of that inte-
rest that the time of the House should be taken up by
discussing these miserable little monopolies.—(Hear.)—
He had presented their petitions, but always said he
would not support them. He had never curried favour
with his constituents. The Hon. Baronet the Member
for Essex had twitted him with deserting the landed in-
terest ; it was true he belonged to that interest—what
little he had was bound up in it. But he believed that
the course which that interest was now pursuing was
not calculated to benefit them at all. He could not but
express his contempt—he meant in a Parliamentary
sense—(Laughter)—of those who were upholding this
course—who name forward with these beggarly mea-
sures instead of boldly advocating those which were
large and comprehensive in their nature. If he held the
v:ews of Hon. Gentlemen opposite, ho would vote to-
morrow for the repeal of the Corn Bill and the Canada-
Corn Bill. The course which those Honourable
Gentlemen were pursuing was throwing eternal disgrace
upon their party. They opposed the introduction of
lard, simply because there was one country which could
produce it better and cheaper than any other country in
the world. That was one reason why they should go
there ; and he believed that the peasantry would be
greatly benefited by the repeal of this duty, and he,
therefore. gave his cordial support to the Government.
Sir JOIIN TYHRELL said the Hon. Gentleman
who had just sat down had made two vituperative
speeches-against the agriculturiAs . He had only fol-
lowed the example of the lion. Member for Northamp-
ton, who had imputed to that interest the basest and
most beggarly motives. He (Sir J. Tyrrell) had thought
that it was understood at the beginning of the evening
that they were not to discuss principles, but confine
them elves to details, yet, notwithstanding this, Member
after Member had indulged in vituperative language ;
and he did not, therefore, feel that he was justified in
remaining silent. The Hon. Member for Sussex had
made a speech whieli was very amusing. He (Sir John
Tyrrell) had partaken very largely in that amusement.
lie thought he had seen the li.m. Member occupying a
very conspicuous place at the Freemasons' Tavern, and
he thought that there was some little inconsistency in
the course which the Hon. Gentleman had adopted, but
he did not think that inconsistency was confined to the
other side of the House. In researches which he had
lately made, he found that the lion. Member for Wol-
verhampton (Mr. Villiers), who dealt so largely in
accusing the landed interest of participating
in public plunder—to his very great surprise, he
found that the Hon. Member was in the possession of a
situation in that sink of iniquity, the Court of Chan-
cery, and blest with the possession of a large salary.
Now that situation must be a sinecure, seeing that the
Hon. Member's time must be almost wholly occupied
by the Anti-Corn-law Leage. Now why did not the
Hon. Member apply his free-trade principles there ?
No doubt that office could be performed for 500/. a year,
instead of 1,0001. ; and under these circumstances he
must say that the Hon. Gentleman's principles and prac-
tice were much opposed. He (Sir J. Tyrrell) had no
hesitation in saying, with respect to the protection
societies, that they were a great libel on a Conserva-
tive Administration. He thought that the Right
Honourable Baronet would derive much advan-
tage from the study of some speeches of the
lion. Member for Stockport, for he would there find that
the object of that Hon. Gentleman, and those with whom
he was connected, was to displace some of the ornaments
of that House, and to bring in, for instance, the Brights
and Cobdens, and to displace the Egertons—that was
the prospect which the agricultural interest had to look
forward to. He would be glad to hear the principles of
protection fairly and boldly discussed.
Mr. VILLIERS inquired sshy the Hon. Gentleman
did not do so. The Hon. Gentleman had already made
two speeches that night, but not one word had been said
in justification of protection, and what was the charge
he had brought against him (Mr. Villiers)? He (Mr.
Villiers) had never imputed base motives to any one—
he had merely stated what was the effect of the law—
and it was no answer to him to bring the charge
which the Honourable Gentleman bad that night made
when he said that he (Mr. Villiers) held a place in the
Court of Chancery. The Hon. Gentleman said that
place was a sinecure. It was not. Was not a man
worthy of his hire? If it was net a sinecure, why could
he not hold it ? It was no sinecure ; he was paid fur his
work. He did it ; and he told the lion. Gentleman that
the Hon. Gentleman was paid for work he did not do.—
(Laughter.) lie came to that House to get paid.
The landed interest passed a law to swell their rent-rolls;
and in this opinion he was supported by the highest
authorities. That law was to provide settlements and
maintenance for younger children. Now, what did they
do in return for that? If they did anything, let them
show it. He (Mr. Villiers) did something in return
for his office, and he would venture to say that it could
not be done for less than was paid. lie wanted to know
what the landed interest had done? They benefited
their property without working. If they were to be de-
prived of that property, he would pity their condition.
He would recommend the Hon. Member for Essex not
to deal in personalities, for it could never be looked upon
as answering the public in favour of the present corn-law.
Mr. S. O'BRIEN said that the object of Hon. Gentle-
men opposite was to get every thing cheap ; but the
question of cheapness was not the only question which
they had to consider. There were many other conside-
rations to be entered into. With respect to protection
societies, he could only say that if any attempt were
made at coercion in any society to which he belonged he
would resist it at once. lie could not but regret the
personal turn which the discussion hal taken.
Mr. COBDEN said the lion. Gentleman had laid
down the principles of the free traders as that of cheap-
ness. Ile (Mr. Cebden) would venture to correct the
phraseology of the lion. Gentleman. The free-traders
desired to obtain the greatest possible abundance of all
those articles which were essential to the comfort of ma*.
If by cheapness the Hon. Gentleman recant abundance,
then they were perfectly agreed. Now, if the object of
the free-traders was to obtain abundance, then that of
the Hon. Gentleman opposite must be to produce
scarcity.—(No, no.) Then what was it ? Dearness
and scarcity were the same thing. Was not the iniquity
of the present system apparent when those who advo-
cated it did not dare to face their own principles? A
change, however, was coming over Hon. Gentlemen op-
posite. A gis titer change had come over themwithin,the
last two months than had previously taken place in two
years. This was shown by the exhibition which the
Hon. Baronet the Member for Essex had indulged in
that night. It must be a bad case indeed which
required personalities for its support.—(Hear, hear.)
The Hon. Member for Lancashire could, no doubt, sit in
that House as long as he liked, for he was one of the
most consistent of his party, and one of that lion. Mem-
ber's arguments was, that lard was necessary for the use
of the manufacturers of Lancashire, and that, therefore,
English manufactured lard should be protected. But he
(Mr. Cobden) begged to say that those manufacturers
did not consume lard, because they were paid well
enough to enable them to use butter; but it was the
farmer and agricultural labourers who, from their low
rate of wages, could not afford to use butter, were cont.
pelled to buy lard.—(Hear, hear.) Well, now, he would
ask, was it not deplorable to think that lion. Members,
who were so anxious for the welfare of the farmers,
or who professed to be such, would not 'allow
this article to come into the country at a cheap
rate ?—(Hear, hear.) But many of those agricultural
Members opposite :who were such advocates for protec-
tion, had not said a word upon this subject, but left the
defence of it to be carried on by the Hon. Member for
Essex in personalities.—(Cheers.) Now, suppose be
(Mr. Cobden) was to go down to Lancashire to-morrow,
what would the constituents say to him of those lion.
Members who would not let them have cheap lard while
they could not afford butter ?—(llear, bear.) Why
they would stare at him with astonishment, and ask him
could such be the fact.—(Laughter.) But to be serious,
he would say to the advocates of protection opposite that
whether they gained nothing or whether they gained
10,0001. individually a year by it, they should not sup-
port a protective duty on this article of universal Con-
sumption.— (Hear, hear.)
Mr. DARBY was sorry that this subject had created
such a prolonged discussion, and he begged to assure
the Hon. Member for Stockport, that lion. Members on
his side of the House had just as much to complain of—
with regard to the language that had been used.—
' (Hear, hear.) As far as he (Mr. Cobden) was con-
cerned, he would say, that upon any occasion when
subjects of this sort were brought forward, he
would vote upon them as he conceived his duty
called upon him to do.—(Bear, hear.) He begged to
remind the Hon. Member for Stockport of the principle
laid down by Mr. Huskisson, which was to this effect,
as applied to the article of lard, that he (Mr. Huakis-
son) was anxious that the working people should have
cheap lard, if produced by manufacturers in this coun-
try ; but in order to prevent these manufacturers being
damaged, he would prevent the importation of the foreign
article by a protecting duty. The Hon. Member then
countryco n t end ehdy t ht
ha
et injury
removalh a
odf b
tehe done
en
duty toont hetrades
raw
w
hidesf
and
bark, and that the same results would follow the present
proposition.
Sir R. PEEL said lie could not help expressing his
regret that the discussion he had been listening to had
arisen on this subject, although no doubt a large and
not unnecessary amount of interest was attached to it.
But he could not help saying that some Hon. Member&
opposite him, had done injustice to Hon. Members be-
hind him.—(Hear, hear.) Let him here observe, that
a great deal of forbearance had been exhibited by lion.
Members on his sideett of the house,gttheu n t
moment
• oh theymil while
ncame
going
the
t
ttohrouthgeh tiht:mtaroiflf
ohetonot• gistrnt
removal of the duty on that' article came to be dis-
cussed, although it was then one o'clock in the morning,
it was suggested that this was an item of so much im-
portance that it should be postponed; and he (Sir R.
Peel) should say that that was so reasonable a propo-
sition that he at once assented to it, in order that public
attention might be called to it.—(Hear, hear.) How-
ever, that had been now set at rest, and he had no doubt
but that its operation would be found effectual.—(Hear.)
And now he would come to this item of lard; in regard
to this he would say his impression was, that very great
benefits to the people of this country would follow the
removal of the duty on this article. Some observationsbue
had been made against such a proposition; th felt
so convinced of its ultimate utility that he had deemed
it right to propose its removal, particularly when he res
'ected the great advantage that would follow.the
emela. sure, to the manufacturing portion of the commis.
nitys_(llear, hear.) On these grounds he. hoped lion.
Members at his side of the House 'would not persevere
in their opposition, while, at the same time, he could not
sit down without congratulating lion. Members opposite
on their having so well
,avoided the use of' personalities.