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

will do everything which I can for them ; but, can it be
supposed by any person who has two ideas in his heal,
that a far:err —a farmer who is entirely among his
turnip-field, his ,heop, and hi.; barns, can have a com-
prehensive view of what is proper to be done for the
country ?—(Tremendou; laughter.) A parson
up to me, and says, Vote for Mr. Miles.' I reply,
• I won't vote for Mr. Miles.'—(Renewed laughter.)

Let me tell such persons that I will not vote fur any
man or any measure at their dictation.—(hear, hoar.)
I have been in the I rouse ever since 1811, a•'d I consider
that I have done my duty.—(Hear, hear.) I am not
speaking to you, gentlemen—l am addressing my con-
stituents.—(Laughter.) I have done my duty—l say
honestly, conscientiously, and to the best of my ability ; and
when my constituents find fault with me, or discover a
person of greater talent—as they easily may—who will
do their business better than myself, I shall be happy to
resign the representation into their hands—(llcar, hear)
—but never, as long as I hold a seat in this House, will
I be dictated to by the Protection Society in Bond street,
or by any agricultural society in the country.--(hear,
Bear.) Now, let us analyse that Bond-street Protection
Society.—(El•ar and laughter.) There are a number of
country gentlemen in that society, several members
of Parliament, and many noblemen and men of the
highest station and rank in the country. They issue
their mandates to the minor societies.—(" Hear, hear,"
from the Opposition benches.) Here is my Lord Duke
pulling the strings behind the scenes ; and all these
little goes are got up to personate agricultural represen-
tatives.—(Great laughter.) It strikes me that these
gentleme❑ are something like Polyphemus, they have
but one eye in their head—they can see nothing but a
turnip field.—(Hear, hear, and bursas of laughter.)
What I mean is, they can see nothing in the world but
their single interest."—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) The
Hon. and Gallant Member concluded by stating that he
should support the proposal under the consideration of
the House. _

Lord A. LENNOX said he would not have risen but
for the extraordinary speech which had just been deli-
vered. He could nut 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 as their representative.—
(llear, beer.)
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.)—
Ile had presented their petitions, but always said ho
would nut 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—lie meant in a Parliamentary
sense—(Laughter)—of those who were upholding this
course—who name forward with these beggarly mea-
sures instead of boldly advocasing those which were
large and comprehensive in their nature. If he held the
views of Hon. Gentlemen opposite, he 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 JOHN TYRRELL said the Hon. Gentleman
who had just sat down had made two vituperative
spesches'against the agriculturists. He had only fol-
lowed the example of the Hon. 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 which was very amusing. He (Sir John
Tyrrell) had partaken very largely in that amusement.
He thought he had seen the Hon. 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
Hon. 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 why the lion. 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 had 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? Hit was not a sinecure, why could
he not hold it ? It was no sinecure ; ho was paid for his
work. He did it ; and he told the Hon. Gentleman that
the Hon. Gentleman was paid for work ho 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. He wanted to know
what the landed interest had done? They benefited
their property without working. If they were to be de-
prive f of that property, he would pity their condition.
He would recommend the lion. 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 He could not but regret the
personal turn which the discussion had taken.
Mr. COBI)EN -said the lion. Gentleman had laid
down the principles of the free traders as that of cheap-
ness. He (Mr. Cebden) would venture to correct the
phraseology of the Hon. Gentleman. The free-traders
desired to obtain the greatest possible abundance of all
those articles which were essential to the comfort of man.
If by cheapness the Hon. Gentleman meant abundance,
then the) 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?
change, however, was coming over Hon. Gentlemen op-
posite. A gr. ater change had come over them within 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 Hon. Mem-
ber's arguments was, that lard was necessary fur 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 com-
pelled to buy lard.—(Rear, hear.) Well, now, he would
ask, was it not deplorable to think that Hon. Members,
who were so anxious for the welfare of the farmers,
or who professed to lae 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 he
(Mr. Cobden) was to go down to Lancashire to-morrow,
what would the constituents say to him of those Hon.
Members who would not let them have cheap lard while
they could not afford butter ?—(llear, hear.) Why
they would stare at him with astonishment, and ask him
could such be the fact.—(Laughter.) But to be serious,
he wr uld say to the advocates of protection opposite that
whether they gained nothing or whether they gained
10,000/. 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 lie begged to assure
the lion. Member for Stockport, that Hon. 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, be
would vote up°n them as he conceived his duty
called upon him to do.—(Hear, hear.) lie 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. Huskis-
son) was anxious that the working people
inshould have
cheap lard, if produced by manufacturers this coun-
try ; but in order to prevent these nileAufuttiren being