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

devoted-to the purchase 'or-clothing-and other filings 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 quite
independent of any policy which might be adopted with respect
to corn. The experience of the last 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
have 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
did not do anything by which the price of any article of
domestic industry would be enhanced. There was a third
opinion, which was the opinun held by the Right Hon.
Gentleman, and very nearly that held by himself ; that although
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 800 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 corn-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 hail 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 cent., 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 was
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 Hon. 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 said 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 diffidence, 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 stepping
the supplies. If he concurred with the lion. 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.)
lie 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 he well to act upon on certain occa-
slims, 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, and 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, bet 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. Ile 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 ',popular instrument by which popular
privileges, interests, ant 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 Montrc,,e, 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
friend' to attend. He thought, therefore, that it was better
if possible to avoid anything that would lead to a division.
The Hon. Gentleman (the Member for Montrose) had said
that it was impossible for them to give the consideration worthy
of the House of Commons to the 23 paragraphs of the
address in a few hours. He said that they should at least have
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 stalled 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 thst 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 indelgcd
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 cUfference 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
infinite!) 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 amounts of blame to which each
party might be
liable, would be likely only to revive animosity, which could
H
effect no good purpose ; but lie saw with satisfaction that the
was almost unanimous in expressing their satisfaction at
the re• establishment of better feelings between both countries,
Opposition he never con-
cealed his sentiments as to the policy of having
a good upon which the interests of peace and civilisation so much
depended.—(Cheers.) When in
under-
standing with France, and it was better that he should explain
what he meant by a good understanding.—( Hear, hear.) He
did not mean Ay 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
fomenting 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
shoulei 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 •f 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 anti 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 !which he referred was dated on the
10th of January last, and he rejoiced to know that M.
Piscatory, the Minister of France, decidedly approved
of what had been done by both Governments. The
rreepprreesseennttaattiivvie.ss, if he might presume to say so, of extreme of one class of opinions in that House—the
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,
and 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 be hoped
that France herself—and her great and powerful—vrould not
flecuricg a reputation of which the could not atanl in
think it nteocehsestary to stir up hostile feelings fur the purpose of

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 Lord. The opinions of the Government had bean de-
clared in her Alajesty 3 speech regarding that country. The
law would be maintained, and those who violated it would be
tried before the legally constituted tribunals of the country.
It was impossible to refer to the subject of the present legal
sroceedings, without, in some manner or other, prejudicing
the parties who were the subject of it. The Noble 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, end
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 18•10 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 havirq
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.—( Loud 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 commer-
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
R. Peel) as to the general principle, namely, that although it
was true 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 world 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 abstractedly 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.—(llear,
hear, and cheers.) The Noble Lord proposed protection by a
fixed duty; lie (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 laid 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. lle 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-
seat 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 " Ilear, 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,,ns. 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.
—( Cries 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 gloise 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 or to the country.
The Right Hon. Baronet resumed his seat amidst great 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 Governs
silent, 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 hail preceded him,
in not referring to the state of Ireland. He could not but
remark upon the dilemma which his Noble Friend and the
Hon. Members on that side of the House were said to have been
wwliitahtoeuvteri—mptoiht
reduced. It was said that one was for a fixed duty on foreign
corn, and another for levying a duty upon all corn produced at
cho:seis.tenlcfy
abolish all customs duties. But there was no inconsistency
articles coming from abroad, and there would not be any in-
consistency a tsiaoi nd whyef m ant: yt
oandcuotryn
produced corn caotmi
home.ng fr o
haeb road
doc-
trine of the Right Hon. Baronet was much more extensive
than they were aware of. They were for an indirect
dgrtt
aei
luoxagtit:ayl results.
generalt and no good reason had been shown why
foreignsioon. pcaecAsraoc nrwettn satisfactionorevelnel
asttahyhasoani uo,tdaalt
taddhv
tel
bhir,teeni
iccel ooehnstmu
Ipehmacrl
levisdi
soli
fbetnuigeelteeshnst.subjected
stmhoaH bicenls
participated,tt
hii
by which
satisfactory
an indirect
t3cnh,
heiinnhoidepnti
grantedstirv.ltreeah aci
was
n
h
he
ion
ttal
pynrdrrg;lbtpablecnoie)
stAßntl
wt
ROBERT
e.Raeiss,nE,mreEoxa
PEEL—It
Niee_nlbet:d7tot
the
se
aeaEvnsne
supplementary
pyol
English
llhoedtmhGf
Government,
aec
morerro
nyumnt peaty.
er
nva
strongly
tt
01.0),
rn thegbyy
the latter
glleaavt
ditesu levied duties
imposingy . was
on admitted,
th e tm
Lo
l
t
world ; that was a very wise and fitting condition. Whether
the Emperor of China, it was entitled to commendation.
Sithan himself thtneelytdhsetisasitreadcboleiunnnets:shyeof continuing on terms of
aFtrellcili'ranee,
Chambers and
by
ownhei col if
would prove mutually advantageous. ( Hear, hear. )
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 subservient to the policy of France. lie ( 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 tie must say that in that transaction in which divergence
became most apparent, the course which England pursued was
the same which she bad 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 bed 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 irritations 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 1830, 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 atid
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 censtitutionaCgovern-
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 opposit" (Sir R. 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 beer. made
towards the suppression of the slave trade Is ould be interfered
with. That, indeed, thu;:e treaties villa had produced this