It Laws, that a cry was got up that the danger of famine had been exaggerated for party purposes. Even so moderate a politician as the Duke of Leinster did not escape the imputation. Nor did the Mansion-house committee; and many persons who were otherwise disposed to alleviate the distress of the people, were misled into the belief that it was not likely to be so great as was represented. One honourable exception he must record that of the Protestant Clergy of the established church in Ireland. They had acted on the occasion as in fact they acted in all cases of difficulty and distress in Ireland, and from the purest motives, which among other reasons had contributed to secure for them the respect even of those most opposed to them (hear, hear). This active testimony of the clergy he took to be a most convincing proof that the danger was not exaggerated (hear). The question, however, was not what was the state of Ireland in Novenber last, but what was it now? (hear). They had heard the statements of the Right Hon. Baronet, and also those of the Hon. and Learned Member for Cork, confirmed as they were by the Home Secretary. The Right Hon. the Recorder of Dublin told them, however, there was still gross exaggeration. If so, why did not he point out where it existed? That was his duty. But no; he shrunk from proof, as Hon. Gentlemen opposite did in many similar cases. Bold assertion, however, would not now pass, as it used to do with the people of this country, for proof (hear, hear). He (Mr. M. J. O'Connell), from the accounts he received from day to day, was led to believe that the danger was most imminent. was no temporary emergency; it involved danger to future crops as well as the present ("hear, hear," from Sir R. Peel). But, even supposing that at the present time the disease was confined to the present crop, what security had they that the disease would not occur again? And why should the people of Ireland be confined to the use of an article of food, any failure of which was so dreadful, because it could not be detected till the plant was ready for digging; and as to which, as the disease was so new, there was no certain means of knowing its probable extent. The best way to guard against such a calamity was to abolish all restrictions on the general food of the people-to admit foreign corn; and it was for this reason that he should vote for the measure of the Government, although he could have wished the abolition immediate. The high price of bread and grain generally in Ireland was the reason why the people of Ireland were obliged to live on potatoes ; fifty or sixty years ago it was not the case to the same extent, and oatmeal was almost as common a diet as in Scotland (hear). It was said, however, Repeal of the Corn Laws would injure the tenantfarmer and the labourers. As to the latter, he need only point to their present condition in Ireland. Look at their destitution. If abolition of the Corn Law was to lower, as was said, their condition as a class, he really did not see how such an effect could be produced in Ireland (hear, hear). On the other hand, an improved system of agriculture, it was admitted, would result from Repeal of the Corn Laws. That would necessitate increased employment of the labourer, which would effectually improve his condition. As to the alleged injury to the tenant-farmers, he should be very sorry to be CC 290 PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE between food to a prodi party to any measure, that would produce that resul?". Hanks of the depend on high prices; that his profits might be high whirded by ed were low; but that, on the other hand, it did not always follow his profits would be high because prices were high. The real source of prosperity to the farmer was the prosperity of manufactures. The rapidly increasing population was also another source of his profit (cheers). Predictions of ruin were very common on the introduction of new commercial measures. Experience taught him to disregard them. Such prophecies were made as to the effect of the tariff of 1842 on Irish produce. But the facts contradicted them. At the fair of Ballinasloe, which might be taken as an illustration, a great increase had taken place. In 1841 the number of sheep sold there was 63,263; unsold, 12,600. The average price of the best wethers. £2 10s. In 1843 there were sold 62,726; unsold, 13,000; average price £2 5s. In 1844, sold, 61,000 (hear, hear); unsold, 8,500 (hear), average price £2 7s. In 1845, during which year there was the largest importation of foreign sheep, there were sold 66,861 sheep, and left unsold only 2,900, while the average price was £2 13s. With such an example before them, he hoped the farmers of Ireland would not again allow themselves to be run away with by a panic on this subject. He had another instance of the fallaciousness of such prophecies of evil. The Right Hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Labouchere), in 1840, brought in a bill to allow foreign flour to be introduced into Ireland. Immediately ruin to the millers was at once prophesied by Sir J. E. Tennant. But in 1842 flour was admitted. What was the shape the predicted ruin took? In 1842 the quantity of flour imported into England from Ireland was 314,000 cwt.; in 1843 (after the ruin commenced), it increased to 733,000 cwt.; in 1844, to 839,000 cwt.; and in 1845, this ruined interest imported into England of flour no less than 1,421,000 cwt. (hear, hear). He believed similar results would follow the present measure. He considered the measure of Government a just and righteous measure in itself; and he would give it not a lukewarm and grudging, but a most cordial support. COLONEL CONOLLY begged to say that the accounts he had received from the county which he represented (Donegal), and also from the county of Kildare, where he formerly resided, confirmed the statement of the Right Hon. the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Shaw), that the accounts of the potato disease had been exaggerated. By no means could he connect the measure before the House with the deficiency in the Irish potato crop. The supply could not last beyond four months; the measure before the House could not come into operation for three years. It bore very hardly on Ireland, and would meet with his utmost resistance. He deplored that the Government should have introduced any measure which had a tendency to discourage the only means Ireland possessed of giving employment to the people; he contended it would give the supply of the English market to rival, perhaps to hostile countries; he should give it his opposition. LORD INGESTRE apologised for trespassing on the House upon a Law question of such importance; but as many with whom he generally agger acted had gone over to the enemy, he felt it necessary for every man Duke in those days of political apostacy openly to avow his opinions (hear, Mansir hear). The Right Hon. Secretary for the Home Department had, in what he must call an extraordinary speech on a former night, adduced several tests of the sincerity of his change of opinion. He (Lord Ingestre) had never doubted that sincerity, although he had no abandonment of principle to account for; yet perhaps he might be allowed to state one circumstance as a proof of the sincerity of the opinions he entertained. He believed it was well known that a short time since a noble relative of his (Earl Talbot) had written a letter stating his opinion of the present policy. That letter had been made a good deal of, because the Noble Lord had for many years paid great attention to the science of agriculture, and his opinion was entitled to every weight and consideration (hear, hear). Knowing that that opinion was not one of recent date, like those avowed lately in that House, on very short notice, but one that had been entertained by that noble individual for many years, he would state to what extent he thought that opinion went. He had often heard his noble relative say he believed the energy of Englishmen to be of so indomitable and persevering a character that, come what difficulties there might, they would be able to surmount them (hear, hear). He believed that to be the extent of the opinion he entertained; he would state, however, that his noble relative would feel it his duty to support the measure proposed to Parliament (hear, hear). In the early part of the debate he had been much struck by an observation of the Right Hon. Secretary at War, that this was not a question of principle, but purely a fiscal and commercial question (hear, hear). He would ask, what question could be more a question of principle than this, on which the Parliament was chosen ? At the last election, he (Lord Ingestre) did not say a word about the Corn Laws, but still he could not think of breaking what had been called the "honourable understanding" between him and his constituents (hear, hear). Had he been struck by any remarkable conversion, he should have felt bound to have placed his seat at the disposal of his constituents (cheers). The Right Hon. Baronet, in one of the eloquent and powerful speeches he had made on this subject, had spoken of the necessity of making a final adjustment of this question. It seemed to him that as some ladies had a fancy for match-making, so the Right Hon. Baronet had a fancy for making final adjustments (laughter). What was it to be? He warned the Government if it gave way to its alarm and its fears of those who composed the League, that it would be dragged from one point to another till there would be nothing left. He did not mean to go into all the commercial questions, but they heard a great deal about Free Trade; it was dinned into the ears of the Legislature, and forced by League papers to their firesides. To Free Trade, in its proper sense, he had no objection; but what was Free Trade? According to some Hon. Gentlemen on that side, and according to many other Hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House, it was an interchange unfettered by commercial restrictions of all the commodities furnished by different nations. There was a 66 292 PARLIAMENTARY DEBAL only always prices between food palpable fallacy in that manner of defining Free Trade, when correctly understood, meant an exching to a prod banks of th countries-one giving what the other did not produce from that other that which it did not itself produce (ded To go abroad for that which they themselves were enablow that nish, neglecting the home interest, was not Free Trade, andource policy more calculated than any other which could be adop The bring destruction upon those classes of the community from whol former protection was about to be withdrawn, and who were about to be recklessly exposed to the unchecked competition of the whole world. They now demanded a one-sided Free Trade, and he would therefore have called the late Hon. and gallant Member for Westminster if he had been present, as he (Captain Rous) was a great handicapper, to handicap a different stakes, and then they would all start fair (hear). Hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House had been called monopolists; he did not understand the meaning of that word monopolists," for they did not advocate protection on agricultural grounds alone, they looked to the interests of every class; and he could not well conceive how that could be termed a monoply which was granted to four-fifths of the people (hear). By taking away that proper and most necessary protection, they would destroy the home market a market said by Adam Smith to be worth" all the others put together;" and the inevitable consequence of such a course would be the severing of every bond which, by common interest, held society together. The present question had been called a landlord's question; that was a calumny; it was only a landlord's question insomuch that it was a question affecting the entire community. Did it not stand to reason, that on rents being reduced, as reduced they would be, the means of the wealthier classes to purchase luxuries would be diminished, and that, consequently, the manufacturers engaged in the production of those luxuries would be injured? The measure proposed to the House would be a ruinous measure to Ireland: it would take away from that country their best market, viz.— England; and, as having such a tendency he most strongly objected to it. It was a measure which, in an equal degree, would deprive our colonies, and especially Canada, of the advantages recently accorded to them; would place them even in a worse position than countries with whom we had no connexion and no link; and on these grounds also he objected to it. The Right Hon. Baronet had called upon them to dismiss all party considerations; he did not believe the Right Hon. Bart., whom he had long publicly and privately known, could be actuated by any but the most patriotic motives; but he would warn that Right Hon. Gentleman that if any attempt were made to govern this country without a party it would be a most signal failure (hear, hear). When he spoke of a party, he meant not the paltry section of the House, but a great national body; and in such a sense, parties were constitutionally necessary to the existence of Governments (hear, hear). In bringing his remarks to a close, the Noble Lord, amid general laughter, took from his pockets a quantity of new potatoes, of a very fine quality, grown, he stated, from the eyes of diseased potatoes, and which he produced for the examination of any Hon. Member curious on the subject, in order to show the fallacious La 0 the statement that good potatoes could not be obtained from question of suchid of the diseased roots. in wha adduce acted had gone TRELAWNY was surprised at the extraordinary contrast between Jure in the days etter of the Noble Lord the Member for Newark (Lord J. hear. The anners), and his recent speech. From reading that letter he coneded the Noble Lord would support the Government, or, if he did (Lord, his only reason for opposing the Government would seem to be oecause he agreed with it (a laugh). He believed the Noble Lord possessed considerable ability; yet his conduct was difficult to reconcile with these qualities. He went in his letter so far as to argue that the Right Hon. Baronet ought to have opened the ports even in the autumn, when the danger was far less imminent; and yet now he was coolly going to vote that the consideration of these pressing matters should be put off till that day six months (hear). And why? Because he had some objections to the political morality of a particular individual, whose fault-if it were one-was to be the cause of the sufferings of millions of men (hear). The Hon. Member for Shrewsbury had certainly made a clever speech. He made an observation which the members of the Free Trade party must candidly admit to be just-namely, that while the League had been for years professing to educate the masses, it had really been educating itself (hear). Yes; but it was educated at last. The Hon. Member had said that they had constantly been shifting their ground. True; but so had the Protectionists. Feeling that it would not do any longer to fight under so exclusive a banner as that of Protection to Agriculture, they had chosen a new one in Protection to Native Industry. But how could native industry be protected in the case of articles already competing, in spite of heavy duties, with foreign goods and foreign markets? A bounty on exports would be necessary, if Protectionists would be consistent. Were they prepared for that? and if all were protected, what good was protection? The fact was, the Hon. Member's argument failed, as he would do as a commercial Minister. Having so thoroughly and so enviably succeeded in a different line, it was a pity to see him frittering away his reputation in aspiring to be a statesman (laughter). Hon. Members on the Protectionist side were a little unfair towards the Government on the subject of their change of opinion. They wholly forgot the tremendous responsibility which any body of men must lie under who assumed to feed 24,000,000 of men. It was easy for those who were out of officewho had none of its cares and anxieties-who were not responsible for the preservation of internal peace to talk loudly about principle, and the obligation of a rigid adherence to it. He knew it was denied that rents were the object of the Corn Law; but if it were said that food for the people was its real end, then how could men be induced to believe that the best method of keeping corn in was to pass a law to keep out? This kind of argument would no longer do in towns, however it might go down with farmers' clubs and labourers' friend societies. In conclusion he should only add, that he should support the Government, but protesting against the incompleteness and want of finality of the measure they proposed (cheers). MR. PACKE said, though he had had the honour of being a Member of the House for many years, he was not in the habit of |
