The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-08-27 00:00:00

Mr. M. SUTTON contended that the lose of the confidence
of the country in the present ministry was to be attributed to
the long vista of broken promises which their administra-
tion presented. He would vote in favour of the_amendment,
but he trusted the house would permit him to asTin question
of the noble lord the secretary of the colonies, upon a mat-
ter of some moment to himself. It had been reported that
the noble lord upon a former evening had said that be had
opposed the re-election of a noble relative of his (Lord Can-
terbury) not on the sole ground of his political opinions, but
that there were other parts of his conduct which had their
influence in producing that opposition. He knew that this
statement had given great pain to his noble relative, from the
indistinctness of the charge, and he trusted the noble lord
would remove these unpleasant feelings by at once stating the
nature of the charge against him. (Hear, hear.)
Lord J. RUSSELL said that at the time the occurrence
took place he had distinctly stated his other grounds of ob-
jection, though he had not thought it necessary to recapitu-
late them on the occasion referred to by the hon. gentleman.
He had not alleged against Lord Canterbury any breach of
his duty as speaker, though he did think his conduct was
unbecoming his •high office in the instance he referred to.
When, by the exercise of the royal prerogative, Lord Al-
thorpe quitt€d office, Lord Canterbury attended the councils
cnlled for the purpose of establishing a ministry upon prin-
ciples opposed to those of the majority of the House of
Commons by which be had been elected to the speakersbip.
At the time, he felt considerable resentment against the
noble lord for this, notwithstanding all his•respect for his
ability and general conduct as Speaker.; but he was con-
vinced that the noble lord had no wish, in the course he
pursued, to betray any disrespect to the House of Commons.
He believed it was a mere error of judgment, and all feel-
ings of resentment, had long since passed away from his
mind, though at the time he bad thought it right to oppose
his re-election.

Mr. M. SUTTON said, he was aware that there was no
charge against his noble relative that could at all affect him,
except from its indistinctness and the dimness of its nature,
and he thanked the noble lord for the explanation he had
given. _
• •• -

Dr. BOWRING, in the course of a long speech against the
amendment, said, that the corn-laws were an enormous
drawback upon our commercial intercourse with other coun-
tries. He had himself been the bearer of many messages
from foreign powers, proposing commercial relations, which
were invariably refused, because the ministry dared not to
propose any alteration of the corn-laws.
Mr. P. M. STEWART said he had a deep interest in the
landed prosperity ; but, upon broad principles, he would ad-
vocate a liberal system of commercial legislation. The right
hon. member for Tamworth, in 1828, had urged the neces-
sity of the sliding scale of corn duties, in order to procure an
evenness of price, but the return of the import duties since
then had clearly proved that the sliding scale had produced
the very opposite effect. • The right hon. baronet the mem-
ber for Dorchester (Sir J. Graham) had published a pamph-
let some time back, entitled "Corn and Currency ;" and he
must say that, after reading that pamphlet, he could no
longer give credit to the Government for the originality of
the propositions of their budget, eery one of which relating
to the corn, timber, and sugar dutih„were advocated in that
pamphlet. The right hon. baronet might, therefore, discuss
his former opinions with his new friends, his opinions on
corn with the right hon. member for Kent (Sir E. Knatch-
bull,) and his opinions on the currency with the right hon.
baronet beside him (Sir R. Peel); and between them both,
like water,•he might find his leve.

Mr. S. CRAWFORD and Mr. COBDEN supported the ad-
dress. The latter gentleman contended at great length that
the aristocracy of the country were not taxed in anything
like a proper ratio in proportion to the heaviness with which
the burden fell upon the poor and labouring classes of the
community. He also insisted that the abrogation of the
corn laws would create an increased demand for manufac-
tures, and of course for labour ; so that instead of low wages
the result would be cheap bread and increased wages. In
fact, wages depended not on cheap or dear bread, but sim-
ply upon the supply and demand for labour. He likewise
adverted to the meeting of dissenting clergymen in Man-
chester, and said that the question of the abolition of the
corn laws having been once taken up by the pastors of the
community, must be considered, as was said by the noble
lord opposite (Lord Stanley) in reference to the slave trade,
to be virtually carried.

Mr. BAILEY denied that the distress prevailing through
the manufacturing districts was in any way attributable to
the corn laws. If he believed that the repeal of those laws
would afford relief to the labouring classes, he would at once
assent to that repeal, believing that their duty was to legislate
not for a class but for the whole community. He would ask
if the increase of the manufactures had tended to increase the
happiness of the people ? On the contrary, during the last
twenty years the manufactures of the country had been tre-
bled, while the distress of the operatives had been continually
on the increase ; and while the manufacturers were realising
fortunes the operatives were starving, a clear proof that the
interests of these parties were not identical : and in his
opinion, though the repeal of the corn laws might be advan-
tageous to the former, it could be of no advantage to the
latter. A great deal of the distress was occasioned by the
manufacturers themselves, who reversed the order of nature
by contracting with union workhouses and using every means
to procure infant labour, and thus throw adult labour out of
employment. The hon. gentleman then drew attention to
the contrast presented by the increased capital embarked in
the improvement of land which, though it did not return quite
five per cent to the proprietor, yet had produced a very nu-
merous and comparatively happy and contented population.
Mr. BRETHERTON defended the manufacturers, and said
if the manufactures were destroyed, the agriculturists would
be irretrievably injured.
Mr. H. GRATTAN supported the address.
Lord WORSLEY said that if foreign corn was introduced
into this country in quantities so large as was contemplated
by the hon. member for Stockport, he wished to ask, even
though there should be an increased demand for manufac-
turing labour, what was to become of the agricultural la-
bourers ? For certain he was that in that case it could not
he expected that corn would be grown in England. Although
he disapproved of the proposal of the government as re-
spected the corn laws, yet as the right hon. baronet (Sir R.
Peel) intended to make some alterations, of the nature of
which he was not aware„ and as upon most other topics he
differed from the right hon. baronet, while he admired the
general policy of the present ministers, he thought himself
justified in supporting them in preference to the right hon.
baronet.

Mr.ll ASTIE supported theaddress.
Mr. lIINDLEY, at 12 o'clock, moved the adjournment of
the debate until the following day, which was immediately
agreed to.