The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1846-03-03 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—TuuRsnAv

Mr. Rossuca asked...the members on the protection
benches when the debate on the corn laws was likely to
coil'? His reason for asking that question was, that on
Tuesday night Mr. Ferrand had consumed two mortal
hours and a half, by.the house clock, in speaking about
an7thing and everything, rather than the subject in de-
bate. If the house wished to maintain its dignity, it
must put down vulgar.vituperation. indecent menace, and
violent language, and not allow Mr. Ferrand to come
down to the house lfke•Or--son with his club 'to beat down
all opposition with the ..violence of his language. He
hoped that the country gentlemen of England would in
future give the house something like argument and rea-
soning, and would not wcste the public time in mere ex-
hibitions of vulgar hatred, expressed in violent and vulgar
language..
Sir R. INGLIS read Mr. Roebuck a severe lecture for
taking advantage of Mr.iFeerand's absence to stigmatize
him in the most violent language. The Gracchi might
complain of sedition with. as much justice as Me; Roe-
buck could of bitter personalities. Why, Mr. Roebuck
himself was not a very mealy mouthed gentleman.
Mr. BRIGHT availed himself of the opportunity to de-
ny the statement which Mr.; errand had made respecting
Mr. G. Wilson in his speech of Tuesday night. Mr.
Wilson had never called a meeting of starch manufac-
turers to oppose the relaxation-of the protective duties on
starch, and had not been a member of any deputation
which waited on Sir R. Peel;for such an object.
Mr. CotaunouN assured Mr. Bright that Mr. Fer-
rand, when in his place, would be ready to defend all the
statements he had made.

Mr. Bow RING complained of the attack which Mr.
Ferrand had made on Mr. Henry Ashworth, of Bolton,
whom he had accused of " cold-blooded cruelty." He
denounced the statements of Mr. Ferrand respecting the
poverty, nakedness, and wretchedness of the people in
Mr. Ashworth's employ as alrogeiher untrue.
Lord MonPEzn read a letter from the operatives of
Union Mill, which be had received along with their peti-
tion, for the purpose of proving that in signing it they
were (to use their own words) free as the air they
breaaed.
Here the conversation dropped.

The adjourned debate on the corn laws was then re-
sumed by Mr. Ross, who spoke in fateur of the govern-
ment measure.

Mr. B. DENISON regretted that Mr. Ferrand was not
in his place ; for Mr. Ferraud had alluded to him the
other night in his absence in a way in which he was by no
means justified. Mr. Ferrand had stated to the house
that Sir R. Peel, %hen he did him the hor.onr to ask him
to second the address, had deceived him as to the mea-
sure which he (Sir R. Peel) intended to pnapese. Now
Sir R. Peel was the last man in the world to -deceive any
body; and in no way, either directly or indirectly, had te
deceived him. When he (Mr. B. Denison) seconded the
address, he expected that Sir R. Peel would .propoe a
measure of the same character as those which he had pro-
posed on several occasions in the last three y.ea.re, and
which had been so eminently successful ; but he had not
been prepared to expect that Sir It. Peel would propose a
total abolition of the corn laws after a period of three
years, during which we were to have a diminished sliding
scale, accompanied by certain compulsatory propositions.
He thought that in propounding such a scheme, Sir R.
Peel had committed a mistake, which many now regretted,
and which he hoped that Sir R. Pee: would never live to
regret himself. Though he should oppose to the utter-
most that scheme, be hoped that if it were made law, it
would promote the public interests in the way which Sir
Robert Peel expected. He concluded by warning Lord
Morpeth a;ainst believing that his return for the West
Riding was a proof that the opinions of the electors of
tl at distract were changed on the subject of the corn laws ;
and by advertising him, that, at the next general election,
the extent of the change would probably be brought to a
test.

Mr. Brotherton then spoke in favour of the measure,
and Mr. Christopher against it.
Mr. CARDWELL observed that, as he had never yet
spoken on the question of the corn laws. be was anxious
to explain the grounds on which he gave his cordial sup-
port to this measure for their final adjustment. lie then
proceeded to expose the statements contained in the argu-
ments by which the protectionists defended the existing
corn laws. He said that those laws had not rendered
us independent of foreign supply—that t.tey had not
given security for the investment of capital in land—that
they bad not insured the farmer a remunerating price—
and that they had not afforded the labourer a protecting
price for his labour. He then contended that the repeal
of these laws would promote the prosperity of commerce
and manufactures ; and that prosperity would increase, as
it had increased in past time, the rate of wages in the
commercial and manufacturing districts. A man with
30s. a week would consume more bread, butter, beef,
mutton, and other agricultural produce, than a man with
Bs., or even IGs. a week; and when the consumption of
agricultural produce was thus increased, the profits of the
farmer would be increased likewise, and the condition of
the agricultural labourer would be proportionably bettered.
He called upon them to keep pace with the march of
improvement, and to rely on the ever growing demands of
our increasing population, and on the expanding energies
of trade and commerce for their own remuneration. He
had always entertained, and had never disavowed nor dis-
guised the sentiments which he had just expressed ; but
he had likewise always considered that great questions like
the present ought to be regarded as questions of time.
If, then, this question were a question of time, was not
this of all others the time to look out for a supply of food ?
And if the adjustment of the corn laws were to he accom-
plished, when could it be done with less dislocation of ex-
isting interests? Ile contended, too, that that parliament
had a perfect right to decide the question ; and, if it
should decide it as the government advised, by removing
the sources of discord between conflicting classes, and by
exhibiting a wise and discriminating regard towards all
the interests of this great empire, it would confer an ines-
timable benefit upon the present and every succeeding
generation. The hon. gentleman's speech was very loudly
cheered, and was one of the best delivered during the de-
bate. He quoted largely from, and made frequent refer-
ence to the admirable speech of Mr. Bramley Moore on
dock accommodation.

Mr. Finch and Mr. Seymer (new members) spoke
against the measure, and Mr. Villiers in favour of it.
Mr. FERRAND observed, that lie had been attacked in
his absence that evening by four or five gentlemen, of
whom not one bad given him notice of his intention. He,
therefore, now gave notice, that he would he in his place
next night, at 5 o'clock, and that he would return their
civilities on the proposition for reading the first order of
the day.
Colonel SIBTDORP called the attention of the house to
the fact that the Secretary of State for the Colonies, the
Chief Se sretary for Ireland, the Attorney-General and the
Solicitor-General for Ireland, a Lord of the Admiralty,
and the Clerk of the Ordnance—all officers of high
selaris—had none of them seats in that house. He also
wished to know who was now the First Commissioner of
Woods and Forests—and who were to be the new Lords
of the Treasury. Surely those appointments ought to be
filled up.
The debate was then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMO'iS.-FRIDAY

The earlier part of the evening was occupied by a sharp
personal discussion, commenced by
Mr. FERRAND, who replied to the attacks made upon
him by four hon. members on Tuesday evening, and re-
iterated most of the charges he had made in his speech
on Monday night. Mr. Roebuck, who had commenced
the attack, wits the last person who ought to have used
such language. r. Roebuck had once, with language far
more violent and indecent than any which he had used,
flung down the Times newspaper upon the floor of the
house, and recommended its member;- to horsewhip a gen-
tleman in every way his superior. He believed that the
public held Mr. Roebuck in such estimation that they
would not give a qu,rter of a farthing for his opinions;
and among all his other failures in life the knowledge of
that fact rankled most deeply in his breast. Adverting
to the speech of Mr. Bright, he showed that Mr. Bright
had put words' into his mouth which he had never used.
Having repeated to the house the words which he had ac-
tually employed respecting Mr. G. Wilson, he observed
that the Manchester Guardian never denied the fact of
Mr. G. Wilson having convened and presided at the meet-
ing of starch manufacturers, although it did not deny that
which he had never asserted, namely, that Mr. Wilson
had been part of the starch deputation which had waited
on the Government. Mr. Bright, however, was not a
person entitled to attack him on the score of veracity, for
two meetings had been recently held in Lancashire to re-
but a statement which he had made in his place in Parlia-
ment, respecting the reluctance of the working classes at
Preston and at Rochdale to support a ten hours' bill.
Dr. Bowring hail also put in his mouth words which
he had never uttered, for the purpose of damaging
him in the estimation of the house and the country.
Mr. Ferrand then restated and justified the words
which he bad actually used respecting Mr. H. Ash-
worth. He appealed to Dr. Bowring, as a member
of Parliament and as a gentleman, to retract the charge
which he had cast upon him. Turning next to Lord
Morpeth, he asserted that he had never said that the pe-
tition from Union Mill was not a free and unbiassed
petition. What be had said, was, that petitions against
the corn laws had been in many instances signed by the
workmen in the manufacturing districts against their will,
and at the compulsion of their masters. He concluded
by declaring that it was high time for the house to take
into consideration the manner arid extent in which peti-
tions against the corn laws had been forged and manu-
factured by the Anti-Corn Law League.
Mr. FIELDEN bore testimony to the truth of Mr. Fer-

rand's statement respecting the distress of the hand-loom
weavers. Mr. Ashworth and Mr.lt. Gregg had proposed
to the Poor Law Commissioners to bring labourers from
the south to the north for the purpose of equalizing wages.
The people in the north knew that equalizing their wages
mean reducing them to the level of the agricultural la-
bourer, and a great sensation was in consequence produced
among them. It was proved hkfore the Poor Law Com-
mission of 1837 or 1838 that 10,000 families had been sent
to the manufacturing districts from the parishes in the south
of England. The migration system had been condemned by
the Poor Law Committee, sod the office established in
Manchester with Mr. Muggeridge as its agent has been
given up. In conclusion, he maintained that nothing
said by Mr. Ferrand respecting the cruelties practised in
factories had been-upset by any of his opponents.

A scene of crimitiation'and: recrimination followed, in
which the principal speakers were Mr. Bright, Mr. Roe-
buck, and Mr. D'lsraeli, who took occasion to allude to
the collision between Sir R. Peel and Mr. Cobden, three
years ago, when Sir R. Peel thought a speech of the hon.
member for Stockport was instigatory to his (Sir R.
Peel's) assassination. This called up
Sir R. PeeL, who said that he thought he had, at the
time, relieved, in the most unqualified manner, the mind
of the hon. memberfor Stockport of any impression that
he (Sir R. Peel)•svas-not fully cntvinced he had mistaken
the import of what had fallen from the hon. member on
the occasion referred to. If he had not done so in a
manner satisfactory to the hon. gentleman, he regretted
it, and hoped it would be understood that such, at all
events, was his intention.
Mr. COBDEN said that the right bon. baronet's retrac-
tation at the time was not so unequivocal as he could have
wished, and be feared that many hon. gentlemen on the
ministerial side of the house were not satisfied that the
right lion. baroneVreally believed himself in error; with
this feeling he was sorry to say, rankling in his mind, he
had used expressions at public meetings towards the
right hon. baronet which he now exceedingly regretted.
The occurrence took place three years ago, and he did not
anticipate that it would have been again alluded to; and
alter the present moct gratifying explanation, he hoped
that no hon. member would ever feel himself justified in
again alluding to the subject. _ _

In the course of this rather animated discussion,

Mr. CRAVEN BERKELEY took occasion to corroborate
one of the charges made by Mr. Ferrand respecting the
wholesale manufacture of free trade petitions. He had
recently received a petition from Cheltenham praying
for free trade, but was -struck with surprise at seeing the
Manchester post mark upon the envelope. He, in con-
sequence, caused an inquiry to be instituted in Chelten-
ham, and the result was, that most of the signatures
were forgeries, and of those which were genuine, the par-
ties had no recollection of signing them to any sucir pe-
tition as that which bad been transmitted to him. He
should, on Monday, move for an inquiry into this gross
breach of the privileges of the house.
The adjourned dtbate,on the Government measures was
then resumed by Mr. Banks, who spoke against them, as
did Capt. Gladstone, Mr. pooner, Mr. B. Borthwick,
and Lord George Ilentinck ; while Mr. B. Escott and
Mr. Cobden addressed the house in favour of them. _

At tweoty minutes before three on Saturday morning,
no member rising, the house divided, when the numbers

were—

For Sir R. Peel's motion
Against it

Government majority,

FOREIGN

AND COLONIAL.