The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1846-01-27 00:00:00

of settling the question of the corn laws more difficult;
and in justice to Earl Grey, that his objections to one of
his colleagues arose from nothing but public motives.

He hoped that on the corn laws The hotise might soon

as would enable them to set-
tle the question. Famine might come upon the country,
and would they have the settlement of the corn laws de-
ferred till a period when they must submit to a humiliat-
ing capitulation ? When Sir R. Peel brought forward his
measure in lieu of the existing corn law, which he con-
demned as a failure though he was the author of it, he
(Lord J. Rdssell) would offer such observations as he
might think necessary upon it. At present, however, he
would so--` The noble lord concluded his speech by
Isappointment that Sir R. Peel had not

e to such an

,reement

)stain.
sing his d

brought forward a comprehensive plan for the pacification
of Ireland, and by declaring his intention, whether in or
out of office, to give his hearty assent to all measures for
the benefit of the country. He hoped that the freedom of

ce might date

from the commence-

ment of the present session.
Mr. DISRAELI expressed his intention of adhering to
the principles of protection which had sent him into that
house, arid which would have compelled him to resign his
seat if he had conscientiously relinquished them. He did
not envy Sir It Peel his feelings in the apologetic address
which be had that night delivered to those who were once
his party in that house. The opinions which Sir R. Peel
had that night expressed might as well have been expressed
when he held a position in that house scarcely less influ-
ential than his present—namely, when he was the leader
of the Conservative opposition. What could the house
think of a statesman who, having served four sovereigns,
was at last compelled by the observation which he had
made in the last three or four years to change his opinions
on a subject which must h ive been repeatedly brought
under his consideration in every point of view in the ma-
nifold debates of nearly 20 years? Such a statesman
might be conscientious, but he was at any rate unfortu-
nate, and ought not to address his former friends in the
tone of menace. He knew of no parallel to Sir R. Peel's
conduct save that of a late Capitan Pasha of Constantino-
ple, who having received the command of a fleet from the
Sultan to attack Mehemet Ali, steered that fleet at once
into the enemy's port. The admiral was called a traitor;
but be defended himself from the charge, on the ground
that he was an enemy to war, that he hated a prolonged
contest, and that he had terminated it by betraying the
cause of his master. He denounced the speech of Sir R.
Peel that evening as a glorious example of egotistical rhe-
toric, and censured him in the severest terms for the
shameful manner in which he had turned round upon his
former party. It was not the favour of his sovereign
which had placed Sir Robert in office, but the sacred
cause of protection, by which a parliament had been dis-
solved, and a nation taken in. Sir Robert Peel a great
statesman, who was always marching after the events
of hls age! Lie was just as much a great statesaaau
as he who had got up behind a carriage was a great whip.
Both were the disciples of progress ; and both were
anxious for a good place. Who was he that dared to tell
the House that an ancient monarchy and a proud aris-
tocracy were useless lumber. and that he was the only
man who could reconcile their action to that of a re-
formed House of Commons, whose reforma ion he bad
resisted to the utmost ? When Sir Robert said that hir
Conservative policy had put down agitation, notwith-
standing his (Mr. Disraeli s) knowledge of the extent to
which Parliamentary face could sometimes go, he was
perfectly thunderstruck. When he said that, too, in the
presence of Mr. Cobden and Mr. Bright, he had achieved
one of the great attributes of an orator, for he had made
an impression on the House. He wondered how Sir Ro-
bert could assert that his proposed legislation had no re-
ference to the agitation on the Corn Laws ; and he con-
cluded a hitter invective against Sir R. Peel, who, he
said, had been deserted by Lord Stanley because be had
deserted all the principles by which the Ministry had ob-
tained office,—by declaring that he was not the Minister
who ought to abrogate the Corn Laws. He hoped that,
whatever might be the opinion of the House as to free
trade, it would resist to the utmost the free politics of
such statesmen as Sir R. Peel.

A noble Lord protested,-in the name of the people of
Ireland, against the total repeal of the Corn Laws.
Mr. MILES said, that no amendment had been moved
on the address, because on an early occasion next week an
opportunity would be given to the House of expressing a
decision on the extraordinary change of principle avowed
that night by Sir R. Peel. What had become of those
members of his Cabinet who had first objected to his
plan ? Were they determined to sacrifice everything to
their idol ? If so, he hoped they would sacrifice their
seats, and make an appeal at once to their constituents.
He gave notice on behalf of himself and several other
members that the strongest constitutional opposition
would be given to his plan, and that every impediment
would be made use of to prevent its passing into law.
After a few words to the same effect from Colonel
SIBTEIORP, the address was agreed to without a dis-
sentient voice.