The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1846-02-10 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS

Mr. CLIFTON presented a petition, signed by 12,000 of
the inhabitants of North Lancashire, praying the House
to continue protection to agriculture.

Sir R. PEEL, explained in relation to his reply to the
Noble Lord's qucstion the other night as to his answer on
the subject of the reduction of the corn duties, that he
could find no precedent for the Treasury sanctioning
the reduction of the duty on the receipt of the reports,
and that, therefore, he cis d not -it t"

,juts consent ,o any reduction
on the corn duties until the proposed alteration should
become law ; but so convinced was he of the necessity of
proceeding with the alteration on the corn laws at once
that he proposed to proceed with the measure for the
alteration of the corn-laws, in preference to any other
public measure, and to every other alteration in the tariff,
until it should become law.
D'ye give it up ? In reply to Mr. M. Phillips,

Sir R. PEEL siid that if the debate should be adjourned
over Tuesday, there would be no alternative but to re-
sume the debate on Wednesday at twelve and finish it at

six. The right hon. baronet also explained that neces-
sarily there must be an interval between the first 4nd
second reading of the Corn Bill, during which he might
bring forward other articles in the tariff, but thet he
would proceed with the Corn Bill with all the speed that
the forms of the house would permit.

On the motion that the order of the day for the house
resolve itself in committee being read, a host of petitions
on the corn laws were presented, after which
Mr. PHILIP MILES rose to move the amendment
of which he had given !mice on Friday last, viz.,
that the house resolve itself into committee that day
six months. He admitted the failure o4the potato crop
in Ireland, but the oat and wheat crops were above the
average, and there was no fear of a famine. If there was
danger of that he would open the ports. If the pre-
miers opinions had undergone a change, he should have
followed the example of the member for Dorsetsbire.
He could not see where these changes were to lead, and
if these were agreed to, greater would follow which
would shake the public credit. (Hear, hear.) The
honourable gentleman then proceeded to take a review of
the history of our commercial policy since the accession
of Sir R. Peel to office, and contended that the
prosperity of the industrious classes had been owing
not to the free trade measures of the government,
but to the immense increase of our railway system,
which had created a demand for labour, and in conse-
quence of which the prices of iron had risen enormously
—to the cessation of war in India—and to the succession
of good ha►vests, and he believed that much of that pros-
perity woul.l have taken place if the noble lord opposite
bad been in power. He denied that the amount of
exports afforded a fair ind;cation of commercial pros-
perity. Foreign markets were glutted with our goods.
It was the home trade which afforded the finest ele-
ments for the calculation of the actual amount of

our commercial prosperity. With regard to the corn-
laws, the law of 1842 had worked well ; it had secured
steadiness of price, and he would not consent to its altera-
tion. The Right Eloitourlble Baronet had said in 1842
that 56s was a fair price for the farmer. Ele would like

to know what be considered a fair price now. The Right
lionou able Baronet said his proposed measure would not
lower the price of wheat, what then became of the argu-
mutt of the cheap loaf.