The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1833-05-21 00:00:00

Mr. O'CONNELL said that the question was about protection;
the English of which was, increasing the price of food. But it
was a question whether the price of food ought to-ba increased.
He thought there was no magic in a reformed parliament, if it
did not give the people cheap food. (" Oh.") No; they would
not give the people cheap food; they wished to give them dear
food, and put the difference in their own pockets. (" No, no.")
They talked of the weight of taxation. Would they join with
him and abolish tithes ? No. They hallo right then to high
prices. His only objection to the motion was, that it did not
sweep away all protections and taxes on food. They were,
making laws to increase their own income. (" No, no," and
" Hear.")
Mr. DUNDAS (from the member's gallery), spoke to order.
Cheers had come from the strangers' gallery; he therefore moved
that the gallery be cleared.
The SPEAKER directed the Serj eant-at-Arms to clear the
gallery, which was done.
[The cheer, we understand, came from a member (Mr. Lalor)
who was seated in the strangers' gallery, and who probably
conceived there was no impropriety in exercising the privilege
-of cheering there. Mr. Dundas was evidently not aware of this
eircumstance, and took the proper course to check an irregu-
lhrity. In the absence of strangers the matter was explained,
and the gallery was then re-opened.]
Mr- O'CONNELL resumed. He repeated his argument, that
the corn laws were nothing but protections and that protection
was nothing else than raising the price of food; the difference
being so much money put into the pockets of the landlords. It
was an advantage given to the makers of the laws to the disad-
vantage of those for whom the laws were made. Ile protested
against every species of corn law, and every law which raised
the price of provisions; by such laws the house placed in unen-
viable, and he might almost, say dangerous, contrast their inte-
rest and the interest of the people. He should supportthe mo-
tion, and only regretted that it did not go far enough.
Colonel CoNoLLY protested against the remarks of the hon.
and learned member. The interests of the empire were identi-
fied in the sustentation of the agricultural body. He advocated
the interests of landlords, but he was not debased by the un-
worthy motives imputed to that class by the hon. and learned
Member. If it was the intention of the house to maintain faith
with the public creditor, they must maintain faith with the agri-
cultural interest. (" Question.") IT it was their intention to
dismember the British empire, they would agree to the propo-
sition of the hon. *member for Wolverhampton.
Mr. CRAVEN BERKELEY also protested against the hon. and
learned member's observations. He (Mr. Berkeley) was as
much concerned in obtaining cheap food for the lower orders
as the hon. and learned member, but he did not see how he pro-
posed to make food cheaper. e would mention to the house
a fact which proved that the tradesmen engaged in the mineral
interests in Monmouthshire were not so much opposed to the
corn laws as the enemies of those laws believed them to be. • A
gentleman who employed 3,000 men in the iron-works stated
his opinion, that if the corn laws were removed, the farmers
would be great sufferers. He should oppose the motion.—
(" Question.") •
Lord G. SOMERSET said that his constituents were desirous
that the landed interests should be protected.
Sir F. BURDETT thought that the question should be referred
to a committee up stairs. It was one which could not be satis-
factorily discussed in that house. lie was for a free trade in
corn and all other commodities, which he believed would be ad-
vantageous to the community. (Hear.) Ile would have voted
for the original motion had no other proposition been brought
before the house ; but as the hon. member for Middlesex's
amendment went further, he would vote for that. (" Question.")
Mr. HUME said that he would not trouble the house to divide
titice, and therefore he would vote for the amendment.
Lord ArmionP said, that the amendment having been with-
drawn, he would move as an amendment, as he originally
wished to do, the previous question.
The house then divided, and the numbers were—

For the previous question 305
Against it

Majority
Mr. Whitmore's motion was consequently lost.
Lord ALTHORP brought in the bill for the commutation of
tithes in England and 1;4 -ales. The bill was read a first time,
and ordered to be read a second time this day fortnight.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the
house adjourned at one o'clock.