The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-02-21 00:00:00

Mr. DARBY opposed the motion, which was admitted even
on the opposition side of the house could lead to no practical
.. _

;vas intended as a decided party move, in order to
lower the government in the estimation of the people. Hon.
gentlemen talked of free trade, but he never knew a free
trader in the article be dealt in himself. They heard a great
deal of the repeal of the duties on corn, but why should not

vs+ GU ,rum en (nun' armies as well: Tilt
Anti-Corn-Law League would not advocate a doctrine like
this, and therefore it was that they had not adopted the name
of the Free-Trade League, because they only
trade in matters which did not affect their own interests.
Lord H. VANE reluctantly opposed the motion of

wanted free

Howick

A Lord
One of the objects in view was clearly an altera.

ion of the present corn law, and he could consent to no
• •

sudden change in that law which would have the effect of
leading to serious perturbation in agricultural affairs.
Mr. BROTHERTON supported the motion of Lord Howick,
not from any party motive, but from a sincere desire that the
dreadful distress of the people should be alleviated. From
the justice or humanity of the landed interest he expected
little, but he expected a good deal from their self-interest,
when they should become convinced that their own welfare
depended upon the prosperity of commerce. He admired
the principles of.the present government, but he wished to

see those principles carried into practice.
Mr. M. ATTWOOD said the feature in the state of the coun-
try which caused him almost to despair of its recovering from
its present depressed condition was the absence of any sug-
gestion as to the causes of that depression from either side
of that house. The bon. gent. then proceeded to refute the
inferences drawn by Sir James Graham as to the increase
of labour as evidenced by the increase of deposits in the
Lancashire saving banks. The fact was that those banks
were trading banks, and were paying a much greater interest
for money than they could obtain for it. If any joint stock
or private bank were to proceed upon the same principle,
bankruptcy must be the inevitable result. He could not
agree with the remedies suggested by Lord Howick, nor
could he therefore vote for his motion. The principles of
free trade were first broached in the year 1820, when a pe-
tition was presented to that house from the merchants of
London, in which the doctrine was laid down that the pros-
perity of the country 02pended upon being able to by in the
cheapest market and to sell in the dearest. Those princi-
ples were taken up, and measures of free trade had been
gradually adopted until they now saw in the present state
of the country that they had sacrificed the industry of this
cpuntry for the advantage of the industry of their neigh-
bours. The shipping interest had also been sacrificed to the
free-trade theory to an enormous extent, and was now in'a

most alarming condition

Mr. M. GIBSON said the question resolved itself into an
emphatic appeal to the Government to do something to re-
lievethe distress of the country, and the plain meaning of the

vote that something should be done to relieve the distress,
while those who voted against it would vote that nothing
should be done. He impeached the accuracy of the statistics
read by Sir James Graham respecting the establishment of
new mills, &c., and contended that instead of improving, the
state of things was most disastrous. With respect to the
pending commercial treaties and negotiations, he must say
he did not expect much from treaties which were made a pre-
text for continuing the corn laws. It was this country that
should concede instead of requiring concession from others,
for while the Brazils levied only 15 or 20 per cent. on our
had placed 400 per cent. c

sugars.
He repudiated the notion of maintaining a preponderating
landed interest, and said that the manufacturing and mercan-
tile community would not. submit to be treated as a secondary
class. The landed proprietors created a vested interest as a
reason fnr ~nt repealing the corn law. He called upon the

he responsib

Government to consider . ../ty they were incur-
ring by refusing to do anything to mitigate the sufferings of
the people.
Lord F. EGERTON admitted the distress which prevailed
to an extent which demanded all their attention. It was said
that no one had proposed a remedy for this distress, but he
was prepared with a remedy—partial it is true—of no great
weight, and only temporary, as he trusted was the cloud
which hung over the country, and that remedy was the volun-
tary dissolution of the Anti-Corn-Law League. The distress,
he contended, was more fairly attributable to an unusual
stimulus given to trade at a time when the application of the
power of steam had given the fullest development to our ma-
nufacturing power, than to any protection given to agriculture.
Mr. CoungN denied that this was a party move, and said
the motion should have been to inquire into the state of the
manufacturing and agricultural distress, and then the landed
proprietors would be placed upon their defence, to say how
they allowed their dependents to fall into such a terrible con-
dition. The hon. member for Dorsetshire, on his own estates,
paid his labourers only Ss. a week, so that if their families
consisted of five they were forced to live on less than paupers
in the workhouse, or felons in the gaol. And yet the landed
proprietors, who reduced all around them to a condition
worse than that of felons and paupers, still asked to have
this state of things continued. He (Mr. Cobden) lived in
the country, he employed out-of-door labourers—labourers
utterly unskilled—and to those labourers he paid 12s. per
week, while agricultural labourers were receiving only Bs.
Light was, however, peeping in upon the farmers, and next
quarter day the landlords would find it out, for every free-
holder in Dorsetshire, and every farmer also, had received a
sealed packet from the Anti-corn-law league. The hon.
gentleman then commented at great length upon the injustice
of the corn law, which was admitted, he said, by w
Knatchbull. when he said that the co— •

iws were necessary.
in order to keep country gentlemen in their present posi-
tion—in other words that they must continue to live upon
the industry of the labouring classes of the community. The
capital of the country was wasting away—pauperism was in-
creasing—and while trade and commerce were rapidly de-
clining, the taxes were fearfully increasing. In such a state
of things, what assurance could the right hon. baronet give
the country, .that this state of things was
te?

-.y snortly to ne corn law of last session
was disapproved of by the whole of the mercantile and ma-
nufacturing classes throughout the kingdom, and it formed
no portion of their orders abroad. The trade consequently
fell into the hands of speculators, all of whom were ruined.
In the course of his speech Mr. Cobden made use of the fol-
lowing remarks :—lt was the duty of the independent mem-
bers of that house to throw

_pon the right lion. baronet at
the head of the government the whole responsibility of the
present position—to throw the responsibility on him, the
right honourable baronet. individually—(cheers and counter
cheers).

Sir H. PEEL said he would never be influenced by the me-
naces of the hon. member, that he would be held responsible
for his measures. -

Mr. COBDEN said he did not mean personal responsibility,
but responsibility in virtue of his office. _
Sir R. PEEL said that

iuti.ces or me non. mernber
snould not influence him in the discharge of his public duty.
He regretted that-the debate should have taken a character
so political. He had no objection to the form of the motion
of Lord Ilowick, and he would meet the question entirely
upon its own merits. If they went into committee would the
noble lord propose a reduction of the duty on tea, cotton, to-
bacco, and wool, and, if so, what, he would ask, was to be-
come of the revenue? Or, if he proposed to reduce the du-
ties on wines and fruits, what would become of the pending
commercial negotiations ? The fact was, that the country
had not yet recovered from the effects of the suspension of
trade during the passing and immediately
subsequent to the
passing of the new tariff. The right hon. baronet then gave
a sketch of the difficulties I.e had to encounter on entering
office, and defended the course he had pursued as the best
which could be adopted under the circumstances in which the
country then was. With respect to the Corn-law, he did
not intend to alter it but he would never, for the support
of any gentleman,
It sh, .1' pledge himself to the maintenance of that

.aw it it should be touand—tliat it was injurious. The right
hon. baronet then proceeded to retort upon the late Govern-
ment the charge which Mr. Baring had, on the previous
evening, made against the present Government, of having
unsettled everything and settled nothing, and contrasted
their conduct, in 1840, in voting against Mr. Ewart's motion
—l""tion of the duty on foreign sugar from 635. to
- in pressing the reduction of

355., wit