The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1850-02-05 00:00:00

HOUSE OF LORDS.-THURSDAY

The address, in reply to her Majesty's speech, was moved by
The Earl of ESSEX, who shortly glanced at the various topics
included in the royal speech, of which the address itself was,

Lord METHUEN, in seconding the address, took occasion to
condemn the agitation which had been excited in the agricul-
tural districts, for the purpose of obtaining a return to protec-

owc
effect as that moved in the House of Commons by Sir John
Trollope, and which will be found in our summary of the pro-
ceedings of that house. His lordship was quite inaudible in
the gallery.

The Earl of DESART, in seconding the amendment, observed
that the condition of Ireland called for something more than
the mere expression of regret contained in the royal speech.
Land in that country had been depreciated in value, in some
illgtannao • -- _ __. • ..

and tenant.
charging th,
Nome menu
profitable, NI
like a war 01

rmers were placed under the necessity of dis- I
• men. This state of things must continue unless
s should be taken to make investments in land
ich they now were not. He deprecated anything
:lasses, but if any such thing should
those associations which had t

ise, it was

itement of one interest against another

The Earl o
tween the to
Both of then
rests ; but 1

CARLISLE said be could see little difference be-
nts of the address and that of the amendment.
admitted the depression of the aevicultnral inte-
would advise their lordships to consider the

practical effects of carrying it into execution. If the amend- importance. He justified the calling of public meetings to as-
ment should be agreed to, the inference would be that parlia- certain the opinions of the classes interested in the cultivation
anent doubted the propriety of recent legislative measures, As of the land, and the result proved that this was a tenant far-
the government did not desire that any such understanding mers' and labourers' question. The cause of agricultural dis•
e•' i t-1 _. - -1 t'—'-- -

,nook Sake place, he asked .aeir lordships to give a decided tress was obvious—it was the necessary consequence of the
negative to the amendment. He had the deepest interest in changes introduced since 1846; and the distress reacted npon
the prosperity of the land, but he believed that the average small traders, whilst wages fall with the depreciation of prices,
price of wheat would not fall below 408.—a price at which he neutralising the advantage of cheap bread. He disputed the
thought the land might be profitably cultivated. As a proof of position, that the best test of the condition of the labouring
what be contended for, he referred to the fact that there were classes was the amount given by way of pauper relief; there

acTIGI pimp ,s iu LUC WtHAIJULIbU un tue Ist or January, isau, was a aistinction oetween pauperism and poverty; the dimi-
than there were on the ist of January, 1849. nution of the former might co-exist with tauch distress amongst
The Duke of Ricirmoivn said that such returns were worse the better classes of the poor. He urged the various argu-
than idle, and only calculated to mislead, The cheapness of ments in favour of the principle of protection, which was re-
provisions had been held out as if it were a boon to the labour- cognised in respect to other interests whose claims were less
Jug classes ; but they had said nothing of the decreased wages reasonable than those of the farmer; and he insisted that one
of the labonrer. He was well aware that a great many men of two courses must be taken—either protection must, in some
were maintained by working three days a week, with the assis- degree, be restored, or the burdens of the agricultural interest
tance of ont-door relief - ,f itself accounted ' -4uced.

which of _ ror must be rea
the fact that there was a diminished number of people in the Mr. MuNTz said, as to retracit, their steps, he defied the
yrnrlthrtno.o at.

xnuuses. ine nonce auKe then commented rather severely government to do so, though the result of free- trade had not
upon the speech of the Earl of Essex, which he could only realized the predictions of its advocates. They asserted that
account for by his experience that those who had left the ranks the repeal of the corn laws would not reduce prices; he thought
of their friends were usually the most bitter opponents of those it would, and had voted for it on that ground, and he believed
same friends. The noble duke, after defending the agricultural there would be a further reduction. The boasted prosperity
agitation of the country, said that as 1 ,ng as he lived he would of our trsde, however, was a fallacious and one-sided pros-
advise the farmers to insist, by every constitutional means in perity. He disputed the inference drawn by the Chancellor of
their power, upon protection to native industry. the Exchequer from the details of our exports, which could not

be very in

prudent I tie relied on

lained his theoi

be realised, and which yet might give rise to new agricultural
arrangements, which could never be carried out if based upon
the supposition that parliament could ever return to the princi-
ples of protection.
The Earl of Winchilsea supported the amendment.
Lord BROUGHAM contended that this country was not more

He did not advocate a return to protection, which had been of
no service to the protected class.

Mr. HERRIES animadverted in severe terms upon the para-
graph in the speech relating to the landed interest, which,
together with the person chosen to move the address,
had called for the amendment, to which he gave his cordial
-out. Upon the subject of shish since the repeal of

taxation of America was not correct. Her was not convinced
that the course pursued by this country with respect to free
trade was erroneous, and he should not, therefore, agree to the
amendment.

ipsPutLuing,
the navigition laws, he stated facts which detracted from the
representations given by Mr. Villiers of the prosperity of that
interest, and he taxed the Chancellor of the Exchequer with
unfairness in dealing with the accounts of our exports, whence
he had drawn a false inference of the success of free trade prin-
ciples. In like manner, the arguments, to the same purpose,
deduced from the poor-rates and from the influx of bullion,
were fallacious. The cheapening of food was a benefit which
might be purchased too dearly. By protection was meant, by
those who sought it, justice, and only justice, which they would
ultimately gain, not by intimidation or violence, but through
the returning wisdom, the maturer judgment, and the hatter
prudence of the legislature.

Lord STANLEY rejoiced that we could boast of enjoying the
blessing of peace, hut he would have been better pleased could
ministers havetold them that this country still retained friendly
relations with all foreign powers. He could not view the occu-
pation by the Austrian and French armies, in presence of each
other, of the provinces of Italy with complacency, and he
thought the sooner such a state of things was terminated the
greater would be the security for the peace of Europe. With
respect to the paragraph of the speech referring to agricul-
tural distress, he must say it did not represent the facts of the
case. Taking it in conjunction with the selection of Mr. Vil-
liers to move the address in the other house, and with the
remarks made by the noble lord who had moved the address,
be was provoked into a discussion of free trade and its results.
The agricultural distress was not limited to the owners and
occupiers of land, as the royal speech assumed, but extended
itself to that more numerous and more helpless class—the agri-
cultural labourers, the small shopkeepers, artisans, &c. The
increase of trade and exports was adduced as a proof of pros-
perity, but he was convinced that the increase of exports was
altogether independent of free trade—in point of fact, a large
portion of our exports, as they were called, went to India. As
an instance of the position of the landlords the noble lord cited
his own case. He pledged his honour to their lordships that
he had not received Is. for his Irish property during the last
eighteen months, and that about a quarter of his land was
thrown upon his hands because he could not find a tenant.
He was sorry to interrupt the unanimity to the address, but he
could not refuse to give his assent to thevery moderate amend-
ment which had been moved, and he asked their lordships to
assent to the proposition that agricultural distress arose from
two causes—free trade legislation and the pressure of local
taxation.

- Mr. LABoucHEXE, in reply to Mr. Herries, declared that he
never made an assertion with greater confidence than that he
believed the whole business connected with shipbuilding,
instead of being paralyzed, was in a most satisfactory state.
With respect to the favour supposed to be shown to manufac-
tures above agriculture, there could not be a greater mistake;
though some vestiges of protection still appeared on the statute
book, all our great staple manufactures were absolutely unpro-
tected, whilst agriculture was not altogether denuded of pro-
tection. In conclusion, he denied that it was the intention of
the government to treat with the slightest disrespect the agri-
cultural interest, or to dispute the fact that severe distress did
exist amongst the owners and occupiers of land; but nothing
could be more injurious to them than to hold out an expec-
tation of a return to a system of protection, and thus diverting
their attention from the proper means of improving their con-
dition.

Mr. DISRAELI rose to support the amendment. There was
no question now in the House, he observed, that what was
called agricultural distress prevailed in England, Scotland,
and Ireland; he wanted no better evidence of this fact than
the admission of Mr. Villiers that, within a brief period, a
principal branch of national industry had been deprived of
between .e 90,000,100 and £100,000,000 by changes in our laws.
Yet tbis distress was noticed in the Speech as "complaints,"
the justice of which was studiously not acknowledged. Was it
reasonable that Parliament, after what was passed, should
refuse to acknowledge the existence of this distress,—should
not deem it their duty to express their opinions of its cause
and their sympathy with the sufferers? The first proposition
in the amendment being admitted, nothing could be more
legitimate than that those who were convinced that this cala-
mity had been occasioned by recent legislation should respect-
fully express that opinion to the Sovereign. He cared not
whether dukes or peers gave their adhesion to this view of the
question : the cause was the cause of labour, or it was nothing.
Mr. Disraeli then addressed himself to the arguments of Sir C.
Wood, reiterating his opinion that the exchange and the value
of British industry had diminished; he contrasted the conclu-
sions of the right hon. baronet with the result of elaborate
calculations in the Economist, showing that during the last
four years the manufacturers of Manchester had been manu-
facturing at a loss ; and he endeavoured to demolish his
inference drawn from diminished poor rates. Passing then to
the special burdens upon land, he asked the Manchester school
if, as they averred, land was only a raw material, why it was
taxed ?—why they did not extend to land the same economical
principles as to other raw materials? The cultivator of the
soil, he maintained, had a right to two things,—first, to be put
on the same footing as his fellow-subjects; secondly, to be
placed'in his own market upon an equality with the foreigner.
The object of the amendment was not to abrogate recent laws,
but to obtain a recognition by that house of a distress that was
notorious, and an expression of its sympathy with the dis-
tressed. He counselled the Prime Minister of the Crown to do
justice to the laud, and he might then rely upon the support of
that interest, which would be a surer source of strength than
a combination of parties that should place a Jacobin. on one
side of him and a Conservative on the other.
Lord J. RUSSELL professed that he did not understand the
drift of the amendment. Sir J. Trollope, the mover, had
avowed that it was to lay a ground for reconsidering recent le-
gislation; but Mr. Heroes and Mr. Disraeli had given exposi-
tions of its object entirely different. Lord John repeated the
disavowal given by Mr. Labouchere, that any insult or disre-
O pect was intended to the agricultural interest by the paragraph
in the Speech, which abstained, as it should do, from express-
ing an opinion upon a subject of recent legislation. Ile ex-
plained shortly the views he had entertained for some years
past on the subject of the corn laws, resulting in the conviction
that they should be repealed ; and after a short experience of
free trade measures, the state of the country, in respect to
shipping, trade, revenue, and the increased comforts of the
great body of the people, vindicated the soundness of this po-
licy. Assuming the prices of corn to continue as low as they
are now, which he did not expect, the cost of farming materials
and stock would adapt itself to those prices. The real ques-
tion was, whether the house should take the first step to return
to protection; in other words, whether the producers of corn

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE supported the Address in a
speech of considerable length. _

Their lordships divided, and the numbers were--For the
amendment—Contents—Present, 69 ; Proxies. 34-103 :
Against it—Non-contents—Present, 86; Proxies, 152; Majority
against the amendment, 49.