The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1846-06-02 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-TUESDAY.

The house was counted out at an early hour. It bad
been previously arranged, on the motion of Sir R, Peel,
that the house at its rising should adjourn to Thursday.

HOUSE OF LORDS.-THURSDAY

A petition was presented by the Earl of Dalhousie,
from the bankers, merchants, and other traders of the
City of London, praying that the measures of the Go-
vernment might be as speedily as possible passed into law.
Lord ASH BURTON admitted the respectability of the
signatures to the petition, but believed that a petition
just as respectably and numerously signed could be pre-
sented from the City on the opposite side of the question.
Lord BROUGHAM was surprised that if such a petition
could be got up, it had not, long ere this, been presented.
Lord MONTE AGLE said that if such a petition could be
got up, there was still sufficient time for it.
The Duke of RICHMOND said he should like to be in-
formed whether the present petitioners were nut the own-
ers of the corn now lying in bond. (Loud laughter, and
cheers.)
The adjourned debate on the second reading of the
corn laws was resumed by

Earl GREY, who contended that the effect of the corn-
law now in existence was to enhance the price of food,
while at the same time depreciating the means of the mass
of the people to procure it. It altogether overlooked the
interests of the consumer, while endeavouring, by artifi-
cial means, to advance that of the producer. The corn-
law, in fact, operated as a tax of 10,000,0U0 annually upon
the consumer; and this only for the imaginary advantage
of one particular class of the community. In addition to
this disadvantage to the consumer, it was an established
fact that when corn was cheap labour was comparatively
high, while on the other hand there was a scarcity of
employment when food was dear. In every point of
view, therefore, a protecting duty on corn operated
severely on the industrial classes. The noble lord then
proceeded to argue at great length, that the repeal of the
corn-law could only operate as a proper and wholesome
stimulus to agricultural improvement, while affording a
larger supply of food to the artisan, whose increased con-
sumption would counterbalance the depressing tendency
of price resulting from foreign importation. He subse-
quently replied to the arguments of Lord Stanley respect-
ing the injury which their free-trade measures would in-
flict upon our colonies, instancing the case of Canada, the
legislature of which had agreed to the repeal of the 3s. duty
on the importation of American corn, as a proof that the
colonies themselves did not regard these measures with
the same alarm as was evinced by his noble friend. The
noble earl concluded by expressing his earnest prayer that
the house would pass the second reading of the bill by a
large majority.

Lord AsitnunTost said the bill came before the house
in a very humble form—that of a bill to regulate the trade
but it waa iu acality a formidable measure calcu-
lated to alter the whole system, colonial, monetary, and
commercial, of this great country. The bill was founded
upan a case of distress in Ireland, which, it would be
admitted, bad been greatly exaggerated, and which, at all
events, might hart bccu iclieved by the temporary open-
ing of the ports ; and it was sustained by the argument
that, it being necessary to open the ports to relieve that
distress, it would be impossible to close them again. He
would ask why it should be impossible so to close when
the cause of opening them was at an end ? They had
been opened before when corn was extravagantly high,
and closed again when the evil was remedied ; and why
that course sh..uld not have been again pursued, he was
at a loss to imagine. The effect of the bill, if it should
pass, would be to bring an overpowering supply into the
market ; and if it should be followed by a good harvest,
prices would fall as low, or perhaps lower, than they
had ever been in this country. I-le was sn convinced of
this, that he had advised his own tenantry to send their
produce to market as fast as they could. In that part of
Europe beyond the Carpathian Mountains, and lying be-
tween the rivers of the Baltic and those which fell into
the Black Sea, a sufficiency of corn was grown to supply
France, Belgium. and every other country which might
at any time require a supply. Those countries, however,
as soon as they had obtained a requisite supply, closed
their ports, whereas their lordships were now called upon
to adopt a measure which proceeded upon a principle
against which every other nation practically exclaimed.
As to the capability of the farmer to sustain the compe-
tition to which tLis bill would expose him, he had heard
but one argument—namely, that if you teased and worried
him enough there was no telling what you might not get
out of him, an argument equivalent to saying there was
no knowing what you might get out of a bad horse with a
good pair of spurs. Was this a principle upon which their
lordships would consent to legislate? The noble lord
then pointed out the injurious way in which the bill would
operate towards the clergy, if the price of corn should
materially fall; and if it should not fall, he could not
understand what the utility could be of passing the bill at
all. Assuming, however, that the price would fall to
405., the consequence would be that the income of every
clergyman would be reduced nearly one-third. Every
clergyman with an income at present of £3OO per annum
would find that he would be limited by the operation of
this bill to an income of £2OO. The bill was, in fact, so
mischievous in every point of view, so great a mistake in
legislation, that he hoped it would be rejected by their
lordships.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE contended that the deci-
sion of the House of Commons in this case was as much
to be respected by their lordships as any to which it had
ever come upon any fo►mer occasion ; and, althougn the
Earl of Malmesbury had said it was not a clean majority,
yet he would say that it was not for their lordships to
examine into the motives of individual members of the
Commons, but to take the decision as it stood. The
❑oble marquis strongly advocated the necessity of agree-
ing to the measure, repudiating the idea that it could lead
to any alteration in the social system of the country.

A singular scene occurred when the noble marquis re-
sumed his seat. Lord Eglintoun, Lord Beaumont, and
the Earl of Essex, presented themselves to be heard.
Each noble lord had t large number of supporters, and
all three attempted to speak at the same moment.
The Duke of RICHMOND moved that Lord Eglintoun
be heard; while another noble lord moved that the Earl
of Essex be heard.

Great confusion ensued arising from the practice of the
house, in which the Chancellor has not the power pos-
sessed by the Speaker in the House of Commons of call-
ing on the member who has been most fortunate in first
catching his attention. A division was likely to have
taken place, when the Earl of Eglintoun and Lord Beau-
mont gave way, and
The Earl of Essex proceeded to address the house in
support of the bill, advocating strenuously the principles
of free trade, though he regretted that, in the preparation
of the measure, greater consideration had not been shown
towards the burdens on the land.

The Earl of EGLINTOUN said he recognised the princi-
ple that members of either house of parliament should
endeavour, as far as possible, to modify their views to
those of the party to.which they belonged. There was a
point, however, beyond which this species of concession
should not go, and to that point he had arrived in refe-
rence to the bill upon the table. He had been always a
Conservative and hoped to continue one, and would have
been happy to have still adhered to the Government ; but
when he saw Sir Robert Peel overthrowing every princi-
ple which he had all his former life been advocating, he
felt it necessary to act entirely upon his own individual
judgment, and in the exercise of that judgment he would
give his decided opposition to the bill. It war said that
the land was not skilfully worked, and he admitted that a
great .deal of it was neither sufficiently drained nat. ma-

cured, but the inducement held out to the farmer to incur
the expense of improvement x•as the reduction in the
value of biz produce.
. Lord BEAuziONT commented on the speech of the

)n, who had occupied a great portion of ti

z in enumerat

various times a

)e had voted against hi
he noble lord

ugly opposed the

The Ear

fg cot

lated to enhance prices to the (
mate advantage to the produce
he was guilty of no inconsist
ance with all his former opinion
proceeded to answer some of the
Stanley's speech, quoting a variety (

In holdi

for it was in accord-
The noble lord then

is of Lord

1()( um mts in order