The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-05-16 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-FRIDAY.

Mr. L A BOUCHERE announced his intention of opposing
the Canadian Corn Bill of Lord Stanley. The mode in which
lie should oppose it would be by moving an address to her
Majesty, praying that the royal assent might be withheld
from the bill which passed the Canadian legislature, upon
which the bill contemplated by the Government was founded.
Mr. FRENCH asked Sir R. Peel if the Government had
directed its attention to the proceedings of the parties who
were agitating England for a repeal of the corn laws?
Sir R. PEEL said that his right hon. friend (Sir James
Graham) would take care that the' peace of the country
should be preserved. When any case should arise demanding
the interposition of the Government, he should be prepared
to meet it.
The adjourned debate on the corn laws was renewed by
Mr. BROTH EATON, who said that, however the rights of
property might be respected by the house, the rights of in-
dustry were also entitled to consideration. More than one-
half of the taxation of the country was paid by the commer-
cial portion of the community, and to the prosperity of that
portion was to be attributed the comforts in which the
middle and poorer classes were enabled to indulge. That pros.
perity was interfered with by the corn laws, which, on that
account, ought to be repealed, and also, because of their gross
injustice.
Mr. HAMPDEN contended that free trade without reci-
procity would be a gross delusion, and that it was most ab-
surd to attempt the application of abstract principles to the
regulation of the affairs of a highly artificial state of society.
It was impossible that this country could buy and sell on the
same terms as other nations, for the burdens under which the
agriculturists laboured were infinitely greater. Sir R. Peel
had been supported by the agricultural interests, who expelled
the «•pigs for the purpose of placing him in his present high
position, and while he continued to promote the general wel-
fare, which would not be benefited by the repeal of the corn
laws, they would continue to support him. The hon. gentle-
man further contended that there was no certainty that even
if we took the corn of foreign countries, they would take our
manufactures in return.
Mr. JAMES, although altogether opposed to the corn law,
was yet opposed to its total and immediate repeal, which was
the object of the motion. He should prefer a moderate fixed
duty, and under these circumstances he should decline to vote
upon the motion before the house.
Captain GLADSTON E said that those who were not shackled
by the responsibilities of office might very easily talk of an
immediate application of the abstract principles of free trade
to the trade in corn, because they had not to deal with the
actual circumstances of the country. It was true that the
corn law raised the price of food, but he did not think it was
the cause of those fluctuations which had been placed to its
account. The landed interest was placed under peculiar
burdens, which would render it impossible for them to stand
a free competition in corn. Under these considerations, he
felt it his duty to oppose the motion.
Mr. A I.DAM waS of opinion that the fate of our American
trade was sealed if we held out to them no inducements to
deal with us, instead of becoming their own manufacturers,
which she might easily do, possessing as she did Within her-
self all the minerals, &c., requisite for the creation of a great
manufacturing community.
Mr. BENETT opposed the motion, contending that, with
the burdens pressing on the landed interest, they ought not
to repeal the corn laws, which would in effect be to transfer
the estates of the landed proprietors to the moneyed mort-
gagees. It would destroy the farmers and produce the most
melancholy consequences to the labourer. He was an ad-
vocate for free trade, but he was not an advocate for putting
the cart before the horse. Let a general measure be intro
duced including all interests in the principle of free trade
and as a landholder he for one would be as ready to adop.

_ .
free trade as any of its advocates.
Mr. HUME wished to know what tle general measure was
to which Mr. Benett alluded, and which he had contended
should precede the repeal of the corn laws. Surely he could
not mean to attack the public creditor? If so, he was sure
Sir R. Peel would be no party to any scheme for robbing
the fundholder. Protection to one class was, he contended,
the robbery of another class ; Sir R. Peel supported protec-
tion, and he was therefore a supporter of robbery; all mo-
nopolists were robbers, and those who supported them were
necessarily abettors of robbers. The landed proprietors had
tried by means of protective laws to keep up prices, but in
this they had singularly failed, and he therefore now called
upon them to try the plan of no protection, and see if their
prices would not be as good or better than under the present

system.
Sir J. TYnxm, said there were two ways of settling this
question, one by making concessions, and the other by a
declaration from the right bon. baronet at the head of the

is atktttletl'ts tit Int vf—Okittl boi isAiOt*lth the' lONA
pht hon. baronet tobit tarei
tertats of the Country. The ri
however, to say as little as possible, according to ministerial
practice ; indeed, so little, that the farmers and landed pro-
prietors who followed in his wake were able to pick up little
in the shape of crumbs of comfort. Not satisfied with the
measures of last session he had now, it appeared, a Canada
corn bill in his pocket. The reduction of protection which
took place under the new tariff hail injured rather than con-
ferred any benefit on the revenue, as appeared by the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequers account of empty boxes.
Mr. 11. F. BERKELEY supported the motion.
Sir W. JAMES thought the time was come when a step
should be taken in advance with a view to the salvation of the
labouring classes of the community.
Lord WORSLEY referred to what had fallen from Lord
Wharneliffe in the House of Lords as calculated to create
considerable alarm in the minds of the farmers, for his lord-
ship was reported to have said that no alteration should take
place in the corn laws this session, thus implying that govern-
ment would not be unwilling, at some future time, to listen
to a proposition to effect an alteration of those laws, Ile
hoped to hear that the sentiments of the noble lord were
incorrectly reported.
Sir R. PEEL said the progress of the debate had proved to
him that all the arguments on either side of the house had
been exhausted, and that nothing new could be said upon the
subject. He had himself nothing new to offer, and had it
not been for the importance of the subject, and the peculiar
position in which lie stood, lie should not have thought it ne-
cessary to address the house. He admitted that the question
had been most fairly brought under the consideration of the
house by Mr. Villiers, but his motion was more extensive
than it appeared on the face of it to be, for the principle went
to the abrogation of all duties levied for the purposes of pro-
tection. It would, under these circumstances, have been
more consonant to justice if the hon. member had proposed
a general reduction of all protecting duties, in which case all
the commercial measures of last session must be necessarily
revised and altered. The whole of our colonial system would
be at once swept away, and, as a consequence, our colonial
markets would be thrown open to the competition of foreign
nations against our own manufacturers. Even if he agreed
with Mr. Villiers, that the system of protection was unsound,
and required careful revision, he would still shrink from any
attempt at an immediate application of the principles laid
down on the other side of the house. He declined to say any-
thing in reference to the imputations thrown out by 'Air.
Hume, as to the landlords lacing robbers, and he (Sir R. Peel)
their abettor, entertaining a very strong opinion that this sort
of abuse generally recoiled upon those who resorted to it. The
land had to bear some peculiar burthens, which justified pro-
tection. The malt tax was in the nature of an incumbrance on
the landed interest, and though it might be argued that the tax
fell upon the consumer, yet the manufacturer would soon feel
the weight of a aimilar burden if levied upon him. He had
watched the operation of the principles he advocated, and he
was fully convinced that that operation was advantageous.
He contemplated no further reductions at present, but the
fear of losing political support would never prevent him from
making an alteration in any law that it appeared to him to
be for the public advantage to have changed. He repeated
the declaration he bad made on a former evening, that it was
impossible, by means of legislation, to keep up remunerating
prices. The depression of prices took place, not as the re-
sult of the corn law, but because of the depression of trade
and commerce, the rescuscitation and prosperity of which
would render prices firmer than any corn law that could be
passed. The law of last session had not had a fair trial,
owing to the fact that the probability of a deficient harvest
had given rise to extensive speculations, which affected
prices so much that it was impossible as yet to ascertain
what was the legitimate operation of the measure he had
caused to be enacted. The Canadian corn bill was no new
proposition, it was part of the measures of last session which
the government was pledged to carry out. He knew it would
alienate many of his political supporters, but that should not
deter him from keeping faith with the public by carrying into
law the Canadian corn bill, which was announced to the
house before the close of the last session of parliament.
Mr. W. 0. STANLEY moved the adjournment of the de-
bate.

Sir R. PEEL hoped the debate would be brought to a
close that night, after the full discussion that had been had
upon the question.
Mr. M. GIBBON thought the debate ought to be adjourned,
for many hon. gentlemen were desirous of explaining the
votes which they intended giving.
Lord J. RUSSELL thought no advantage could result from
an adjournment upon a question which had been already so
fully debated.
Mr. VILLIERS said that it was scarcely fair to force a con-
tinuance of the discussion at an hour of the morning when it
was impossible that their observations could be correctly re-
ported, if reported at all.
Sir J. HANMER said that if the motion for adjourning the
debate were persevered in, he should move as an amendment
that the house do adjourn.
A. most singular scene now ensued, in the course of which
much animation was evinced by many hon. members, which
was checked by
Sir R. PEEL, who said he should vote against the motion
for the adjournment of the debate, but he could not support
the vote for adjourning the house, for that would be a most
unsatisfactory mode of settling a very important question.
Sir J. HANMER then withdrew his amendment, and the
house divided upon the question of adjournment, which was
negatived by a majority of 385 to 94.
Captain BERKELEY said he should support the motion of
Mr. Villiers.
Mr. W. 0. STANLEY again moved the adjournment, of the
debate, which was supported by Captain Bernal.
Lord DUNGANNON opposed the motion, and protested
against wasting public time by repeated adjournments of a
debate.

After considerable discussion, the house again divided, and
the adjournment was again negatived by a majority of 273 to
80.

Mr. J. O'CONNELL supported the motion of Mr. Villiers.
Mr. EWART then moved the adjournment of the debate.
Lord DUNGANNON said he would stay until morning
rather than submit to the adjournment. •
Captain BERNAL said he should stay an hour beyond the
noble lord, in order to obtain the adjournment.
Lord J. MANNERS then moved as an amendment that the
house should adjourn.
Mr. VILLIERS said this was a most indecent mode of
settling this question, more particularly when the majority of
the house had an interest in the question.
Lord J. MANNERS then offered to withdraw the motion,
but this was objected to by several members on the opposi-
tion side, who wished to throw upon the ministerial side the
responsibility of thus getting rid of a motion so important as
this.

Mr. E. ELLis complained that under such circumstances
her Majesty's Ministers should have left the house.
An Hon. Member observed that he saw strangers in the
house; upon which the gallery was immediately cleared.
Eventually the debate was adjourned, and the house rose
at four o'clock.

MtlittiANtgi bitoktit% AND Min&

The largely increased and most respectable circulation
which the Tuesday's Edition of the LIVERPOOL
STANDARD has now obtained amongst the mercantile
body in Manchester affords its proprietors the gratify-
ing power of urging this, amongst the other undeniable
claims which it possesses, upon the favor of that portion
of the mercantile community of Liverpool who desire to
bring their advertisements before the notice of buyers in
the neighbouring manufacturing districts. In most of
the surrounding towns of Lancashire the circulation of
the STANDARD is steadily increasing. In Manchester,
however, the centre of the manufacturing district, our
publication of Tuesday—occurring upon the most
im-
portant market day of the Cotton Trade, when its
Exchange and Hotels are thronged with country manu-
facturers, spinners, and calico printers—is firmly es-
tablished in circulation, and is perused with increased
and increasing interest.
Under these encouraging circumstances, we trust to
receive an increased measure of support from the mer-
chants and brokers of the town generally ; and it affords
us great pleasure to assure those of our friends amongst
those classes, who have hitherto bestowed their a(?ver-
tising favours liberally upon us, of our increased ability
I to do justice to the interests committed to their care.

nit Eiberpool tan Darb.