The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1846-02-17 00:00:00

3 him who had varied from his original policy.
Mr. LASCELLES denied that the Government had

bad delivere

I since his elevation to power had uniformly
,irection•of Free-trade. The truth of that

pointed in the d

theory had been made ma

experience, and Sir Robert Peel had merited the gratitude
of the country by the measure he had proposed.
Lord NORREYS bad refrained from condemning Sir
Robert Peel until his measures were published to the
country ; his suprise and disapprobation were, however,
equal when he first learned the extent of these proposals.
It was incredible that the Minister, who in 1839 avows
an unqualified adherence to the Protecti
in 1846 propose an entire repe'd of that s
duct was unfair to both his supporters ard opponents
Mr. B. COCHRANE denied that there was any corn
wise of principle

ye System, shall

His con-

Be agreed to the dictum that " Whoever proposed an un-
alterale law, was an unalterable fool." Parliament was
something superior to an assemblage of deleates. There
was real inconsistency in the Duke of Richmond and Lord
Stanley, who had co-operated to bring about the Revolu-
tion of 1830, now opposing the repeal of the corn-laws, as
a revolutionary measure. Lord North, Mr. Pitt, Mr.
Huskisson and Mr. Canning, had successively lent their
great names to the support of a free-trade policy. He
(Mr. Cochrane) should vote for this meastlre, because he
preferred legislation to agitation, and also because he was
favourable to the principle of genuine protection.
Mr. DEEDES regarded the measure proposed by Go-
vernment as an experiment upon native industry, fraught
with great injury to the country. It would certainly
cause the withdrawal of a large tract of land out of culti-
vation, and diminish the permanent supply of specie in
the national coffers. Upon these grounds he should offer
it his opposition.

Sir loriN WALstr denied that the Corn-law question
y, though that was of no trifling
It class, bold-

f rent
The I.

moment

ing in a very few hands large territorial posse'ssions.
The landed proprietors amounted in 1845, according to
Mr. M'Culloch, to two hundred thousand persons.
This very numerous body would be affected by what-
ever injuries a Free-trade policy might inflict. The
protective system had been in existence cotempora-
neously with a great increase in the population, and a
great progress in the commerce of the country. Results,
therefore, witnessed in its favour. It was only necessary
to guarantee security to agriculture, in order to elicit a
perfect development of its resources. He contended that
land was liable to peculiar burdens. There was no reason
to fear a great importation of corn from many parts which
at present contributed nothing to our supplies, and at very
low rates. The failure of the crops in Ireland had been

advance

but why

should a temporary calamity prompt so great and perma-
nent a change ? The proposed measure would, if adopted,
ruin Irish agriculture, and destroy the Protestant Church
in Ireland. It had been brought about by an association
which every lover of order ought to oppose.
Mr. A. J. B. HOPE considered a preliminary inquiry
was, whether the existing parliament were morally as well
as legally competent to take cognizance of the question of
Free-trade or Protection. They had been returned upon
principles very different from those which at present held
sway in parliament. A revolution in the commercial po-
licy of the country was being wrought, and the proper
persons to carry it would have been the members of the
Anti-Corn-law League.

Lord SAN DON startled the house by declaring that
Though he disapproved of the scheme proposed by Her
Majesty's government, he had made up his mind to vote
in favour of it. After stating his objections to the mea-
sure at some length, he said that he felt that the country
must be governed. He found that when opinions hostile
to protection had been pronounced by the great leaders
on both sides of the house, and that it was now opposed
by all the gentlemen who had ever sat in the government
except two, it was no longer a matter for discussion; but
the only question was the way of doing it. He looked
upon it, as the French said, "un fait accompli"—it was
settled. It might be railed against, but the country must
be governed; and when the only persons who could go-
vern the country were of one opinion, the sooner it was

settled the better it would be for all parties.
Lord J. Russzu, considered it a very impotent argu-
ment in favour of protection, to allege that it was sanc-
tioned by the decisions of parliament in former time. The
same might be said of various absurdities. The friends of
protection had affirmed that it was extended to all pur-
suits of native industry. Was this the case? Our woollen
and other manufactures competed with foreign fabrics
abroad ; they could therefore hardly benefit by protection
at home. The protective system was for the benefit of one
class alone. If it were admitted that the system was erro-
neous, the great question was, how were we to abandon it ?
The results of past reductions in duties had proved bene-
ficial both to the revenue and to the producer. As Sir R.
Peel's measure proceeded upon the principle of non-inter-
fereneewith the pursuits of industry,he was prepared to give
it his cordial support. Ile then examined that part of the
ministerial scheme which ordains the gradual reduction of
the Corn duties. The inclinations of the farmers were
in favour of immediate repeal, provided that repeal were
inevitable. He believed there would be less inconvenience
to the English farmer in the change occurring at present
than at a future period. This part of the plan he should
prefer altered, but at all events he would support the
measure. He recognised the principle of affording
compensation to .the agricultural body for special tax-
ation Party motives • had restrained many from sup-
porting free trade measures when introduced by
himself, though they now supported them when pro-
posed by Sir Robert Peel. Had these influences not pre-
vailed, much misery throughout the country would
have been prevented, and Sir Robert Peel's consistency
preserved. lie and his party intend to pursue a different
course, and by the aid they would render, the success of
the measure would be ensured,

Sir R. H. INGLis congratulated Lord John Russell
upon the triumph he must have derived from the disunion
amongst the Conservative ranks. The great object to be
attained by a legislature in the matter of food, were a suf-
ficiency of supply and equability in price. There bad
been a remarkable equability in the prices of Corn in
England compared with other countries. He then
argued that the land was subject to special taxation,
and particularly in respect to the item of tithe. Sir R.
Peel's conversion had, he believed, been perfectly honest,
nevertheless the suddenness of it gave cause to suspect
the permanence of even his present convictions. The hon.
baronet concluded by expressing his intention to support
'the amendment.
After Sir R. Inglis closed his address, Capt. FITZNIAI3.•
RICE and Mr. SYDNEY HERBERT addressed the house,
the former opposing, and the latter in an able speech sup.
pprting the propositions of Sir R. Peel, after which, on
de motion of Mr. S. O'Brien, the debate was adjourned.

HOUSE OF LORDS.—TUESDAY.
The Earl of ABERDEEN, in answer to a question from
Lord Kinnaird, respecting the cruelties alleged to have
been perpetrated on the Polish nuns at Minsk, stated that
he had no doubt the persecutions in question were grossly
exaggerated ; and that, whatever might be the state of the
case, ber Majesty's Government had no power to interfere
in the matter.

The Scotch Turnpike-roads was then forwarded a stage

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-TUESDAY

The. 'adjourned debate was resumed by Mr. Stafford

O'Brien, who complained that the government had not
yet thought fit to consult the agriculturists at all on this
measure. He had little hope of attracting the attention
of the house ; be had not changed, and therefore he had
nothing to explain, but remained in the same state of bi-
gotry in which he had ever been. The law of 1815 might
have been the greatest error that the landed interest had
ever committed, but he would ask who had encouraged
them to persevere in that error? Year after year the
hon. member for Wolverhampton had given them an op-
portunity of retrieving that error and year after year the
right honourable gentleman had urged them to persevere
in it. He would not impute to the occupants of the trea-
sury bench dishonesty, but this country had hitherto
been governed by party ; and if parties were to be broken
up in this way, he would ask how the government of the
country was to be conducted? He had no hesitation in
avowing that he was a party man ; and if ever there was
an opposition conducted by party tactics for party ends, it
was the opposition of the right hon. gentleman to the
late government. It was a bitter disappointment to find
him now eschewing all party. The right hon. gentleman
who spoke last nigtt said that the law of 1842 had failed.
Had it failed to the Sidney Herbert of last year, or to the
Sidney Herbert of this year ? If the law had failed in re-
gard to the question,of averages,[it must be a reason for
re-adjusting those averages ; and if he found the sliding
scale fail, that was no reason for giving up protection—
they had the sliding scale to fall back upon! If it had
been merely a question of duty, why had they raised such

.
an agitation on the subject ? It was not on a mere ques-
tion of import duty that the present government had dis-
placed the last. If the present government had changed
their opinions, let them avow the change, and give due
credit to those who had always upheld those principles;
but let them not deprive them of the credit due to them
by sa,-ing that this was a mere question of import duties.
He was not careless of the evils impending over Ireland ;
Lut a particular evil required only a particular remedy ;
and although the ports wereimpened to prevent a famine
in Ireland, yet there was no necessity for repealing the
corn laws. All the authorities in Ireland agreed that the
destruction of agriculture in that country would be its
ruin. He admitted the existence of the potato disease,

and if it had progressed he was convinced there would not
have been a potato left in Ireland. The rest had been
stayed, but had now recommenced, and he believed that

the government was prepared to meet the emergency ;
butte denied that the case of famine in Ireland would be
met by the proposed alteration in the corn law. He be-

that the lanC

lowners in Ireland were great

y repon-

v tor the distress.
Mr. S. Crawford, Mr. Bailey, Lord Clements, and Mr
overnment measure, and

Gregory spoke in favour of tE

Mr.-Lef►oy, the Marquis of Granby, and Lords Brooke
and Clive against it, several of the members requiring a
fresh appeal to the country.
Lord WORSLRY challenged the recollections of the go-
vernment respecting the last election. The predominat-
ing motto then was, " Peel, the Farmers' Friend." The
opinions various members of the administration had es-

cided. Even within the three years during which they
declared their conversion had been effected, Sir Robert
Peel had professed his adhesion to protectionist principle.
It was said this measure would settle the question. This
he denied ; a fresh election before 1849 would again agi-
tate the question, and the farmers, wiser from past expe-

rience, would exact pledges from their representatives for
the repeal of the measure, while the other party would
seek an earlier consummation of free trade than was pro-
posed by the government• He should vote for the amend-
ment.

Sir J. GRAHAM protested against degrading the ques-
tion into one of mere finance, much less of personality.

He avowed a change in his opinions, and that avowal
would at once dispose of all citations from former
speeches in favour of nrotection. Referring' to the eir-

eumstances of Sir Robert Peers resignation, he owned he
thought it would have been better for the country arid
for the character of public men, had Lord John Russell

fficulty 6

aga►ns
the mi