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

*uvula! Vadiament.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-MONDAY

The petitions of the Grand Junction Railway, for their
seven branches, were declared
. proved by the committee.
a
Mr. CLIFTON presented petition, signed by 12,000 of
the inhabitants of North Lancashire, praying the House
to continue protection to agriculture.

Sir R. PEEL explained in relation to his reply to the
Noble Lord's question the other night as to his answer on
the subject of the reduction of the corn duties, that he
could Lind no precedent for the Treasury sanctioning
the reduction of the duty on the receipt of the reports.
and that, therefore, he could not consent to any reduction
on the corn duties until the proposed alteration should
become law ; but so convinced was he of the necessity of
proceeding with the alteration on the corn laws at once
that he proposed to proceed with the measure for the
alteration of the corn-laws, in preference to any other
public measure, and to every other alteration in the tariff,
until it should become law.
In reply to Mr. M. Phillips,
_ _

Sir R. PEEL said that if the debate should be adjourned
over Tuesday, there would be no alternative but to re-
sume the debate on Wednesday at twelve and finish it at
six. The right hon. baronet also explained that neces-
sarily there must be an interval between the first and
second reading of the Corn Bill, during which he might
bring forward other articles in the tariff, but that he
would proceed with the Corn Bill with all the speed that
the forms of the house would permit.

On the motion that the order of the day for the house
resolve itself in committee being read, a host of petitions
on the corn laws were presented, after which

Mr. PHILIP MILES rose to move the amendment
of which he had given notice on Friday last, viz.,
that the house resolve itself into committee that day
six months. He admitted the failure of the potato crop
in Ireland, but the oat and wheat crops were above the
average, and there was no fear of a famine. If there was
danger of that he would open the ports. If the pre-
miers opinions had undergone a change, he should have
followed the example of the member for Dorsetshire.
He could not see where these changes were to lead, and
if these were agreed to, greatet would follow which
would shake the public credit. (Hear, bear.) The
honourable gentleman then proceeded to take a review cf
the history of our commercial policy since the accession
of Sir R. Peel to office, and contend-.d that the
prosperity of the industrious classes had been owing
not to the free trade measures of the government,
but to tile immense increase of our railway system,
which had created a demand for labour, and in conse-
quence of which the prices of iron bad risen enormously
—to the cessation of war in India—and to the succession
of good harvests, and he believed that much of that pros-

perity would have taken place if the noble lord opposite
had been in power. He denied that' the amount of
exports afforded a fair indication of commercial pros-
perity. Foreign markets were glutted with our goods.
It was the home trade which afforded the finest ele-
ments for the calculation of the actual amount of
our commercial prosperity. With regard to the corn-
laws, the law of 1842 had workqd well ; it had secured
steadiness of price, and he would not consent to its altera-
tion. The Right Honourable Baronet bad said in 1842
that 56; was a fair price for the farmer. Elc would like

to know what he considered a fair price now. The Right
Honourable Baronet said his proposed measure would not
lower the price of wheat: what then became of the argu-
ment of the cheap loaf ? Mr. Miles concluded by depre-
cating the stimulus sought to be given to manufacturing
enterprise, which had already reached far enough. He
then proposed, " that the Chairman leave tie chair that
day six months."

Sir W. HEATHCOTE seconded the amendment. He did
not join in imputWg dishonest motives to Sir Robert
Peel, he merely thought the measure proposed a
visionary scheme. That scheme was also partial
in its operation, acting for the almost exclusive advantage
of those engaged in manufacturing pnrsuits.
The peculiar burdens to which the agriculturist was
exposed, rendered it difficult to afford him adequate com-
pensation. Tae colonial corn-growing interest was dis-
regarded by the proposed measure. The duty of sup-
porting Sir ROBERT PEEL as a Conservative Minister,
he admitted, ought to prevent any factious opposition,
but the responsibility of embarrassing the relationship
between Government and their supporters, properly lay
with him who had varied from his orig.

;inal policy

Mr. LASCELLES denied that the Go,ierntirent had
altered their policy. The speeches which Sir Robert Peel
bad delivered since his elevation to power had uniformly
pointed in the direction of Free-trade. The truth of that
theory had been made manifest by the constant results of
experience, and Sir Robert Peel had merited the gratitude
of the country by the measure he had proposed.
Lord NORREYS had 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 avowed
an unqualified adherence to the Protective System, -shall
in 1816 propose an entire repeal of that system. His con-
duct was unfair to both his supporters ar.d opponents.
Mr. B. COCHRANE denied that there was any compro-
mise of principle in the course pursued by Sir R. Peel.
He screed to the dictum that " whoever proposed an un-
alterab

. .
le law, was an unalterable fool." Parliament was
something superiorto an assemblage of delegates. 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 measure, because he
preferred legislation to agitation, and also because he WhS
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 JOHN WALSH denied that the Corn-law question
was one of rent merely, though that was of no trifling
moment. The landowners were but a small class, hold-
ing in a very few hands large territorial possessions.
The landed proprietors amounted in 1845, according to
Mr. M'Culloch, to two hundred thousand persons.
This very ❑umerous body would be affected by what-
ever injuries a Free-trade policy might inflict. The
protective system had been in existen:e 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
advanced as a reason for the present measure; 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. Hors 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 SANDON 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. lie looked
upon it, as the French said, "un fail 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. RUSSELL 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 thebenefit 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-
ference with the pursuits of industry,he was prepared to give
it his cordial support. He 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-
•ailed, much misery throughout the country would
have been prevented, and Sir Robert Peel's consistency
preserved. He 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. blotto 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 had
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. FITZMAU-
Rice and Mr. SYDNEY HERBERT addressed the house,
the former opposing, and the latter in an able speech sup-
porting the propositions of Sir R. Peel, after which, on
ti-.e motion of Mr. S. O'Brien, the debate was adjourned.