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

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-THURSDAY

The adjourned debate was commenced by
Mr. COLRUHOUN, who entered into an explanation of
his vote in 1838, in support of Mr. Villiers's motion for a
committee to inquire into the propriety of repealing the
Corn-laws. Sir R. Peel had entirely mistaken both his
past and present opinions. He had never entertained the
opinions so consistently entertained by Mr. Villiers; and
he had never passed from them to the doctrines of high
protection. He had always considered the question of the
Corn-laws a most anxious and perplexing question ; and
in 1841, not being in Parliament, and having much leisure
time, he had studied it with all the diligence and impar-
tiality he could command. He had come to the conclu-
sion that protection was necessary for the interests of agri-
culture ; and having come to that conclusion, he had de:
Glared himself an advocate for a fixed duty on corn. After
the occurrences of the past six mouths, it seemed proba-
ble that his notion of a fixed duty, had it been adopted,
would have now been deemed preferable to that of .a slid-
ing scale. After applying himself to refute Sir R. Peel's
arguments respecting prices and wages, he proceeded to
comment on the speech delivered. by Sir J. Graham on

Tuesday evening. Sir J. Graham had then disposed sery
summarily of all his former arguments on this subject;
and had said that as he confessed that he had changed his
opinions, there was an end of his for mer reasonities. No,
there was not an end of them ; for a statesman whl spoke
like Sir James Graham, with eloquence and genius, r,ught
to recollect that his words were winged shafts which

stuck deeply in men's hearts. They had made many con-
verts, and bad influenced and were influencing thousands
of his fellow-countrymen ; and he (Mr. Colquhoun) was
of opinion that Sir James's explicit recantation of his im-
mortal words would not convince the country that he could
raise wages or exalt the financial condition of the labour-
ing population by his present measures. He was afraid
that those measures would bring on the country evils of a
kind to which its attention ought to be, yet had not been
called. What would be their effects on their colonial in-
terests ? The protection on timber and sugar would not
long survive the protection of corn ; and then the manu-
facturers of England woild-find themselves no longer in pos-
session of the advantages which they now possessed in the
colonial market. Under such circumstances, what would
be the condition of the country if, in addition to a failing
harvest, it should have to struggle, as in 1840, against a
falling revenue? But what reason was there to induce
the house to give their consent to a commercial code
which even Mr. Villiers could not recommend to his con-
stituents as a perfect code, as it still enforced 'protection
on silk, on sugar, on timber, on copper, and various other
articles. If, then, protection were left on some fabrics,
why was all protection to be taken from that manufacture
—for corn had been justly called by Lord F.Egerton a ma-
nufacture—which was of all others the most precarious in
its course, and the most uncertain in its returns ? He
regretted that ever since he had taken his seat on the mi-
nisterial bench agricultural protection bad never received
from Sir R. Peel anything like a sincere defence. Last
year Mr. Villiers had called Sir Robert's speech on the
Corn-laws a dexterous evasion of the whole question, and
had warned the country gentlemen that they would soon
he called upon to surrender the protection they enjoyed.
He was sorry to observe that on all the great institutions
of the country Sir R. Peel followed a similar course of
dexterous evasion. He had no antipathy to him, and a
very sincere regard for many of his colleagues •, bnt his
opposition to Sir R. Peel's administration would in future
he openly avowed and steadily adhered to ; for as long as
Sir Robert declined discussion on all the great questions
which agitated the minds of Englishmen, so long be should
not promise him any adhesion nor repose in him any con-
fidence.
Mr. HEATHCOTE did not come forward on this occasion
to attack the consistency of others, but to maintain his
own. He had resisted a measure similar in principle to
the present when proposed by his own political friends;
and he felt bound to offer the same resistance now, when a
measure ten thousand times more mischievous in degree
was proposed by his political opponents. He explained
at some length the reaEons why he considered this measure
a rash, ill-timed, and hazardous experiment, and observed
that it was not recommended to his mind by being accom-
panied with changes of opinion hitherto unparalleled in the
annals of political tergiversation. They had turned out a
government for proposing a fixed duty of Bs. a quarter on
corn ; and they were now themselves proposing a fixed
duty of 4s. a quarter, to expire at the end of three years.
The compenstition which they proposed for the injury
which they were thus going to inflict on the agricultural
interest was utterly inadequate and disproportionate.

Monarchial Europe and RepUblic America had both their
corn laws. Why was England to deprive itself of a simi-
lar code? Holland had once made the experiment of ab-
rogating such laws; but the experiment had altogether
failed, and Holland, like ourselves, had now the benefit of
a sliding scale.

Mr. W. C. MARTIN contrived to eat up his former
professions in favour of protection, and then declared
himself an emancipated free trajer.

Mr. T. BARING' indignantly repelled the hollow cant
made use of by Sir J. Graham respecting the starving
people of Ireland, and boldly expressed his belief that
the greatest want under which the country Laboured at
present was the want of ministers, and the most appalling
scarcity was that of statesmen, who would consent to sit
together in the same cabinet. Neither in the effects of
our previous relaxation of protective duties nor in the
present circumstances of the country, could he see any
justification of the sweeping change now proposed.
Lord MORPETH next addressed the house in favour of
the government propositions, as also did Mr. ROEBUCK.
Mr. GASKELL spoke eloquently in favour of the amend -
ment, and the debate was adjourned.