The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-03-01 00:00:00

far keep down the price as to raise the

e duty, and thus prevent

the importation of foreign corn.
Mr. GLADSTONE denied that such would be the effect of
the addition of those towns; but said that if it could be
shown that the averages would be thus unfairly kept down,
the government would be quite prepared to reconsider that
portion of their proposition. lie contended that the country
was in favour of the proposition of the government, and
that importation would not only be general, but almost con-
stant, and at price's several shillings under 60. This was
the opinion of practical men embarked in the corn trade,
.and he attached more importance to the opinions of practi-
cal mon embarked in trade than to any calculations made by
hon/gentlemen on either side of the house.
• Mr. LAnoncit ERE complained that the government should
-"have been so late in laying before the house the information,
which they must have deemed important, because upon it
they had founded their present proposition.
Sir J. TYRRELL said that the ministerial side of the house.
was twitted with being fond of the silent system, and he only
regretted that it was not in his power to return the compli-
ment to gentlemen on the other side ; for they had now gone
through a very long debate, and it had never been his fortune
to listen to a debate with so little reason and argument in
proportion to its length. lie placed so much confidence id
Sir 11. Peel that he would give his humble support to the
proposition of the government.
Mr. HORSMATI attempted to fasten a charge of inconsis-
tency upon Mr. Christopher in having assented to any altera-
tion in the corn laws whatever, after the pledges he had given
upon the hustings that he would pursue a contrary line of
conduct. _ .

Mr. BANKES condemned the waste of public time occa-
sioned by hon. gentlemen on the opposition side of the house
rising one after another to say precisely the same thing. He
was opposed to giving up so large a proportion of the pro-
tecting duty enjoyed by the agriculturists, when the railways
through the north of Europe were on the eve of completion,
thus exposing them to an inundation of corn from places
which hitherto could not send to our markets owing to the
difficulties of carriage. As, however, it was impossible to
carry into effect the proposition of Mr. Christopher, he should
support that of Sir R. Peel.
Lord WORSLEY said he was of opinion that the scale of
Mr. Christopher was better than that of Sir R. Peel, and
he was surprised that the agriculturists did not support it.
Mr. MILES said that at the last election the country had
given its approval of the measure of Sir R. Peel in preference
to that of Lord John Russell, and he hoped Mr. Christo-
pher would withdraw his motion for-the sake of preserving
unanimity on that side of the house. He was of opinion that
he was doing his duty to his country by supporting Sir R.
Peel's proposition, for, although it gave a great concession to
the consumer. that concession was almost counterbalanced
by the extent to which the averages would be lowered by the
addition of the 150 agricultural market towns.
_ _

After a few observations from Mr. WALLACE,
Mr. FLEMING expressed a hope that Mr. Christopher
would withdraw his motion, and not create disunion amongst
the conservative party.
Mr. C. WOOD contended that the admission of Mr. Miles
that the lowering of the averages by the addition of 150 new
towns would counterbalance any proposed loss of protection
to the agriculturist, was a clear proof that the whole of the
proposition of the Government was a delusion, as far as re-
spected its being a boon to the consumer.
Mr. GLADSTONE, in reply to a question from Mr. Labou-
.

chere, said that, assuming the house would agree to the pre-
sent resolutions, it was not the intention of the government
to impose any duty on wheat imported into Canada •, but
that with respect to flour the same reduced duties would be
imposed as prevailed in our other colonies.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said he would take care to test the
sincerity of Mr. Christopher in making this motion by forcing
it to a division. He would take care that the people of Eng-
land should not be imposed upon by a humbugging speech
and a humbugging moonshine motion like that of the hon.
mover. He also insisted upon it that the applause which
greeted the speech of Mr. Ferrand on the previous evening
from the ministerial side of the house proved that the agri-
cultural classes had declared open war against the manufac-
turers.

Mr. A. O'BRIEN said that he had consulted his constitu-
ents in the northern division of Northamptonshire, as to the
proposition of Sir R. Peel, and he was fully empowered by
them to support it, as, under all the circumstances, the best
that could he expected when so many conflicting interests
were concerned.
Mr. CHRISTOPHER, in reply, denied the accuracy of the
reports upon which Mr. Duncombe had founded his charge
of inconsistency against him. In spite of the taunts of the
hon. member for Finsbury, he should not be found walking
out of the house to divide with him.
Mr. DUNCOMBE said it was clear that the motion was a
moonshine one, and it had been represented as such (at the
dinner of the Duke of Buckingham) by Captain Hamilton,
who also imputed motives other than that of a wish to raise
the scale to the hon. member for North Lincolnshire. •
Lord PALMERSTON said, it appeared that the skirmishers
had been withdrawn and had joined the main body, and now
the ministry were prepared to meet their real opponents.
He was relieved from a difficulty by Mr. Christopher's an-
nouncing his intention to support the motion of Sir R. Peel,
as he could now vote against that motion without risking
having his vote misunderstood.
Mr. AGLIONBY said he had voted for a small fixed duty,
and had also voted for a total repeal, as the next best thing ;
as he could obtain neither of these things, he would now vote
for the 20s. duty, as the best that could be got.
Sir R. PEEL said, the honourable member had exercised a
wise discretion, nor was he guilty of the slightest inconsis-
tency in the course he pursued. He must say that he had
not employed any skirmishers, and if his honourable friend
Mr. Christopher had found sufficient support to carry his
motion, he (Sir R. Peel) would have been no party to carry-
ing his proposition into law, conceiving as he did that 20s.
was quite sufficient protection to the agriculturist. The right
hon. baronet, in conclusion, declared that he did not intend
raising the duty by lowering the averages, and if be found
such an effect to an extent of even 25., he should feel him-
self called upon to re-consider that portion of the bill re-
lating to the averages.
The committee then divided, and the resolution of Sir R.
Peel was carried by a majority of 306 to 104.

THE DIVISION ON MR. VILLIERS'S AMEND-

MENT ON THE CORN LAWS

The following is an analysis of the minority in the division
on Mr. Villiers's amendment on the corn laws—viz., " that
all duties payable upon the importation of corn, grain, meal,
or flour, do now cease and determine." Ayes, 00; Noes,
393 ; Minority, 303 :
FOR THE AMENDMENT.
ENGLAND.

Counties .
Boroughs.

0
68
-68

WALES.
Nil.
SCOTLAND

Counties .
Boroughs.