The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-02-25 00:00:00

tlliPtt.igi 03111Miltii.

The Earl of ABEP,DEEN laid upon the table the quintuple
treaty for the suppression of the slave trade, and expressed
his great regret that the French ratification had not been ex-

nor could be state any precise thee at which it
expected. Ile felt that his first duty was, neither
anything which could throw the slightest ob-
-4 a which was

tl:e wa

ratification of the treat
hesion of France. It w

the other four powers, and he had to observe that t___
of 1831 and 1833, to which France was a party, wa_
full force. By that of 1831, the mutual right of search was
guaranteed ; and by that of 1833, the equipment of slavers
was considered as prima" facie evidence of their Occupation,
and afforded sufficient ground of capture. The only differ-
ence between these treaties and the present was, that the lat-
ter gave a more extensive latitude in which to exercise the
right cf search. It' was impossible to conceive that the
causes could long prevail which had prevented the King of
the French from ratifying the treaty ; and he, therefore,
hoped that ere long the whole five powers would be united in

great ob;

:t which they had in view

Lord BROUGHAM said lie had heard with the deepest re-
gret the announcement of the noble earl of, he hoped, the
temporary postponement of this important treaty. If there
prevailed a suspicion in any quarter that the government, the
parliament, or the people of England, bad any sinister ob-
ject in view connected with the right of search—if there
existed a suspicion that they were actuated by any other mo-
tive than a desire to put an end to the abominable traffic in
African slaves—he could only say that it was one of the
most mistaken delusions that ever fastened itself ou the
human mind.

Lord COTTENHAM laid upon the table his bills for local
jurisdictions, and other legal reforms, after which their lord-
ships adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—MONDAY.
Sir G. COCKBURN, in reply to a question from Captain
Berkeley, said that Mr. Elton had been released from con-

tinement, not from any dissatisfaction with the court-martial,

but entirely as an act of clemency on the part of the crown,
it being thought that the discipline of the service had been
sufficiently vindicated.

Sir R. PEEL laid upon the table the quintuple treaty, stat-
ing that the ratification by France had not been received, but
he hoped ere long the causes would be obviated which had
operated to delay the exchange of that ratification.
Lord PALMERSYON coincided in the hope expressed by the
right hon. baronet, and said that the plenipotentiary of the
King of the French had not exceeded the powers confided to
him in signing the treaty.
The adjourned debate was resumed by Mr. HARDY, who
condemned die system of agitation which had been pursued
throughout the country against the corn laws, and contended
that the protection to agriculture was for the benefit not
merely of the landed interest but of the whole community.

He, as a manufacturer, approved of the measure of the Go-
vernment and advocated the sliding scale as calculated to
prevent enormous I.luctuations in price.
Colonel Fox was in favour of the gradual abolition of the
whole of the duties on foreign corn, and objected to one word
only in the motion of Mr. Villiers, the word "now." He
could not vote for the immediate total abolition, owing to the
consequences which might follow so sudden an alteration;
and, therefore, would not vote at all upon the question.
Mr. H. LINDSAY suggested the propriety of fixing the
duty on corn according to the price on the day it was shipped,
and not according to the price on the day it might arrive,
which plan would materially lessen the risk which the fluc-
tuation of price entailed upon the merchant, without injuring
the revenue.

Mr. SMYTHE defended the policy of the measure proposed
by Sir R. Peel, and said he was glad to see the principle of
undue protection crumbling into dust. The question of the
corn laws had been properly dealt with by only only four
British Ministers—Lord North, in 1773; Mr. Canning, in
his unsuccessful measure. of 1827; the noble lord (Lord J.
Russel,) in his measure of last year; and by the right hon.
baronet, in the measure before the house, which he thought
superior to any of them. He urged the right hon. baronet
to proceed in the course in which he had embarked, and to
earn for his reward the prayers and blessings of a relieved
and grateful population.
Mr. MACAULAY said he feared, in the course he meant to
pursue, he would differ from a large portion of his consti-
tuents; but he could not consistently support the motion of
the hon. member for Wolverhampton, because of the intro-
duction of the word "now." He could not acquiesce in the
principle laid down by the right hon. baronet (Sir R. Peel,)
that the cheapness of food was not necessarily an advantage
to a people. The principle might be true if wages fell with
the price of food ; but those two things were independent of
each other, as was proved by the fact that on the banks of
the Ohio the price of food was twice as cheap as in England,
while wages were twice as high. The right hon. gentleman
then contended against the motion that our political depend-
ence would be endangered by a dependence on foreign nations
for our supply of grain, as was evinced by the fact that we
imported 1,600,000 quarters of foreign corn in 1810, the
greatest quantity ever imported in one year, and one-half of
that quantity was from France, with which country we were
at war; the continental system being then in its fullest force,
and we believe that not one single quarter of it was supplied.
from America. It was of great importance that this ques-
tion should be settled • but from the arguments on the other
side, it seemed as if this was but a first step in the way of
abolition. The right hon. baronet at the head of the Home
Department disclaimed anything like finality in legislation,
and other hon. gentlemen on his side of the house spoke of
it as a considerable first step in the way of concession,
though, in his opinion, it scarcely gave one farthing in the
pound. With respect to a fixed duty, he looked upon it as
a compromise, and was willing to take it on the principle
that he would refuse nothing in the shape of improvement
but in principle he was opposed to any duties levied upon
corn, for the purpose of proteetionalene,

. .
Mr. S. WORTLEY denied that Sir R. Peel had ever laid
down the principle that cheapness of food was not at all
times a blessing to the people, though he had said that the
cheapness of food was not always a proof of the prosperity
of a people. He then proceeded at some length to advocate
the proposed measure of the government.
Mr. MITCHELL did not prefer the proposed scale of duties
to a fixed duty, but viewing it as a great improvement, and
seeing no chance of a better, he was willing to give it a trial.
Mr. C. BULLER opposed the motion of the hon. member
for Wolverhampton, on the ground that vested interests had
grown up under our protective tariffs which they had no
right to rashly sacrifice, however true abstractedly might be
the principle upon which it was proposed to do so ; and sa-
crifice those interests they certainly would if they suddenly
abrogated all those protective duties. The hon. member
then advocated the principle of a fixed duty in preference to
the sliding scale proposed by the government. He admitted,
however, that the latter measure would do a great deal of

good, but it would not give a steady supply of corn, which
was the great desideratum to _be held in view, in order to
give an impulse to the manufactures of the country.

- Mr. HOPE attributed the distress of the country to over-
production, and unless hon. gentlemen on the other side
could show that over-production did not exist, all their argu-
ments against the corn-laws fell to the ground.
Mr. Rtca must oppose the motion of the hon. member
for Wolverhampton, though he was anxious to extend the
principles of a free trade in corn as fur as they could be ex-
tended with safety. He was in favour of a fixed duty, and
regretted the motion of last session was not agreed to.
Mr. AIILNES felt for the situation of Mr. Villiers, melan-
choly as it must be when he saw friend after friend dropping
from his side ; the boldest openly opposing him ; the timid
refusing to vote at all ; and thought he must by this time be
convinced of the impolicy of interrupting the discussion be-
fore the house by the intrusion of an abstract question upon
which he could find but few to support him. The hon.
member contended for the right of the landholder to protec-
tion, and said he would oppose the motion of the hon. mem-
ber for Wolverhampton. It was by the protection that the
landholders received that they were enabled to pay the fund-
holder twenty shillings for the thirteen or fifteen he had ad-
vanced ; and it' the landowner were not able to sustain that
duty he must fall, and in that fall would be sure to drag down
the fundholder with him. He could hate wished, however,
that the scale proposed by Sir R. Peel had been more liberal,
for he did not feel quite sure that his scale would produce
the effect he aimed at, of keeping ihe price of corn as nearly
as possible between 5.15.• and.sBs.
Mr. WAXLEY said there• was scarcely a child that could
walk, or a map who earn wo shillings a day, that did not
understand th% quest. It was only in that house that it
admitted of mystification. He wished to know what they
meant in that house by protection to agriculture. Did,they
mean protection to themselves in the possession of their
houses, their parks, their herds of deer, and their hounds ;
or did they mean protection to the labourer of his 7s. a week ?
They were carrying their system of protection to such an ex-
tent as to render insecure all the institutions of the country.
The whig minister of last year proposed to raise the revenue
by reducing taxation, whereas the right hon. baronet pro-
posed to retain the duty on corn. What did the people gain
by that? He freely admitted that the right hon. baronet's
proposition was better than the existing I,w, but it was not
calculated to lower materially the price of corn, and would
not therefore give any real relief. The corn law was the
master infamy of the world—the landlord's curse upon the
poor man's industry. There was, however, in his opinion,
no hope of relief for the people unless by a reform of the Re-
form Act, so that the working classes might be represented
in that house.
Mr. MuNTz said he should vote for the motion of Mr.
Villiers, although he did not think the abolition of the corn
laws would produce all the benefits to the country which
many people imagined. He could not, however, justify the
proposed measure, and that was his only ground for sup-
porting the motion for total abolition. The hon. member
then contended that the corn and currency questions were
so connected that they could not be advantageously discussed
separately, and quoted a similar opinion expressed in a
pamphlet written by Sir James Graham.
Mr. S. CRAWFORD moved the adjournment of the debate,
which was immediately agreed to.