The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-04-22 00:00:00

rned/intleman argued at considerable length in support
Sir Peel's propagitjon, declaring that no honest tnituster

n their

nt state wi

o place them on

proper footing. He must still say that he hoped the right
hon. baronet would alter that portion of his proposition
which was a crying injustice—the imposition of the same
amount of per centage upon income the produce of industry
and that arising from property.
Mr. MuNzz said he should vote for the proposition of the
right hon. baronet as being best calculated to benefit the
people. By laying the burden of taxation on those who had
to legislate, he thought he was giving the best security for
sound legislation.

The gallery was then cleared for a division, when Lord J
Russell's motion was negatived by a majority of 285 to 188
The bill was then read a first time.

The house then went into committee on the municipal
corporations bill, which occupied the remainder of the night.

HOUSE OF LORDS.-TUESDAY

Viscount MELBOURNE moved a resolution to the effect
that a fixed duty on the importation of foreign corn was pre-
ferable to a sliding scale of duties varying with the averages.
He had little hope that his resolution would meet with the
concurrence of the house, but he had not the less confidence
that it would be one day yet adopted.

The Earl of RIPON contended that it would be highly im-
prudent to accede to the resolution of the noble viscount,
which was in direct contravention of the decision of the pre-
vious evening in favour of the measure proposed by govern-
ment. He did not think that what was called a fixed duty,
but which was to vanish from Bs. to nothing one day, and to
go back the next from nothing to Bs. could ever be made to
work satisfactorily.

The Earl of CLARENDON supported the proposition of
Lord Melbourne, and said he rejoiced to find it was admitted
that the present corn law was so bad that it could no longer
be maintained. He could not, however, congratulate their
lordships upon the measure introduced in the room of that
law, for, in his opinion, the Duke of Buckingham had no oc-
casion to have left his colleagues because of this bill, for it
would not take one atom of protection from the agriculturist,
and its only advantage was, that it was an abandonment of all
the principles respecting the trade in corn upon which the
ministerial side of the house had hitherto depended. For his
own part he was opposed to all protective duties—he was op-
posed to all duties except when levied for the purpose of re-
venue only.

The Earl of WICKLOW said, if he thought the bill before
the house would reduce prices he would not give it his sup-
port. He did not think the bill would, in the slightest de-
gree, injure the agriculturists, and be supported the measure
because, without doing any injury, it would prepare the
minds of the agriculturists for greater changes. With respect
to the preference to be given to a sliding scale over a fixed
duty, he would say, that in reference to the latter there could
be no doubt but that, for the promotion of trade and com-
merce, a fixed duty was much more advantageous than a
sliding scale. The object, avowedly, of the government,
however, was not the promotion of trade and commerce, but
the protection of the agriculturist ; and he had no hesitation
in saying that, for the protection of agriculture, the sliding
scale was preferable to a fixed duty. The great value of that
part of the tariff which permitted the importation of foreign
cattle he looked upon to be that it would tend to raise the
price of meat on the continent, and thus give a better chance
to our manufacturers to enter successfully into competition
with foreigners.

Lord ViviAN supported the resolution of Viscount Mel-
bourne ; but he must, at the same time, declare his delight
that the government was about to make a reduction in the
import duties, to which he believed a large portion of the
evils of the country was to be attributed. His delight, how-
ever, was tinctured with regret that they should have dealt so
very tenderly with the corn law, and that they should have
passed over the sugar monopoly altogether.
The Duke of CLEVELAND supported the bill, bat con-
tended that the enormous reduction in the duty on oats
would be productive of great evils. They must no doubt
bow to the auspices of the times, and if they were to make
alterations in the price of wheat, he was willing to admit that
they could not give a less concession. What alarmed him,
however, was the seeming admission on all hands that there
was no hope that this was to be a final settlement. He knew
that no minister could controul parliament, but they might
have said that, as far as they were concerned, they would
consent to no other alteration. He would vote for the pre-
sent bill becoming law, and hoped it would become so, but
he also hoped that it was the last alteration of the law he
should see during his lifetime.

The Earl of RIPON said he would never bring forward a
measure in that house without a hope that it would be final,
and he sincerely hoped that the measure before the house
would be a final one on the subject of the corn laws.
The Earl of ROSEBERY was of opinion that even the
authors of the corn importation bill must already have dis-
covered that the term of its existence as a law must be very
brief. He thought a moderate fixed duty preferable to a
sliding scale, though he should have preferred, in the first
instance, to have the duty somewhat high, and reduce it
gradually by ls. a year, until it arrived at the point at which
it was proposed that it should be fixed. He disapproved of
the addition of many of the towns which had beenintroduced
into the averages.

The Marquis of SALISBURY would rather the old corn law
had been maintained; but as some alteration was necessary,
owing to the agitation which had taken place, he should sup-
port the measure brought forward by the government.
Lord PORTMAN supported the motion of Viscount Mel-
bourne, and contended that the bill of the government would
unsettle every bargain in the kingdom between landlord and

The Earl of WINCHILSEA was of opinion that under the
proposed bill the agriculturists would have more protection
than they had at present, because they would be protected
from the frauds practised by corn speculators; to which, un-
der the existing system, they were exposed.
Lord MONTEAGLE supported the proposition of Viscount
Melbourne, but said he should vote for the bill of the govern-
ment when it came on, considering as he did, that it was a
great improvement in the present law. The noble lord en-
tered into a variety of details to show that under this corn
law this country had incurred risks of bankruptcy, from which
chance alone had saved them, and said that the proposed corn
law, though an improvement, was itself, notwithstanding,
part and parcel of the same vicious legislation which had
caused the risks which he had pointed out.
Lord BROUGHAM was opposed to all duties on corn either
for protection to agriculture, for the regulation of trade, or
with a view to raising a revenue. He preferred, however,
a moderate fixed duty to the sliding scale proposed by the
government, and should, therefore, give his vote in favour of
the motion of his noble friend Lord Melbourne ; after which
he should submit resolutions to their lordships, embodying
his own views, as above stated.

The Duke of WELLINGTON contended that a sliding scale
of duties was preferable to a filed duty, which could never
be maintained in periods of scarcity. The noble duke also
contended that the distress of the country was not fairly at-
tributable to the operation of the corn laws, but to a variety
of circumstances which were unfortunately coincident in their
pressure upon the people.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE supported the motion of
Viscount Melbourne, and contended that the sliding scale
might be much more beneficially applied to the importation
of cattle than of corn, for cattle could be imported only from
countries near us, where the rate of duty might be at all
times easily known, which could not be the case with corn
imported from distant countries.

Lord FtTzoznALDopposed the motion, and contended that
if the object were, as stated, to afford a remunerative price,
that object would be much more effectually accomplished by
the proposed sliding scale than by a fixed duty.
After a few words from the Earl of HARDWICK, their
lordships divided, and the motion of Lord Melbourne was
negatived by a majority of 207 to 71.
A division then took place upon Lord Brougham's first re-
solution, which was also negatived by a majority of 96 to 9.
Their lordships again divided upon Lord Brougham's se-
cond resolution, " That food should not be taxed for the
purposes of revenue," which was also negatived by a majority
of 87 to 6.

The bill to be committed on Thursday.—Adjourned

HOUSE OF COMMONS-TUESDAY

Lord STANLEY entered into a stateineni:inreiiyto a ques-
tion from Mr. P. Stewart, of the demand for labour in Canada
and our Australian colonies respectively, and the degree in
which the demand was met by voluntary emigration.
Sir R. PEEL, in reply to a question from Dr. Bowring,
complained of being called upon to answer questions re-
„ .

specting foreign states; but, as the question had been asked,
he would say that it was the intention of the Turkish Govern-
ment to remove Omar Pacha from the government of Syria.
The SPEAKER having called attention to a notice given by
Mr. R. Wason, censuring the conduct of the majority of the
Ipswich election committee, which was decidedly unparlia-
mentary,

Mr. PAKINGTON. who is chairman of the committee, re-
gretted that he was prevented by the forms of the house from
indignantly repelling the accusation.
Mr. RENNIE disavowed any participation in the course
adopted by his hon. colleague.

The motion was then passed over as informal.
Mr. FERRAND then moved for a select committee to in-
quire into the existence of frauds in the various manufactures
of the United Kingdom, and further resolutions to the effect
that the house would protect labouring men wbo might be
called upon to give evidence before the committee. The
hon. member contended that it was by their own frauds that
the manufacturers of this country lost the superiority which
they once possessed in all the markets of the world. lie con-
demned the truck system and the cruelties practised upon the
working classes by their employers, most of whom were
corn-law repealers. The evidence of several honest manu-
facturers before a committee of the house would prove that
they were unable to contend against the fraudulent practises
of their rivals, and they must either give up business or be-
take themselves to the same dishonest practises. In the
name of Him who said the labourer was worthy of Isis hire,
he called upon the house to grant the select committee for
which he moved.

upported by Mr. FIELDEN and Mr.

WALLACE, after which

Mr. WAKLEY suggested that the inquiry should be ex-
tended so as to include as well the agricultural as the manu-
facturing employers, the truck system being used on farms
in the north of England, and also in Scotland. The hon.
gentleman proposed an amendment with this view of the

Colonel SIBTHORP was prepared to assent to the amend-
nent, fully confident that the agriculturists would come out
f the inquiry unscathed.

)N feared the inquiry would I

oo much