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

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-WEDNESDAY

A discussion took place, on the motion of Mr. R. WAsoN,
respecting the Ipswich election, the hon. member being of
opinion that as Sir Thomas Cochrane was about to leave the
kingdom, and as he was supposed to be able to give important
evidence upon the Ipswich election petition, he should be
examined at the bar of the house. This was opposed by the
Attorney-General as unprecedented. The Cotrt of Queen's
Bench had no such power with a witness under superna. If
that witness chose to quit the kingdom he did so at his peril.
The motion was ultimately withdrawn.
In answer to a question from Mr. MACKINNON,
. .

Sir R. PEEL said it was his intention to proceed with no
public business till the corn-law resolutions were disposed of.
There was the strongest feeling at present among those inte-
rested in the corn trade against any delay in the settlement
of the question. But he was not responsible for it. He
could not interfere with the course which other hon. gentle-
men' thought fit to pursue ; but he thought it of so much im-
portance to bring in his bill on the sunject that he would
interpose no impediment by bringing forward any public
business before these resolutions were decided on.

Colonel RAWSON asked when the bill relative to marriages
in Ireland would be brought in, as the Presbyterians would
be alarmed on hearing that no public business would be pro-
ceeded with till these questions were settled?
Sir It. PEEL said that, as so many persons were in danger
of being declared illegitimate, every facility should he af-
forded to carrying that bill through with as little delay as
possible. _

The adjourned debate was resumed by Mr. EWART, who
regretted that Sir R. Peel had not dealt as boldly with the
corn-law question as he had done with the catholic emancipa-
tion. He supported the motion of Mr. Villiers, as did also
Mr. H. P. Berkeley, who was of opinion that trade in corn
should be left quite unshackled.
Mr. Thor:NE:ix was of opinion that any duty on corn
should be for the purpose of revenue only, and not of protec-
tion. _ _

Mr. HAsTIE also supported the motion.
Mr. O'CoNNELL, In supporting the motion, said the house
would not entrust legislation upon this subject to radicals
and chartists ; and, upon the same principle, when he saw
landed proprietors thus legislating, he could not help thinking
that the poor were upon their trial.before a partial judge and
a packed jury.
Colonel CONOLLY, in opposing the motion, said they had
heard much of the benefit which would be conferred upon
the vast regions of America if the corn-laws were repealed;
but he thought they should not exhaust all their sympathy
on America, they should keep a small portion for our own
agricultural population. Had there been anything like the
indignation against the proposed measure which some hon.
gentlemen appeared to think there was, it would ere this
have exhibited itself in a way not to be mistaken. He be-
lieved,
_however, that the country was satisfied with the
measure.

Mr. HAWES, in supporting the motion, said that all the
old monopolists, and all the foreign merchants, would be
glad to have the present system maintained, as it enabled
them to indulge in most profitable speculations. He was of
opinion that under the proposed measure corn would never
be lower than 60s, and that its general range would be about
61s.

Mr. MARK PHILIPS said he had always regarded the trade
in corn as such a gambling speculation under the existing
law, that while he was in trade he never shipped a cargo of
goods upon the prospect of getting a cargo of corn in return.
He contended that the people, by the petitions which they
had presented, had proved themselves anxious for a total re-
peal of the corn laws. His own idea was, that it would be
well to have a duty on corn, annually diminishing in amount
until it vanished altogether.
Sir R. PEEL said that all that had fallen from Mr. Philips
had proved the correctness of what he had originally stated to
the house, that there were various causes, independent of the
corn laws' operation, to produce the distress which prevailed
through the country. The hon. member had said that there
had been a great decrease in the exports to the United States
since 1833, and yet, although the corn laws were in opera-
tion, there had been no decrease in the exports from the cot-
ton manufactories in the north. How did the hon. member
account for that consistently with the supposition that the
corn laws were the cause of the distress ? It appeared,
from Mr. Ilorner's report, that there had been ninety-three
new mills erected in his district. Now, he could understand
the manufacturers going on working the old mills at a loss
in the hope of a change ; but if the business was so very
slack, it was difficult to account for the erection of so many
new mills. From all this, he would ask if it was not evi-
dent that the effect of the corn laws in producing the dis-
tress had been greatly exaggerated ? And indeed it also
appeared that no great relief was to be expected from any
change whatever which the house might make in those laws.
`While he admitted and deplored the distress which prevailed,
and even though the people might burn his effigy, still could
he not abate one particle of the sympathy he felt for the poor
of the country, or of his earnest wish that they might be
• relieved. (Cheers.) The right hon. baronet then proceeded
to contend that concurrently with great demand for employ-
ment in the manufacturing districts it frequently happened
that partial distress was very prevalent in other parts of the
country. With respect to the argument that foreign corn
should be taxed for purposes of revenue only, he doubted if
it was legitimate to tax it for the purposes of revenue at all,
or if it were he could not conceive an argument by which
they could resist a similar tax on home-grown corn. If he
could only impress the house with the communications which
he had received from various parts of the country, with re-
spect to his proposition, they would see it was as far as he
could go without producing alarm, calculated to lead to dis-
astrous consequences.
Mr. JOHNSTONE moved, and Sir J. EASTHOPE seconded
another adjournment of the debate.
Lord J. RUSSELL objected to Sir R. Peel's demand for
speedy legislation. The question was one for Parliament to
deliberate upon ; they, and not the ministers were to decide
the question. Was the house to pass in a hurry a measure
which ministers had taken so many months to consider?
The manufacturers were bound to ponder it well; and the
agriculturists, who had given way, would expect that it
should be so well digested as to be permanent when once
passed. He added a few words in vindication of Mr.
Macaulay's withdrawal from this division. It was only
what the conservative peers had thought it their duty to do
upon the reform bill:

After a few words from Sir R. PEEL, Sir C. NAPIER.
questioned the practicability of bringing hither a cargo of
American wheat within six weeks.

The cry for a division then became loud and general, but
the opposition held out for a still further prolongation of the
debate, and it was accordingly adjourned.

TRADE AND NAVIGATION.—The net receipt for customs
duties in the year ended Jan. 5, 1842, amounted to
£23,435,270, being an increase of £163,422 over the receipts
of 1840. The total number of vessels which entered inwards
and cleared outwards in the year ending Jan. 5, 1842 (exclu-
sive of vessels in ballast and those employed in the coasting
trade), amounted respectively to 21,858 and 20,861, the ton-
nage of the vessels entered inwards being 3,982,129, and that
of vessels cleared outwards 3,543,456. The number of vessels
employed in the coasting trade of the United Kingdom dur-
ing the same period was as follows :—viz., entered inwards,
130,422 ; tonnage, 10,876,750 • and cleared outwards,
143,877; tonnage, 11,750,152.