Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1846-03-27

that suspension The government wouiu e'"hS
existence on the revival Of The existing coIn-'aH.
| venture 10 say there would not nave oeen
more strenuous opponent of such course, man
. The honorable gentleman; al least, venture 10
say, there never was gentleman 50 ciamorous
, Tor The announcement OF principle, VINO u
sued course which left him so completely al sih-
Gle anchor to vote for any proposal that m'shl DC
made" Laushier) The letter o! Lord Johh
Manners was next advered 10; Sir Ropcrt ihq"l-
( ring il il could have heen possible i"r 'he oos-
eminent TO rely on Lord John Manners, support,
had they resolved 10 advise renewal OF inc cor u
law upon suspension "I1e says ne is decldeGly
in favor OF n repeal ofihe corn laws but he thinks
the present Parliament ought not 10 enact, nor me
present Minister 10 propose, such measure
Well, but that personal objection is no saslacto'
ry answer 10 The country; the question ior lne
country is, is the measure right or wrong . sure
is no member can justify himself IN Volins
against measure which he believes TO be ri:h1
AID which concerns such mighty Interests. Ana
now. as 10 Mr.. William Miles, the member Tor
Soncrseshirt; that gentleman had declared Tor
the maintenance OF The existing law IN lis meg
riry, and given Sir Robert notice, that hencelurih
he must not expect The renewal oil his confidence.
Rul Sir Roheft Peel inplnred that gentleman
and others, although they might visit The penal
consequences on Ministers, 10 pass The measure
submitted 10 them, il they thought II advisable al
/ Inc DIeStHl CIlSS. III nav
! been a supporter of The Government, Mr. Miles
! was in a mistake. On The great r:cs!ioa oil
"greasc"-(roaTs OF laughler)-he was deter
| mined opponent, under an apprehension ihat
grease might be used by some people Is subs'l-
tue for butter. "Now, ] must say, that think
the honorable gentleman in taking his stard upon
grease, did much more injury than bent III 10 The
/ cause Of protection" A lew more Of Mr.. M,es's
! arguments he was anxious 10 notice. Asto max,
! vas lis cultivation abandoned in consequence OF
| he withdrawal Of Inc cuty? ard al what period
\ did i, take place
/ Mr.. WILLIAM MILES.-"Ailer The last re-
moval oil The duty on fax"
/ Sir ROBERT PEEL-"Now the last reduc-
ton Of duly was only 81 per hundred weight.
(Lauehter) The duty on foreign FAX was re-
mo.ed in 1924; al that lime il was f 10 Ton;
reduction was then effected 10 he nominal duty oil
81 hundred weigh and in 1882 the duly was
altogether abandoned. Was it The removal Of
this duty Of Sd hundred weight that involved
The parishes of Aldcock and Chisseborough in
uinl' In Ireland, no culture is more profitable
than that oil fax, which is unprotected; and il is
oovlous that The decay of Aldcock and Chissel-
borough had arisen from other causes than The
+, withdrawal of The protective duty.
The debate had chiefly turned on the corn laws,
! 5ut il was not necessarily corn law debate
The proposal was that The House should go into
| Commiuee 10 consider the PRINCIPLES OF our COM
mercial policy. 'Nnw, as | stated before, il Is
The intention Of her Majesys Government 70 ad-
here 10 their praposal: | have stalled tho reasons
why they will do il: they are incned 10 prefer il,
/ considering especially The opportunity that three
years afford for improvement in drainage. But,
a. The same lime, also distinctly make this state.
meni, that il The agricultural body are Of opinion
that il will be for their advanage-if they think
that immediate repeal will be preferable TO The
deferred repeal which is The proposal OF The Co
vernmen,-( shear = from The opposition benches)
ii, b. union with honorable gentlemen oppo-
site, they should place me in a minor,y-lhcn The
only consideration which sha bear in mimi will
he, what course can best lake 10 give effect Ia
The law 50 amended 4, your instance. loud
cheers rom The Opposition 5enches.)
will 10 al, can 10 carry The proposition Of
he Governmental prefer i'll proposed it be-
ewing i, 20 be favorable 10 The AGRICULTURAL in
tcres Go no, say what course speaking for
| myself might pursue. don't say what effect
success here might produce in another place for
which have less means for answering than
have here; bnl his will say, that my opinion as
| 10 the 1ol:cy Of final adjustment OF The Corn
laws will remain unaered; and shall decidedly
prefer The immediate repeal, even though carried
against ne, 10 throwing The country into imme-
deais confusion BY the rejection of the measure
{ Loud cheers.) Observe | say, il will be qnte
Tor myselflo consider what course of personal
conduct will be mos; conducive 10 the result
should nave in vieg; hut this DO believe that
The final adjustment Of this question, is now
consideration paramount 10 all Others. Loud
cheeIs.)
AS 10 the probable COS, OF corn under Tie
new measure. he could not pass an opinion
but he lhoaghI that nothing was more Crronc-
Gus than 10 suppose, thai The Interests OF agTi-
culture were naturally and Immediately inieg
woven with The price OF wheat. In temonsira-
lin. the truth Of this, Sir Robert Peel adreIted
particularly 10 the tact, that il is impossible 20
draw Just inference from Inc nominal price oi
wheat, without al the same time taking The qua
Inv into account He showed by reference to
returns beginning in 1898, that The price OF
wheat had shown a tendency 10 decline. "a
very remarkable series oil facts also presents il
self in The amount OF The rental OF land, as COM
parci with the price OF wheat: The gross rental
/ 81 land in 1878. as taken from the Properly tax
relurn, was f32 500 900. The price of wheat,
! for five wears ending in 1915 was l02s u. For
The FIVE wears ending with 1912, the price Of wheat
was G1s. I'd while the gross rental of land IN
! England had increased Ia f3I, 000 Tnus,
concden, with The fall in the price Of corn, there
| was an increase in the rental OF land The
speech from The throne contained recommends
tiun to review The existing duties, and ascertain
whether such further reductions could not lie made
/, as would tend 10 ensure continuance OF The ad-
I vanta2eS derived from the previous reduction
| The answer made BY The Commons did not con-
! yey a pledge as 10 The measure but il conveyed
an assurance that The recommendation should be
considered. And how was that assurance 10 be
iuflled7 Would they refuse TO go into commit.
! lee2 viii YOU stand slili?-fur six months 10
come will you DO noIhins7 | say, in this coun-
tty, 10 stand still is 10 relrogade.
neycrsri! iha. il was on The experience Of he
tariff for three years | had come 10 change OF
opinion. ! said lhis-lhal during three years
have seen coincident with abundance and low
prices. great prosperity; | have seen g-ea con.
entnent; have seen The dimnulon OF crime;
have seen The abatement o all social disorder;
have seen good health | have seen increased
commerce-and that experience Of three Yeas
has convinced me that cheapness and plenty arc
al he foundation al Your prosperity. (Cheers.)
This is The challenge | offer, not connected with
The taiG OF The las, three years alone, but with
respect 10 The whole series OF your relaxation OF
prohibilOry duties-show re Que relaxation. one
removal oi Prohibition, which has not conlrihn-
led 10 The advantage OF The great hcdv oi HE
consumers 81 lis Country" He had indeed been
ashamed 10 rca! some 9. lbe petitions presented
on The subject OF This protection. One was from
snip. owners, praying that the House might check
all further rash experiments on British naviga-
l!On, cDu ItJect lHe proposition iDT reducing Inc
duty on foreign TIMBER from 25s. 10 5s He
asked, "What has been The issue Of the rash ey-
pertinent you made in 1927 You found then
discriminating duty Of ass, which you reduced 10
25s. Have You destroyed the Canada trade a
A, The port Of Liverpool The average tonnage in
The British North American trade for e even
years r.eccdine The reductions OF The duty was
iS3 COO IONS; and since you removed The duty on
Carad'on timber, the Average has bcen 1874 moo
ion 0! shipping employed al Liverpool in The Ca
NADIA trade.
On The average .. seven years before The reduc.
ton Of duty, 5749 900 loa,s OF pines were i'm
ported: in 1914, The qranlity brought from Canada
amounted 10 6,2ll eco loads; and in 1915 10 g.
.i70 OCU loads. Yet the ship-owner> call on you
10 refuse reduction OF he duly on timber,
as they called on you 10 refuse reduction, for
, ,rerly, from iory-hve 10 twenty-five shlings.
] But you have deficiency in that particular ar'i-
L~l:.- q. =