Thursday, Feb. 19.

Nelson Examiner and New Zealand Chronicle, Volume V, Issue 229, 25 July 1846, Page 82

Thursday, Feb. 19.

Lord Duncan resumed the debate. He was surprised to find Mr. Hudson in the ranks of the Protectionists. Alliance with such a bubtle company was unworthy that gentleman's great reputation. The noble lord expressed his hear ty acquiescence in free trade principles, and signified his intention to vote for the Government measure. Alderman Thompson had voted for the tariff of 1842, though he did not approve of all its details. It was a pity Government had not reduced the duties upon tea and sugar, witl. a view to benefitting the social condition of the labouring classes. He concluded by expressing his intention to vote for the amendment. Sir W. Molesworth, believing that the proposal of the Government was calculated to benefit the agriculturist in common with otl er interests of the country, would give it his si p. port. Mr. Bennett (Wilts) admitted that an abundant supply of food was dessirable, tmt corn could not be obtained from abroad wil hout displacing 255. worth of English labour 'or every quarter imported. He should oppose Ihe proposition of the Government. Mr. H. Berkely retaliated the charge of inconsistency, which Mr. P. Miles had broug rht against the free- trade converts on his own s 'do of the house, against the honourable member himself, as evinced in his conduct towards iis constituents. He (Mr. Berkely) should v >te for the proposal of Government. Mr. Tollemache attributed the prosperity which Sir Robert Peel had claimed, as a consequence of the tariff of 1842, to the effect of favourable harvests, the progress of railv ray schemes, and the imposition of the income t ax. Government had, doubtless, espoused their present policy honestly, but they ought to have appealed to the constituencies for the confirmation of their views. He should oppose the measure.

Mr. T. Duncombe animadverted upon ihe conduct of the Protectionist party, in vituperating the Government while they refrained from giving eflect to their censures by a vots of want of confidence. They charged Sir Robert Peel with treason. Treason to whom ? To [his Queen, to his country, or to himself? The only treason he could be guilty of was vacillationillation in the course he had elected. The rei suit of the elections in the West Riding and W ?stminster showed the tendency of public fee' ing upon this subject. The distmbances which had happened in the manufacturing districts during the year 1842 had been mentioned. Those disturbances might have been prevented by the earlier adoption of the present commercial policy of the Government. The people, however, were disposed to let bygones be bygones; and the best reparation the house could make 1 for past errors would be by passing without delay the present measure. The proposed alteration in the law of settlement was an important ijtem in the Government scheme, and could not De abandoned without the most mischievous efect. He did not ask it as a compensation to the agricultural interest, but as an act of jus tic 3 to the poor. The interests of all classes would be promoted, and the agricultural body not the least, by the measure proposed by Government, j Sir T. D. Acland had never been the advocate of high protective duties: he had supported | the tariff of 1842, recognising in that measure I the principle of protection, though at redi iced rates. This principle had uniformly been supported by the eminent statesmen who had governed the country, on the ground of its tendency to maintain our independence of fot eign supplies. Sir Robert Peel had disregarded this consideration. Why was not the original scl leme of opening the ports adopted ? After some discursive remarks, he expressed his intention to vote for the amendment. Lord A. Pa get supported the measure. Mr. B. Baring briefly supported the measure. On the motion of Mr. Cumming Bruc s the motion was adjourned.