HOUSE OF COMMONS.-July 6. STATE OF THE NATION.

New Zealander, Volume 5, Issue 379, 1 December 1849, Page 5

HOUSE OF COMMONS.- July 6. STATE OF THE NATION.

(Continued fiom the Ncw-Zeulander of November 10.) The debate upon Mi . Disraeli'i motion on the State of tlie Nation, adjourned the 2nd of July, was then resumed by Mr. Slaney, who opposed the motion, disputing some of the facts upon which it was bated. He denied that the working classes in our great manufacturing districts weie distressed ; consequently the cuuses to which Mr, Disraeli had nseiibed that distress must bo imaginary; and whilst Mi*. Slaney admitted that diiticss did exist in some <>gricultural districts, and that it had partly arisen fiom the large imports of foreign grain, he insisted that this was only one of the causes of the distress ; aud he dissented from the remedy rea'ly contemplated by the supporters of the motion— namely the reimposition of the Corn Law, and the railing of the prices of produce and of land. He denied that during the halcyon days of protection the labouring classes were in a better state ; and be contended that greater attention to the education, morals, an<l the health of those classei, whilst it improved their social condition, would gradually reduce onelialf local and others burdens, which he estimated at £50,1)00,000. Mr. G. Hamilton, in supporting the motion, confined himself to the state of Ireland — and, maintaining tlmt the evils of that country had been aggravated by the policy ot the Government, he entered at much length into the dctailb of that l>)licy, and of recent legislation For 1 1 eland, which was based upon principles alien from those applied to England. He observed that there wus n feeling amongst lurge classes in Ireland that the Government cnicrtained a kind of dislike to liish quewtions, and he accused them of » backwardness to meet the exigencies of that uufortunate country. Mr. Hume denied that any blame was imputable to the Government lor backwardness to alleviate Irish distress ; the Session had been almost one adjourned debate upon Irish questions, and all had been anxious to devise means of relief. Had the local authorities co-operated cordially with Parliament, things would huve taken a different course. lie explained why he had Hot moved the amendment of which he hud given notice, with reference to the financial condition of the nation, observing that us Mi. Disraeli had not announced who were to take the place of the prencnt Ministers, or what policy was to be pursued, he thought it might do mischief, and when lie had heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer* speech it seemed to him to be a complete answer to that of Mr. Disraeli. Thotiue cause of the distress of the country, which he did not d<ny, was excessive and unequal taxation ; ami whilst Mr. Hume expatiated upon the manner in which this taxation affected various interests, and upon the expedients he suggested for its equnlzition, and reduction, in the oscillations of his argumtnt, he was rewarded by occasional Protectionist cheers. The Earl of March took full advantage of the casual admissions of Mr. Hume, whose speech, he had remarl"' 1 - was replete with ied-hot Protectionist seuti-

ments. He acknowledged that Sir C. Wood had displayed great skill, but his speech would hate been more satitfactoiy had it been founded upon papers before the House ; and Lord March combated some of his facts and conclusion!. Sir R. Peel said it was not his intention to enter into the political questions raised by the motion ; the discussion of the state of Ireland, colonial policy and foreign policy in one speech, wou'd leave little time to consider the main point at iesuc that night, namely, shall the Government be displaced for the subversion of our present commercial policy ? Since the accossion of the Government, he observed, he had felt it lo be his duty to give to the great mnjority of their measures his general support, making great allowance for the difficulties they had to contend with at homo and abroad ; at the same time he wished it to be understood that all he implied by the vote he should give was that he approved of the general principles of commercial policy by which the Government had been guidedt and that he would not consent to a motion the direct or main object of which was to substitute tome other economic principles. He then proceeded to examine the giounds upon which Mr. Disraeli had impeached our present commercial policy, and whtther or no the new or at least different principles of econo* mic policy proposed to be substituted had any foundation in reason, or would contribute to the welfare or prosperity of the country. — Sir Robert shewed that no new principles had been introduced in 1846, which. Mr. Disraeli had selected as a point of comparison, nnd when he admitted the country was prosperous ; before the end of 1845 the amount of taxation reduced ; upon raw materials or articles of food was £5, 582,000 —and, if any evils had resulted from tho repeal of the Corn Law, they were not earlier than tho Ist February 1849 ; and he undertook to prove that the Freu-Trade tariff not only had not caused any one of the evils complained of by Mr. Disraeli, but on the contrary had greatly mitigated them. He then showed that, with the increase of imports there had been no diminution, as predicted, but a large increase of bullion— that the reduction of duty, increased importation, and greater cheapness of cotton, wool, dyestuffs, and other raw materials, instead of interfering with, stimulated domestic industry, whilst they augmented the material comforts of the labouring classes. The imports of manufactured goods, more than half of which wee re-exported, proved that this country, by its warehousing system, became an entrepot for other countries. Having disproved the supposed inability of contending with hostile tariffs by principles of Free Trade, Sir Robert pointed out the fallacy of Mr. DisraeJ' 1 ) inference from the apparent deficiency of £'6.500,000 in the declared value of the exportsaf 1848, compaied with that of 1845 and J 846— that the wot king classes received so much less in one year than in the other. Cheapness of materials diminished cost, and official value, he remarked, had no reference to quality, whereas declared value was regulated by it. He next considered the condition of the labouring classes— a most important element in the questionreading communications from the country which represented their condition as much improved , and ho shewed the inconclusiveneis of Mr. Disraeli's argument drawn from the increase of the Poor Rate. The impeachment of our commercial policy for the last five years, having entirely failed, Sir Robert netetheless proceeded to consider what was the policy proposed to be substituted, and this had been thus declared by Lord Stanley, "We must return to the principle of protection." Sir Robert assumed this to mean Legislative encouragement of domestic industry for the purpose of protection, not of revenue, which, he maintained, was a vicious principle. If the Legis* laturc required more to be paid for an article at home than it rould be got for abroad, it wus an interference with capital, and would diminish the annual income of the country. The doctrine that we should buy in tho cheapest market and sell in the dearest, was, he observed, neither new nor speculative ; and in spite of hostile tariffs, the true policy was to buy our raw materials in the cheapest market— -no mistake being so great as that of fighting such tariffs with countervailing duties. One of the consequences of the suo« cess of this motion would be the re-imposiion ot duties upon food ; and he could truly say, as an agi c ilturist, no boon could be more fatal to agriculture. By the policy adopted in 1842 the Legislature had gained the confidence and goodwill of all powerful classes and this country had been enabled to pass through storms which had convulsed other nations.— Sir Robert Peel concluded n long and powerful speech, bv a very solemn appeal to the [louse to reject the rrotl>n, and not to baiter the glorious heritnge it hnd obtained by a most timely policy for a consideration smaller, more sordid, and more worthless than any since thi days of him who sold his birthright for a moss of pottage. The Marquis of Granby, after controverting some of thr positions of Sir R. Peel, went at on<« to the most important part of the question — the condition of the Inborn er ; and he shewed, from a record of wages in Manchester in 1845 and 1849, that they had been reduced in every speoies of manufacture, without au equivalent in the fall of prices. He defended tic argument which Mr. Disraeli had founded upon the falling off in the declared value of our exports ; — he cited evidence of the actual diminution of demand and employment in the manufacturing districts; and ho vindicated the couutrv gentlemen agniibt the Chancellor of tho Exchequer's charge, that they desired t> mainiain their renU at the expense of the labouring ellipses. Lord J. Rus^pll, addressing himself in the first instamu to the argument founded by the mover upon the Foor Rates, pointed out the incormistencey of that argument, and threw a more cheering light upon tint part of the subject by a recent return, whence it appeared that ihe expenditure had greatly diminished, and the condition, even of the agricultural labourers had improved. With reference to a notice given by Mr. Mi-rues, to move for a fixed duty on corn, ha admitted that, however true weio the principles of Free Trade, ciicuinstanoes might justify a moderate fixed duty up<>n that article ; but when suoh a propo* aitiou w. q made, at a time when it would havo boen n wise and generous concision, it ws>B clamorously and portinaeioii' 1 " - 1 ■ who now advoouted

such 8 duty. L'ir.l J«hn confirmed ilifi statements o Kir C. Wood respecting the revival of drm.md, activity ( in the ninmifnclurina; district*, nnd the augmented consumpti mi «f vnrioiis articles, which proved tlmi the people had gi cuter roiiiiiuuid ol th« means of comfort and enjoyment ; and h" < (included with a general defence of the measures nnd policy of the Govminicnt, which had been successful at homo, and hid tended to iiiocrve peace abroad. Mr. Muntz pnlered into gome details o\pl ina>ory of a former speeeli, leferred to by Sir 11. IVel. Aftfr a leply from Mr. Disraeli— full vi' vivaicty, point, nnd sitrcnsm, The House divided, when the motion wns negativedbj' VD6 against 156 — a majority of MO.