The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-05-11 00:00:00

everal petiti

pie corn-
teration.

In reply to a question from Lord Ellenborough, the. Lolly
CHANcELLoRsaid, that nevvrules for proceedings in Chancery,
under a bill passed during the last session of parliament, were in
course of preparation, but he could not say when they would
be so far completed, as to be laid upon table of the house.
On the motion of the Earl of ROSEBERRY, the Scotch en-
tails amendment bill was read a second time.
The Duke of ARGYLL moved for leave to bring in a bill to
settle the question of church patronage in Scotland. The
motion was agreed to. and the bill having been read a first
time, the noble duke said he would not move the second
reading until the General Assembly should have an opportu-
nity of meeting and expressing an opinion on its provisions.
After some observations from the Earl of Aberdeen, the
Earl of Rosebery, Lord Dunfermline, and the Marquis of
Breadalbane, the house adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

Lord J. RUSSELL, in reply to a question from Mr. Walter,
said it was his intention to go on with the poor-law amend-
ment bill, though he might not be able to proceed with it on
the lith.

Mr. WALTER intimated that he should meet the bill, when
it was brought forward, with a specific motion.
In reply to a question from Mr. Hume, it was stated by
Lord J. RUSSELL that it was true Captain Elliott had been
recalled from Canton, and Sir H. Pottinger been appointed
in his room.

Air. HUME having moved for returns of the correspond-
ence between the British and American governments relative
to the destruction of the Caroline steam-boat, and of the cor-
respondence between the Governor-General of Canada and
the Colonial Secretary.

Lord J. RUSSELL -intimated that the production of the
papers would be prejudicial to the pending negotiations be-
tween the two governments.

Mr. HUME still persevered, and the house was about to
divide, when

Sir R. PEEL said that the production of the papers ought
not to be insisted upon, after a minister of the crown had in-
timated that their being produced might be prejudicial to the
interests of the country.
After some further conversation, Mr. HumE allowed the
motion to be negatived without a division.

Colonel StnTiiour, at considerable length, condemned the
appointment of Mr. Vizard as solicitor to the home depart-
ment, and moved a resolution to the effect that no sufficient
reason had been shown for the the appointment, and that it
was wholly unnecessary.

Mr. Fox MAULE defended the necessity of the appoint-
ment, owing to the increased business of the department,
arising from the number of bills which had been recently be-

public depa

or, ADC

it was not until the want of one was felt that the appointment
had been made.

Mr. C4OULBURN thought that a sufficient case had not been
made out for the appointment; but was of opinion that the
better time to take the objection would be when a vote was
brought forward in committee of supply for a salary for the
office.

Colonel SIBTHORP intimated that he would pursue the
course suggested by the right hon. member for the Univer-
sity of Cambridge, and withdrew his motion.
The house then adjourned.

HOUSE OF LORDS.-FRIDAY

The Earl of HAREWOOD presented several petitions against
the contemplated alteration in the sugar duties, and con-
tended that the reduction of the differential duties could be
considered in no other light than as an act of confiscation.
The Earl of MOUNTCASHEL, Lord LYNDHURST, and
Lord ELLENBOROUH presented petitions from Antigua, St.
Vincent's, and the Virgin Islands, praying that the same
protection as heretofore might be extended to our West
Indian colonies.

In reply to a question from Lord Ellenborougi

ViseOunt MELBOURNE said it was true that an intimation had
been sent out to China, to the effect that if a treaty was
concluded according to the preliminary articles sent to this
country, Rich treaty would not be satisfactory, nor could her
Majesty be advised to ratify it. This resolution was adopted
at home, and did not emanate from the Governor General of
India.

In reply to a question from the Duke of Wellington, the
noble viscounrsaid that Hong Kong had been taken posses-
sion of by the British forces.

In reply to another question from Lord Ellenborough, the
noble viscount said he did not know whether Chusan had
been evacuated or not, but orders were sent out that it should
be re-occupied if it had not been evacuated.
Earl FITZWILLIAM presented several petitions from
Leeds and other places, praying for an alteration of the corn
laws. The noble earl contended that every shilling which
was paid for corn in the market more than it would sell for if
the corn duties did not exist, was so much taken from the
rest of the community, to benefit the landlord. Every shil-
ling so obtained was a debt due from the landlord to the rest
of the people.
After some observations from Lord Ashburton, the Earl
of Wicklow, and the Earl of Falmouth,
The Duke of WELLINGTON denied that the corn laws had
been passed for any such object as that imputed—namely. of
raising the rents of the landlords, at the expense of the rest
of the community. The great object of the corn laws was to
encourage agriculture to such an extent as to make the pro-
duce equal to the consumption of the people, and thus ren-
der the country independent of foreign supply altogether.

The Earl of RADNOR said that the efleCt of the lav

whatever might be their object, was to put money into the

pockets of the landholder. In fact, every improyement in
agriculture must tend to benefit the landlord.
The Earl of WARWICK said that, in the great towns, the
principle upon which they supported the corn law repeal
agitation was in order to force a change in the currency upon
the country.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE defended the conduct of the
government in proposing an alteration of the corn laws, and
said there never was a measure brought forward by a govern-
ment with more of consideration and less of hurry than the
one which had been announced by his noble friend in another
place. •
Lord ELILENBOROUGH asked the noble marquis on what
day the Cabinet came to the resolution of bringing forward
a proposition for altering the corn-laws.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said be was not bound to
answer such a question, but he had no hesitation in saying
that it was not until after repeated consultations that the
resolve had been adopted ; nor was it at a very recent period.
After some further conversation the petition was laid on
the table, and their lordships adjourned.