The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-03-17 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-TuURSDAY.

A great number of petitions on various subjects were pre-
sented. A new writ was ordered for the borough of Wood-
stock, in the room of the Marquis of Blandford, now Duke
of Marlborough. _ _ _

PRIVILEGE.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL presented a petition from Mr. Han-
sard, stating that he had been served with a new writ of in-
quiry for damages, and praying for the protection of the
house.
The petition was read at length by the clerk from the table
of the house.
Sir W. FOLLETT asked if there was not another action ?
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said another action had certainly
been commenced, and the venue laid in Hertfordshire.
The Sergeant-at-Arms stated that four of the officers of
the house, namely—Charles Stein, William Bellamy, J. Lead,
and John Mitchell, had been served with notices of action on
the behalf of Mr. Burton Howard. A writ had been issued
against the Deputy-Sergeant, but it had not been served.
On the suggestion of Lord John Russell, the Sergeant-at-
Arms and the messengers were ordered to hand in these
notices.
Mr. WOODHOUSE gave notice, that unless Dr. Bowring's
report on the continental commercial league were presented
this week, he should move that it be presented forthwith.
(Hear.)' The hon. member also gave notice of a question to
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with regard to the exclusion
of the bills of exchange from the inquiry into the banking
system ; also respecting the £1 notes in Scotland and Ireland.
Mr. EASTHOPE gave notice that, soon after Easter, he
would move that dissenters be relieved from the payment of
church-rates.

..__._
Mr. Humz gave notice that, this day fortnight, he would
move that the pension of £21,000 to the King of Hanover be
suspended while he remained sovereign of that state. (Hear.)
The hon. member also postponed his motion relative to the
Turkish question till that day fortnight.

WAR WITH CHINA.

Mr. M`KINNON begged to ask the noble lord whether the

government were aware that the governor-general had de-
clared war against China, as reported ?
Lord J. RUSSELL said the government were not in pos-
session of official information of any act amounting to a
declaration of war. Directions had been given by the go-
vernment to the governor-general to make certain prepara-
tions ; and although no official intelligence had been recived,
no doubt those preparations had given rise to the report.
He spoke, however, only from conjecture; he had no official
information whatever. _

Sir R. PEEL---Supposing that the report were to prove
true, and that a declaration of war had been made, he would
like to put a few questions to the government. Ist. Sup-
posing such a war were made, was it to be carried on on
account of this country, and at the expense of the United
Empire? 'idly. Whether, supposing the report were true,
it was the intention of her majesty's governikent to bring
down any message to parliament announcing their intention
to resort to hostilities ?
Lord PALMERSTON apprehended that any communication
which might take place with the government of China,
would be carried on by the authority of, :cud in the name of,
the Queen of Great Britain. Whatever assistance might be
afforded by the governor-general to us in any operations that
might take place against China, would be lent to this country,
and would not be on the account of the East India Company.
It was not the intention of the government to bring down
any message to the house upon the matter.
Sir R. PEER had said, supposing that war was proclaimed,
in that event he wished to inquire whether any formal mes-
sage would be sent down ? •
Lord PALMERSTON.—The communications which would
take place between this country and the government of
China would take place in the name of the sovereign of Great
Britain, and not cn account of the East India Company.
(Laughter.)
Sir U. PEEL.—III the case of wat entered into by the
Indian government, and on its own account, he could under-
stand why there should be no message, because it would be
ruled by precedent. But in the case of a war entered into
on account of the British government, at the charge of the
British crown, and in the name of her majesty—such being
the state of things, he apprehended that the house ought to
have some formal notice of it.
Lord PALMERSTON had used the word " communications,"

not the word "hostilities." (Laughter.)
Mr. PALMER begged to ask whether the instructions sent
alt to the governor-general of India differed from those
which had been sent to Sir F. Maitland ?
Lord PALMERSTON'S reply was inaudible.
Mr. IlmutrEs said the noble lord had laid upon the table
certain documents relative to the communications that had
taken place between the governor and the parties claiming
compensation for the opium destroyed. None of these papers
came down later than the 13th of June, 1839, and he wished
to know whether there were any additional documents on the
subject to be laid before the house. He also wished to know
if there were any further documents with respect to the
instructions sent out from that country to the British super-
intendent at China ?
Lord PALMERSTON said all the communications that had
taken place between the parties claiming compensation and
the government, had been laid on the table. With regard to
the other question, all papers which had been called for by
the motion, and everything bearing upon the question had
been laid on the table.

LAW REFORM.

Mr. AGLIONBY said it had been intimated that certain law
reforms were about to be introduced, and among the rest
that two new judges were to be appointed to the Court of
Chancery. He begged to ask the noble lord whether the
reform was to be limited to the appointment of these two
judges.
Lord J. RUSSELL could hardly give an answer to the
question without anticipating the statement which would
shortly be made by his noble friend the Lord Chancellor, on
introducing the bill in the other house.