The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-02-12 00:00:00

bowed and ret

aces frOm the house he met Mr

Braham, and thus colloquiied him :—/Ifr. Smythe. I have
done myself the honour of calling upon you, sir, as in duty
bound.—Mr. Brahma. I esteem the honour, sir; good
Smythe., By the way, Mr. Bra-
in a very vulgar kitchen

morning :iretiring.) M'J _
ham, I was received at your ho
maid

Ur. Brahatn

why, sir, it was m

PROSP/

we were to

now " in eve, y

s mouth

ier for her very great impertinence to
Received! (and then unconsciously)
fel l!—Era.

almost imm

—We should do wrong if
rt—which, as they say, is

—that ministers intend an
arliament. We, of course,
and can only speak to the
ig, however, at the present
rounded on every side, and
h difficulties and dangers. we should
not wonder if they endeavoured to relieve themselves, for a
iil (

now nothing

currency of the rum(

.s of the c

,sed at hor

general election,
them, and perhaps
They had better go
3 diffuie light and order over
;ness in which both public and
•ed.—Times.

, the successful candidate at the
id Mr. Antrobus, the conser-
•y, are both members of St.
ty, and took their degrees so
fast year.—Cambridge Chronicle.

-On Saturday evening last, a
ween this town and Gloucester,
putting a large clinker, weigh-
the line ; fortunately the train,
1 just passed about two Minutes
consequences" might have been

atchrnan
!tected t

ngupward,, c

vitp nearly 60

...xness of the night, we fear the
ole 0 identify the villains.—Chellen-

before its usual time, pr
,dreadful. Owing to til.
watchman will not be al
I,4ane Examiner.

fluptrial Varlianunt.

HOUSE OF LORDS-MONDAY

The LORD CHANCELLOR brought down a mexsage from
her Majesty, requesting that parliament would enable her to
make provision for Lord Keane and his two next heirs, as a
recompense for his services in India.

In reply to a question from the Earl of MOUNTCASHEL,
relative to the detention and intended trial of Mr. M`Leod.,
in New York, as one of the party engaged in the destruction
of the Caroline steam-vessel,
Lord MELBOURNE said a correspondence had taken place
between Mr. Fox and the American minister on the subject,
in the course of which Mr. Forsyth, the American minister.
said it was a matter pertaining entirely to the state of New
York, and in which the federal government could not inter-
fere: He could not state what course the government would
pursue, but. the house might rely that British subjects should
be protected, and the honour of the British nation main-
tained.
• Their lordships soon after adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—MONDAY.
A new writ was issued for the borough of Richmond, York-
shire, in the room of A. Speirs, Esq., who has accepted the
Chiltern Hundreds.

Lord STANLEY having, in a most lucid manner, stated the
circumstances which led to the arrest of Mr. M`Leod, in
New York, on the charge of being a party engaged in the

the noble secretary for foreign affairs, whether, as a corres-
pondence on the subject of the loss of the Caroline had taken
place between the government of the United States and that
of Great Britain, as far back as 1838, he had any objection
to lay that correspondence on the table ; whether he had re-

ceived any despatches from Mr. Fox, containing the commu-
nications referred to by Mr. Fox in his letter to Mr. Forsyth,
recently published; and whether any, and if any, what steps
had been taken to afford protection to Mr. M`Leod ; and if
there was any objection to lay the correspondence upon this
subject also on the table of the house?
Lord PALMERSTON said that the noble lord bad adverted
with great discretion to a subject so delicate in its nature as
to require beinc, touched upon, if at all; with great reserve.
It was not expedient to lay the correspondence on the subject
on the table of the house under existing circumstances. Her
Majesty's government had received despatches from Mr. Fox
within the last few days, enclosing the correspondence which
had taken place between that gentleman and Mr. Forsyth ;
and as it had been already published in America, he had no
objection to lay copies on the table. It was important to
state that, according to the information he had received, Mr.

M'Leod was not one of the party engaged in the destruction
of the Caroline. With respect to the ground taken by Mr.

in his letter to Mr.' Poi, he would say that theAme-
man government had already treated the transaction as a
matter to be discussed between the two governments. Un-
der all the circumstances, however, he thought it desirable to
avoid discussion on the subject.
Lord STANLEY observed - ' ' ' I had

Fors'yti

that the noble lot% not an-
swered one question—namely, what steps had been taken for
the liberation of Mr. 111‘Leod.

Lord PALMERSTON replied, that a somewhat similar case
in principle occurred about eighteen months or two yeais
back, in reference to which instructions were sent to Mr. Fox.

Mr; HUME asked if no reply had been returned to the
American government, which had, in 1838, applied to ascer-
tain if the enterprise was to be considered as undertaken by
the sanction of the British government ?
Lord PALMERSTON said he was informed that instructions
had been sent by the American government to Mr. Steven-
son not to press for a reply. He added, that the American
government, having once admitted that it was a matter of
international law, could not now change its ground.
Sir R. PEEL asked whether some British officers had not
received wounds in the affair of the Caroline, and whether
they had not since received pensions as if those wounds had
been received in the regular service of her Majesty.
Lord J. RUSSELL said one officer was wounded, but he
could not say whether he had received a pension.
Mr. O'CoNNuLt. said the house ought to come to some
determination, that as Mr. M`Leod was acting under a British
officer, his life should be saved. They should come to a re-
solution that they were willing to assist the Government in
any steps it might . take to save him

In reply to a question from Sir R. Peel, Lord PALMER-
STON said that the differences between the court of Great
Britain snd that of Persia had not been adjusted, nor had the
relations between the two countries been renewed.

Lord STANLEY brought in the Registration:of Voters (Ire-
land) Bill, which was read a first time, and ordered for se-
cond reading on Wednesday, the 24th instant.
Lord J. RUSSALL moved the second reading of the Poor
Law Amendment Bill.

Mr. D'ISRAELI, in moving that it be read a second time
that day sir months, condemned the bill as an outrage on the
manners of the people of England, and no financial considera-
tion should be suffered to weigh against such an evil. By the
Poor Law Bill the constitution of England had been destroyed
for sordid considerations, and they had the melancholy re-
flection that even those sordid considerations had not been
realised.

Mr. WAKLEY said that the object of the first part of this
bill was to continue for ten years the power of the commis-
sioners, and the second part was to give them power to do
whatever they pleased. The object of the poor law, recog-
nised by the Parliament of England, was that no distinction
should be made in the treatment of the poor on the ground
of merit. The noble lord (Lord J. Russell) said the object
was that no person should be allowed to starve. That was
all that the liberals, who supported the noble lord, would do.
They would not allow the poor to starve—whip them twice a
fortnight—torture them at pleasure—imprison them always
—and clothe them, because poor, in a uniform which de-
grades them; and this was what the liberal side of the house
was willingto inflict upon the poor. He appealed from them
to the great conservative party in the house, to come forward
and rescue the working men of England from the grasp of
these political economists. He appealed to them, because
the aristocracy of England.were the natural leaders of the
people. He was aware that what he was saying would be dis-
pleasing to those who sought for the repeal of the corn laws,
in• order to have bread cheap, though they well knew that
wages were always relative. The hon. member proceeded to
condemn the Poor Law Bill as a cold-blooded, mercenary
act,, ferocious and savage in principle, calculated to inflict
misery and torture upon the deserving poor of this country,
and to stimulate the muscle and bone of England to resist the
decrees of Parliament.

Mr. G. KNIGHT feared that the hon. member for Finbury
would have no reason to congratulate himself on his appeal
to the conservative side of the house. For his own part he
viewed as senseless clamour all the attacks made on the sys-
tem of centralisation, and congratulated the noble lord on
introducing the bill to the house.

Mr.' Burg was of opinion that the noble lord would never
be able to procure respectable gentlemen to carry out such an
obnoxious measure as this, unless he materially altered its
clauses in committee. The powers given by this bill were
unconstitutional, but he should reserve his further observa-
tions upon it until it went into committee. •

Mr.-Mosrz said his great objection to the poor-law was,
that it made no distinction between the industrious man and
the idle and dissolute beggar. The poor house instead of
being a place to relieve the poor, was turned into a bugbear
to frighten away the very parties who ought to be the first re-
lieved. •

Sir R. PEEL supported the second reading of the bill. There
were two grounds of consideration upon which the question
must be viewed. The first was whether they should adhere
to or abandon this great experiment altogether ; the second,
whether they should, or should not have, in the event of the
continuance of the law, a central board for the direction of
the unions throughont the kingdom. For his own part he
had never supported the poor-law amendment bill on the
ground of diminution-of expenditure, but from the experi-
ence of evils which were entering into the vitals of the consti-
tution, and the remedy for which, he thought, admitted of no
delay. In considering this subject, people were too apt to
forget what was the state of things before the passing of the
poor-law bill. The right hon. gentleman then adverted to
the evidence taken before the committee of 1834 on the state
of the poor, in order ta show the state of distress and demo-
ralisation which prevailed amongst the labouring classes of
society, and observed that the hon. member for Finsbury
might have addressed his inflammatory speech with equal
effect in reference to those suffering under the altered sys-
tem. He should be very sorry, after a short experiment of
five years, to abandon a grekt measure like this, and would,
therefore, give his vote for the second reading, reserving his
right to judge of the policy of the clauses when in committee.
He doubted the policy of continuing the power of the com-
missioners.for ten years ; indeed he thought, there would be
practical advantage in knowing that, at the end of five years,
the subject must be again brought under the consideration of
parliament. The right hon. baronet also objected to the
clause authorising burying places adjoining the workhouses,
and reminded the house that every outrage to the feelings of
the poor gave an additional weapon to those who were dis-
posed to attack the law itself. He was also of opinion that
the principle of extended unions was already'carried too far,
an evil which gave opportunities of abuses that might not
take place were the unions more limited, and consequently
more immediately under the cognisance of the poor-law gaur-
diens. .

Lord Howrex was gratified to find that after all that had
been said in the press and at public dinners respecting the
poor law. amendment bill, yet not one single member of that
house had ventured to recommend a return to the old sys-
tem of administering .relief .to the poor. The noble lord
defended the existing law, and contended that it was sound
policy to extend the power of the commissioners for ten
years, nor should he object to make it permanent.
Mr. DARBY could not look upon the bill as any improve-
ment whatever. It contained nothing in the shape of ame-
lioration of the severities .of the existing law. He thought
if a labour test were applied instead of a workhouse test,
they would find it.a very great improvement. and much more
satisfactory to the. people. _

. .
;Mr. W. ATTWOOD opposed the second reading of the bill,
seeing that nothing in the shape of amelioration in the ex-
isting law was to be expected, but that it was to be carried
out with all the harshness which characterised its provisions.
The only alternative, therefore, left to him was to. oppose
the bill altogether.

After a iew observations. from . Mr. RICE and Sir E
FILMER,

Mr. LANGDALE gave notice that in committee he should
move a clause to. prevent the. paupers from being confined in
the workhouse,. so as to. prevent. them from attending their
respective places of .worship on Sundays.
Mr. FIELDEN. sai' he .should not only oppose the bill in
its present stage, hut would .take.every occasion to obstruct,
and, if possible,. defeat it in its various stages in passing
through the house. .

Lora J. Russ.ELL, in reply, said in reference to making
hard labour a test. instead of, the.workhouse, that it was a
matter which could.only be judged of by experience. That
was not the time to discuss it, but he would say that, how-
ever desirable. it might be, he.believed experience was against
the efficacy of a labour. test. There was, he contended, a
great fallacy in speaking of. the present law pressing severely
on the poor' for on the contrary. it .had effected a material
change for the better. in their condition .since the abuses of
the old law were done away with.. With, respect to the sug-
gestion of the right bon. Bart. (Sir R, .Peel, for limiting the
power of the commissioners to a power of five years, he
should be extremely sorry to see it adopted by the house, as
while it could confer. no practical, benefit, it would tend to
weaken the power and authority. of the. commissioners.
On a division the second reading was carried by. a majority
of 201 to 54. The house adjourned. .

HOUSE OF LORDS.—TUESDAY.
Certain correspondence relative to idolatry in India was,
on the motion of the Bishop of LoNnox, ordered to be
printed.
The Queen's message for conferring some signal mark of
favour on Lord Keane was taken into consideration, and,
after very eulogistic speeches frOm Lords DIELUOURNE and
ELLENBOROUGHt was agreed to.