The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1838-06-26 00:00:00

NEW ZEALAND.

Mr. F. BA RING moved the second reading of the New Zealand
bill. The bon. gentleman went into a lengthened statement of
the object of the company with reference to which this bill was
framed. The company's object was to purchase lands in New
Zealand, and to improve the country. He blamed the govern-
ment for not having granted a charter to the company. He
concluded by moving the second reading of the New Zealand
bill.

Sir G. GREY should vote against the bill ; and he begged leave
to move, as an amendment, that the bill should be read a second
time that day six months.
Mr. H AWES said, the conduct of government showed a change
of opinion which was scarcely consistent•with good faith. He
had himself heard the noble lord (Lord Howick) say, it was
not his wish to throw cold water on the project. He understood
those words as conveying a sanction, and he was very much
surprised to see the government now opposing the measure.
Mr. GLADSTONE opposed the bill. It was a .subject which
required more consideration than they could give to it at the
preSent period of the session.

Mr. NTA RD said. the house ought to suffer the bill to be read
a second time, and that her majesty's government ought to be
the last persons to oppose it.
Lord How ICK said, he had some cause to complain of the
manner in which his acquiescence to the measure had been
stated. If he had given the slightest assent to the measure, he
should have been the last man to stand up in that house and
deny it. Each clause of the bill seemed, if possible, more mon-
strous than the oth-r. It was one mass of inconsistency from
first to last. His hope was, that the house would not proceed
with a bill so defective.

Sir WALTER JAMES would oppose the second reading of the
bill. lie did not think that the functions of government should
be taken away from the native chiefs.
Mr. VILLIERS thought the doctrines put forth against the
second reading of the bill were most extraordinary. Nothing
had been advanced during the debate which should prevent the
noble lord from allowing the bill to go into committee.
Mr. GouLBURN thought that colonization ought always to be
carried o❑ under the superintendence, and subject to the con-
trol, of government. Extraordinary power ought not to be
given to private individuals. The question was not one of
detail, but of principle.
Mr. P. HOWARD supported the second reading of the bill.
Lord SANDON opposed the bill.
Mr. PEASE thought the bill interfered too much with the
independent rights of the people of New Zealand.
Mr. BARING replied.
The house then divided, and the numbers were—For the
second reading, 32; against it, 92; majority against thesecond
reading, 60.

THE COPYRIGHT RILL.
On the question, that the copyright bill be taken into further
consideration, Mr. GLADsToNE expressed a hope that the hon.
and learned member (Sergeant Talfourd) would postpone the
bill to the next session.

After a little conversation, the hon. and learned gentleman
postponed the bill.

Sir E. SUGDEN remarked, that there were several other bills
lying on the table; and he wished that the hon. members who
introduced them would follow the example of the hon. and
learned member,and withdraw them.

Mr. SMITH O'ButEN said, that he, as the mover of one of
those bills—the sheriffs' (Ireland) bill, would withdraw it.—
(Hear.)

OBSERVANCE OP THE SABBATH BILL.
Mr. PLUNIPTRE moved, that the bill fur the better observance
of the Sabbath be re-committed.
Mr. WA RD said, that after the excellent example which had
been just set, he thought the hon. member ought to withdraw
his bill.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL, concurred in the request of the
hon, member for Sheffield. The bill before the house was, in
fact, uo more than a repetition of the present law on the sub•
jest, merely increasing the penalties. Would any hon. member
say, that the mere increase of the penalty would be effectual, or
where a penalty of five shillings was at present, though specified
by the law, not levied, would a penalty of twenty shillings be
more rigorously exacted ?
M r. PLUIVIPTR6 said, the bill would only prohibit idle drinking
and tippling.
Mr. IiAwES concurred with the hon. member for Sheffield.
He thought that, by the exemption clauses, all public-houses
would be closed. But was the hon. member just ? Would he
shut up the club-houses ? (Hear.) "Am I," said the hon.
member, " prevented from attending the club-house which I
, may change to OL.i.sibOaelflare.kladihen by the
to will be closed by this bill, and Chat no man can drink there
without being liable to committal for tipling.
Mr. GOULBURN said, that, the hon. member certainly ought
not to argue that the same laws should be enforced with respect
to club-houses and public-houses.
Captain PECHELL said, the hon. member, he thought, ought
to introduce an exception in favour of the lauding of fish on a
Sunday.
Mr. WARD said, that, although he had already on that night
expressed hiS opposition to the bill, he had not formally made
the motion which he intended to make. He should then, there-
fore, move that the bill be read again that day three months.
Mr. JEItVIS seconded the motion. He said that he, in com-
mon
with every member of the house, gave credit to the hon.
member for Kent for the honesty of his motives; but he thought
the legislation he was introducing most impolitic. He had
expected that the hon. member would have brought in some
measure to prevent some specific acts. Such had been the
advice of the hon. member for Tamworth ; but the honourable
member, on the contrary, had brought in a general measure,
and then sought to guard it by specific exemptions. The effects
of this bill would be most prejudicial. What would become of
furnaces, should it cot be permitted that they should be kept hot
on the Lord's day, and should the lahour of many previous days
in heating them be frustrated ? Should mining operations also
be suspended on that day ? By this bill bakers would be pre-
vented front working on a Sunday; and thus, while one baker
would be prevented from viola:frig the Sabbath, the wives of 20
or 30 men would be prevented front dressing themselves and
going to church, as they would have to do what would otherwise
be done at the baker's.

Sir E. SUGDEN thought that bakers would not be prevented
from doing their customers' business by the bill on the Lord's
day.
Mr. GnoTE said, the objections which he entertained towards
the previous Sabbath bills applied to the present measure.
Mr. A. WHITE said he should vote for the re-committal of
the bill.
Strangers were ordered to withdraw, and the house divided :
the numbers were—for the re-committal, 75 ; against it, 53.
The house then went into committee on the bil. After a pro-
tracted and desultory discussion, no progress being made with
the measure before the committee, it was resolved to report
progress.
The house adjourned at half-past two o'clock.

HOUSE OF LORDS.—THURSDAY.
Earl STANHOPE presented a petition from the 'Guardians of
the Poor Law Union of St. George's, Southwark, against the
new Poor Law. Also a similar petition from Ashton•under-
Lyne. In presenting this petition the noble earl said, it was
not true, as had been stated, that the Rev. Mr. Stephens, of
that town, had used inflammatory language in regard to the
Poor Law. The noble and learned lord opposite (Lord
Brougham) had used language more inflammatory, if not trea-
sonable language, (Laughter.) It is quite untrue that I ever'
made an inflammatory harangue to the people of Birmingham,
as it has been stated. I never stopped in that great town longer
than to change horses; nor did I ever saw, as it has been im-
puted to me, that I hope to see the day when the heads of kings
should be made footballs for little boys to kick along the streets.
(Loud laughter.) I leave to your lordship to say, whether this
is my usual way of expressing myself on any subject.
Lord LYNDHURST asked whether any account had been re-
ceived of the burning of a British steamer on the St. Lawrence,
by way of retaliation.
Lord MELBOURNE answered, that, as yet, he had received no
official account.

Lord GOSFORD presented a petition from the Bishop, Vicars-
General, and others cf the Catholic Clergy of the District of
Quebec, expressing regret at the outrages which had been coin•
mitted in Lower Canada, and hoping, that the acts of a small
part of the population would not expose the whole to punish-
ment. His lordship added, that, when the petitioners stated it
was only a small portion of the inhabitants who were tainted
with disloyally, he could bear testimony to the truth of the
statement. The petitioners also stated, that they would view
with abhorrence a legislative union between the two provinces,
and in that respect also he thought them right.
Lord BROUGHAM said, he hoped he should have the support
of the noble earl, if he should call upon their lordships to avail
themselves bf a clause in the Canada Bill enabling the Legisla-
ture to repeal the bill in the present session, and that the "dic-
tatorial mission" which had been sent out to Canada, where the
inhabitants appeared to he so loyal, should be repealed.
The report of the Irish Poor Law Bill was brought up. The
bill was subsequently recommitted, and, after going through a
number of clauses, the committee reported progress.
Lord GLENEIG, in reply to a question from Lord Brougham,
confirmed the accounts received respecting the determination of
the Legislatures of Barbados and other West India Islands to
abolish the apprenticeship system in August next; and his lord-
ship stated, that a similar resolution was about to be proposed
by the Legislative Council of Jamaica.—Adjourned.

OUSE OF COMMONS ---TnuasnAy.
of Vi
merchantssc ount S A NaDor,iNd:lrires,•estit:-rd
Liverpool,at t fromio referenceil U rne fn Utso b ot dhye-
foreign commerce of this country, u, from the low tone of
voice in which the noble lord spoke, he was inaudible in the
gallery.
Mr. O'CoNNELL, seeing the Under Secretary for the Colonies
in his place, would ask him, first, whether any report had reached
him from the island of Barbados, and, if so, whether it was
trite that the legislature- of that colony had passed an r.ct by
which corn plete emancipation was to be given to the negro ap-
prentices from the first of August, 1838; and secondly, whether
there was any probability that any other of the Blitisb colonies
would follow the eXanapie uhir6ha,l keen set them ?
Sir Ghoiros: GRAY had much satisfaction in stating, tHt
the mail arrival that day, he had received an tre,,,!,„;,'
Ilarbadoc, that the legislature in that (4.1,4,, had ,„ ..rent
by which coinplete and unqualified freedom hadl:"e° a" art
the negro apprentices of
(t(h.ha,t,t,;,)l)lnsw' beau grahted to
rh:ri.nsitnhletiar account from
next. - (Cheers) Ile had also receited a • -! first AUgust
the colony of St. Kit I's,—
had beet) adopted which, no doubt, b 1 It re,-;,"e" u,iioos"d been
in an act, to the same effect, (chriet,L)" The accounts he had
where embodied
recuived from the Wcst Indies aiFo lel.. blot confidently 10 6c;_

lieve, that the other colonies would very probably follow the
example. (Cheers.) In Jamat:.!a the legislative assembly had
been called together on the of the present mouth, for the
purpose of carr)itor so desirable an object. into effect. The
governor had, however, previously submitted resolutions to the
council, allhough not in their legislative capacity, and he was
happy to say, that every member of that body was of opinion,
that such a measure would be conducive to the best interests of
society. (Hear, hear, hear !) After debates ou several other
ins tiers,

Sir S. CANNING moved fur the appointment of a select com-
mittee on the subject of the seizure of the Vixen.
A long discussion followed, and the motion was ultimately
lost by a r.•,.jurity of 16-200 to 181; majority 16. The an-
nouncement was loudly cheered. The house adjourned at 20
minutes pas one.