The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-03-24 00:00:00

PORTUGUESE CLAIMS.

... _ _
Lord SANDON wished to ask the noble lord the secretary
for the foreign department, if there was any intelligence from
parliament which might show that the case of the Portuguese
claimants would be settled at an early period ?
Lord PALMERSTON said that he had lately appointed a
gentleman to become a member of the commission who had
to decide on the subject, but that gentleman had declined
the office, and he had not yet been able to appoint any one to
replace him.
Lord SANDON said he hoped that the commissioner in
question might soon be appointed, and that the interests of
the claimants might not be trifled with.
Lord PALMERSTON said that the first appointment he had
made was a bond fide one.
Lord SANDON wished that the noble lord might fix a time
within which he could complete the commission.
Lord PALMERSTON said that it was impossible for him to
fix a day for the purpose, out he could assure the noble lord
that he was in earnest upon the subject. (A laugh.)

STEAM NAVIGATION.
Sir T. COCHRANE wished to ask the right hon. gentleman
opposite, the president of the board of trade, when he in-
tended to proceed with the bill relative to steam navigation.
Mr. LABOUCHERE said that there were a great many diffi-
culties in that measure which had necessarily led to its delay ;
but he was in hopes of proceeding with it shortly.
Mr. Hurr called attention to the Stade Duties, and con-
cluded with moving the following resolution (which contains
an epitome of the hon. member's speech) :—" That it is the
opinion of this house that the tolls now levied upon British
ships and cargoes in the river Elbe, by the authority of the
King of Hanover, under the name of Stade Duties, are of
doubtful legality, oppressive in amount, and highly vexatious
in the mode of exaction; and that it is, therefore, incumbent
upon her
.Majesty's Government to take the steps necessary
for procuring relief from imposts so injurious to the general
interests of the country."
Lord PALMERSTON said that the government had resorted
to negotiations with Hanover on the subject ; these negotia-
tions are still pending, and he therefore recommended the
hon. member to withdraw his motion, assuring him the
government would endeavour to accomplish the objects
which he desired.
The motion, after some discussion, was accordingly with-
drawn.
On the motion of Lord TEIGNMOUTII, and on a division,
the petition of Benjamin Mills was ordered to be referred to
a committee.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER nominated the
banking committee, and proposed that it should consist of
the following members. :—Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer,
Sir Robert Peel, Mr. Hume, Mr. Labonchere, Mr. Goul-
burn, Mr. Mark Phillips, r. O'Connell, Sir James Gra-
ham, Mr. Clay, Mr. Gisborne, Sir John Rae Reid, Mr.
Os-
wald, Mr. Charles Wood, Mr. Rickford, Mr. John Parker,
Mr. Pattison, Mr. Herries, Mr. Ellice, Mr. Sergeant Jack-
son, Mr. Hector, Mr. Grote, Sir Thomas Freemantle, Mr.
John Abel Smith, Mr. Strutt, Mr. Matthias Attwood, Mr.
Morris:. ,1/46.c.vd tv.
It was proposed to add other members, but after much
desultory discussion the several additional names were with-
drawn.

Toe CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved that the
committee be "secret," which was opposed by Mr. Hume
and other members, but carried by 33 ayes, 23 noes—majo-
rity in its favour, 10.
Lord MOaPETH obtained leave to bring in a bill " for the
suppression of mendicancy in Ireland."
The other business being disposed of, and the orders of
the day advanced a stage, the house adjourned.

HOUSE OF LORDS.—Fainav,
The Earl of ROSEBERY, on presenting petitions from Stir-
ling, for the immediate and entire abolition of the corn laws,
observed that he thought the evils of which the petitioners'
complained were grossly exaggerated. The total abolition
of the corn laws, he considered, would be a fearful shock to
landed and all other property, and would produce most in-
jurious consequences to the labouring population. He
thought, however, that a change might be made which would
benefit the commercial and manufacturing classes, without
injuring the agricultural. The great inconvenience of the
present system was its uncertainty. A lower and fixed scale
of duties would prevent fluctuations, which were equally in-
jurious to the agricultural and commercial classes.
Lord ASHBURTON observed, without desiring to cause
discussion on petitions, that he was by no means favourable
to the present law on its introduction, but that it was hardly
possible to conceive any artificial system that could work
more perfectly. His lordship submitted that there had been
less fluctuation in this country than in any other part of the
world. Seeing the great quantity imported, it was matter of
surprise to see how fully that supply had been brought in.
When gentlemen talked of the dangers of fluctuation, they
seemed to forget that the price of food, above all other arti-
cles, was that which necessarily varied to a great extent in
price. When the law was introduced, it was calculated that
the average price would be 605.; if they looked carefully to
the prices at different periods, it would be found that it fre-
quently had not amounted to that average, while in seasons
of the greatest scarcity the whole extent of the advance was
from 60s. to 665. If they looked to other parts of the world,
they would find that the fluctuation had been more conside-
rable. And as to the corn laws having produced the present
difficulties regarding the currency, he contended that no re-
presentation could be more fallacious.
After receiving various other petitions, their lordships ad.
Journed till Monday.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—FRIDAY.
Many Petitions on various subjects were presented.
Mr. PAKINGTON, in order that Lord Stanley might intro-
duce his registration (Ireland) bill, deferred till the 26th
inst., the second reading of his beer bill.
Mr. MACKINNON said that he should on an early day
move for correspondence respecting the emigration of the
Hill Coolies.
Lord J. RUSSELL having moved the order of the day for
the third reading of the printed papers bill.
Mr. T. S. DUNCOMBE presented a petition from John
Joseph Stockdale, praying for the discharge of Howard and
Pearce ; and that he might be heard at the bar against the
third reading of the bill.
The petition was read at the table by the clerk.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that he thought that the petition
was really intended as an insult to the house; he, therefore,
suggested that it would be better to withdraw it.
Mr. DUNCOMBE replied that he really did not know what
passage in the petition could be considered an insult to the
house. He wished the noble lord to mention what passage
be considered to be an insult. He had read the petition, as
be considered himself in a certain degree responsible fdr the
language of the petitions he presented being respectful, and
he declared that he thought there was nothing improper in
the petition. There were a few quotations from Scripture
in it, but surely the noble lord could not object to them.
Lord J. RUSSELL observed that he considered the whole
of the petition a species of " defiance" of the house, and
that he should, therefore, oppose its reception.
Sir R. INGLIs said, as far as he could collect, the only
objection was, that the petition contained certain portions of
scripture which might or might not apply to the house, and
which " the gentlemen opposite" seemed to consider appli-
cable to themselves. The petitioner virtually stated that he
had been unjustly confined—an expression as mild as could
be expected from a person incarcerated in Newgate. The
hon. baronet said that here with character he had nothing to
do. He believed that a person had been imprisoned unjustly
for having endeavoured, in due course of law, to recover
compensation for injury—pronounced to be an injury by the
highest civil and criminal tribunal in the country, and in a
judgment invoked by that house itself. And the petitioner
only asked for a hearing at their bar.
Lord HoWICK declared that no man could doubt that the
petition was an " insult " to the house, and he, therefore,
moved that the petition be rejected.
Mr. HUME said that he had supported the noble lord
throughout the struggle for their privileges ; but, as the noble
lord had brought in a bill which declared that the whole of
their proceedings were illegal, he could not object to any
words in a petition from one of the parties confined, which
declared that confinement to be illegal, it having already
been so declared by the house. If the noble lord abandoned
his principles he was determined not to follow his example,
and he would, therefore, vote for the reception of the peti-
tion.

Sir. R. PEEL thought that there was a deliberate intention
by the petition to insult the house ; he should therefore vote

For its rejection.

The house eventually divided on the question. The ayes
were 25, noes 196. Petition rejected by the majority of 171.
Lord J. RUSSELL moved the third reading of the printed
papers bill. That having taken place,
Sir ROBT. INGLIS moved that the following clause (pro-
tective of newspapers that might reprint the authorised and
protected prints of the Commons) be added by way of rider :
—" That it shall and may be lawful for any person or per-
sons, who shall hereafter be a defendant or defendants in any
civil or criminal proceeding, commenced or prosecuted for
the publication of any such report, paper, votes, or proceed-
ings, in any newspaper published according to the direction
of an act passed in the seventh year of the reign of his late
Majesty King William IV., chap. 76, intituled, An act to
reduce the duties on newspapers, and to amend the laws re-
lating to the duties on newspapers and advertisements,' to
apply as aforesaid for a certificate, stating that the report,
paper, votes, or proceedings, forming the ground of such
civil or criminal proceeding, was published by order, or un-
der the authority of the House of Lords, or of the House of
Commons (as the case maybe), and which certificate is here-
by authorised to be granted upon such application, and, hav-
ing obtained the same, to apply to any judge of her Majesty's
superior courts of common law, at chambers or elsewhere,
upon an affidavit verifying such certificate ; and further de-
posing, that such publication in such newspaper was a true
transcript or copy of such report, paper, votes, or proceed-
ings, and thereupon it shall and may be lawful for such judge,
upon due summons and notice, to stay such civil or criminal
proceeding, upon such terms as to such judge shall seem fit."
After some discussion, the hon. baronet was induced to
withdraw the clause.
Sir E. SUGDEN renewed his opposition to a portion of the
second clause, and moved its rejection. The motion was,
however, negatived—the ayes beirig 110 ; noes, 40 ; majority
for retaining the whole clause in its original form, 70.
The bill was then passed, after some addition to its pre-
amble had been proposed by the Attorney-General. It was
then ordered to be taken to the Lords.
The house having resolved itself into committee of supply,
Sir H. VIVIAN brought forward the Ordnance Estimates.
He said the amount of /them was £1,971,042, but, deducting
a balance standing over from last year's votes, he had to ask
for £1,885,000. He added that there was an excess of charge
upon this year's estimate, as compared with the amount of
last year, of £152,000.
The discussions on the several resolutions proposed occu-
pied the house during the rest of the evening.