The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1844-07-02 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-WEDNESDAY.

Mr. BRIGHT presented a petition from Rochdale,
signed by 6,000 persona, against the proposal to raise ano-
ther troop of yeomanry cavalry in Lancashire.
Mr. M. MILES presented several petitions from places
in Somersetshire, praying the house to take measures to
prevent the agitation now carried on by the agents of the
Anti-Corn-Law League, and praying for protection to
British Agriculture.
Lord INGESTRE, and other members, presented a great
number of petitions from various parts of the country,
against any alteration of the present corn-laws.
A number of petitions were presented by different mem-
bers against the Dissenters' Chapels Bill.
The second reading of the Juvenile Offenders Bill was
postponed for a fortnight.
The other orders of the day having been read, the ad-
journed debate on Mr. Villiers's motion relating to the
importation of corn was resumed.
Mr. O'BRIEN, at considerable length, oppos.d th• mo-
tion and amendment. He trusted the house would con-
tinue .the existing protection to British agriculture.
After a lengthened debate the house divided, when the
motion was defeated by a majority of 328 against 124 ! ! !

HOUSE OF LORDS.-THURSDAY.

At the request of the Duke of WELLINGTON the Earl
of GALLOWA it postponed the third reading of the Brothels
Suppression Bill to Thursday next.
Tile Presbyterian Marriages Bill passed through com-
mittee.
A great number of petitions were presented against the
assenters' Chapel Bill, and the Bishop of LONDON inti-
mated his intention of objecting to it upon its return from
the House of Commons. He presented a petition from
Manchester and Salford. This petition had been accom-
panied by a communication from Mr. Bunting, who
stated that a similar petition, signed by fifty-two clergy-
men, by fifty-four dissenting ministers, and twenty-six
magistrates, had been forwarded to a member of the other
house, who had taken no notice of it. The Right Rev.
Prelate presented similar petitions from Chester, Wigan,
and several other places.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE moved for returns con-
nected with the Irish Poor Law, and entered into some
statements condemnatory of its general working.
The Duke of WELLINGTON replied that some of the
evils complained of had been put an end to, and that in
the course of a short time a bill having reference to the
whole question would be brought forward for their lord-
ships' consideration.
'titer a few remarks from Lord MOtJNTcASNEI., the
returns were agreed to.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—TnuRsn„y.
discussion, in continuation '
of a former one, took
place relative to the ineligibility of Mr. E. Yorke to vote
in the committee on the Middle Level Drainage Bill,
counsel having suggested that the hon. member was in-
terested in the bill.
A resolution to the effect that committees on private

bills were competent t.) construe the- resolution of the
house and to decide on the validity of the vote of any one
of its members, was, on the motion of Mr. GLADSTONE,
ultimately agreed to.
. Mr. CoLctorionN gave notice, on the motion for the
third reading of the Dissenters' Chapels Bill, to move its
third reading that day six months.
Sir W. JAMES asked the Home Secretary if it were
true that the wages of the agricultural labhurers in Nor-
folk and Suffolk were hot six shillings a week ; and that
in some of the unions there it was not customary for the
hoard of guardians to refuse relief unless the applicant pro-
duced a sort of round robin, signed by the farmers of the
parish, to the effect that they had refused to give him
work.
Sir J. GRArrAm replied that, as to the wages he was
not prepared to answer ; but it was true that in the parish
of Havering the hoard of guardians had laid down a rule,
to require a certificate that the applicant had sought for
work arid had been refused. Until Sir W. James brought
the matter before his notice, the Home Secretary said he
had been unaware of the existence cf such a practice. He
had heard of it with extreme regret, for he considered it
to be a restraint upon relief not recognised by law, and
most unjust to the applicant. The poor- law commission-
ers, he added, had received no previous complaint on the
subject, but the moment they had notice of it they gave
directions to their assistant commissioner to interfere in
the matter, and to communicate with the board of guard-
ians, so that such a practice should be at once put an end

to.
A long debate took place on the Sugar Duties Bill, in
which Mr. Hawes, Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Mangles, Lord J.
Russell, Lord Sandon, and others, took part.
Sir H. DOUGLAS said that when he mentioned his in-
tention to vote against the amendment of the hon. mem-
ber for Bristol, he at the same time had declared that his
opposition to the government measure was undiminished ;
and if that night there had been any proposition made
acainst the government in any other form, he should have
shown his consistency by voting in favour of such a pro-
position. He objected to the measure of the government
because he considered it unjust and injurious to the West
India proprietors. He objected to that measure because
he was desirous of protecting the colonial interests oe • .
... sins
empire. He opposed the amendment of the '-
for Bristol (Mr. Miles) becaue he the ...in.rnember
htthe protection
that hon. gentleman proposed •
give celonial sugar was
inadequate. He regae' -
reed the proposition of that hon.
member as most '..,furious
in principle to the West India
interests : -
_see , ..att he maintained that it was more objection-
'flu'' -ewe that of the government, though he considered
1 that both were bad. He thought that those connected
tvith the West India interests had never made a greater
'mistake than in recognizing the principle that it was ne-
cessary to import foreign slicer into this country. For
his own part, he did not think there was any necessity for
the admission of foreign sugar; at least, he considered
that an opportunity should be given for ascertaining the
results of the employment of free labour in the colonies.
After 1831, when the act for the abolition of slavery was
passed, there had been a gradual decline in the amount
of sugar produced in our colonies; and now that there
was a reaction, and the production was beginning to in-
crease, they were called upon to adopt this measure. He
considered that they ought to abide by the colonial prin-
ciple; and he believed that our own colonies were able to
produce an ample supply of sugar to meet the consump-
tion of this country. It was true that our commerce had
to contend against active rivalry ; but he believed that
our colonial possessions constituted a league which might
defy all rivalry, if they only maintained the colonial prin-
ciple. He had voted against the amendment of the hon.
member for Bristol (Mr. Miles). because, had he sup-
ported it, he would have committed himself to figures
the accuracy of which he disputed, and to principles
which he abjured. After voting against the measure of
the government, he might, on the other question, have
walked out of the house; but that was a course he never
had adopted, and never would adopt. He appealed to
the right hon. gentleman in the chair whether there had
not been two distinct questions, upon which separate
divisions had been taken. The first question was whether
or not the words of the ministerial measure should stand
part of the bill. To that question he (Sir H. Douglas)
said " No." Then came a separate question—whether
the blank should be filled up with the words of the motion
proposed by the hon. member for Bristol. To that question
he also said " No ;" and he did not regret the course he
had pursued in either case. He was glad that he had not
shirked the question—that he had not sneaked out of the
house; and if he were asked for his opinion he would say
that lie considered the result of negativing both these
propositions would have been to lead to the re-enact-
ment of the present duties for another year—unless,
indeed, the government had been prepared to bring be-
fore the house a plan beneficial to all parties interested in
the matter. (Hear, hear.)
Sir R. PEEL said bethought his honourable and gallant
friend (Sir H. Douglas) was fully justified in adopting the
course he had pursued. The hon. and gallant member
was decidedly opposed to the measure of the government,
and he also objected to the proposal of the hon. member
for Bristol (Mr. Milnes). The hon. and gallant officer
was, therefore, acting quite consistently in taking the
course he had pursued—namely, in giving his vote in op-
position to both propositions. He (Sir R. Peel) enter-
tained no doubt that if the noble lord opposite had to-night
proposed that the motion for the third reading of this bill
should be rejected, he would have received the support of
the hon. and gallant member for Liverpool (Sir H. Doug-
las). The noble lord opposite had asked why his hon.
and gallant friend had not given notice of a motion in op-
position to the government scheme. Why, after the mo-
tion of the hon. member for Bristol was defeated, that
hon. gentleman (Mr. Miles) said, " I will not now perse-
ee,e. enneaing the proposal of the government; I will
withdraw all oppeeisieeet Tees eee ...-
ceived apparently with unanimous concurrence in the
house ; and when the hon. member for Bristol stated that
he would not again take the sense of the house on the
question, that declaration was cheered by lion. gentlemen
opposite. (Hear, hear.) Those hon. gentlemen thought,
undoubtedly, that the lion. member for Bristol acted in a
becoming manner; and the motion for a duty of 245. was
agreed to without a single objection. He conceived, there-
fore, that his hon. and gallant friend (Sir H. Douglas),
and those hon. gentlemen who had opposed the proposal
of the government, and who had also opposed the propo-
sition of the hon. member for Bristol (Mr. Miles), had
acted with perfect consistency. He thought not only
that his hon. and gallant friend was justified in pursuing
the course he had adopted, but that if he had acted in any
other manner he would have been open to the charge of
inconsistency.
The bill was then read a third time and passed.
The house then went into committee on the Bank Char-
ter Bill, and the remainder of the evening was taken up
with the discussion of its clauses.

HOUSE OF LORLS.—FRIDAY.
The Irish Marriages Bill was read a second time, and
was ordered to be committed on Friday next.
The Sugar Duties Bill was read a first time, and was
ordered to be read a second time on Tuesday (this day).
A petition presented by Lord RADNOR, complaining of
the opening of letters at the Post-office, led to some con-
versation, in which Lord Brougham, Lord Campbell,
Lo rd Denman, the Lord Chancellor, and: the Marquis
of Clanricarde took part, and which for a short time was
rather anirrated. The Earl of Radnor ultimately gave
notice that on Thursday next he would move for a secret
committee of inquiry on the subject.
The Duke of WELLINGTON said he had no doubt but
that the Secretary for the Home Department had only
done exactly as had been done by every Secretary of State
since the days of Queen Anne.

The Earl of WINCIIILSEA drew attention to the pro-
priety of establishing national granaries throughout the
country, under management of the Gove:nment. with a
view to keep the price of corn as nearly as possible equal,
and to put an end to the agitation on the corn laws.
Lord MONTEAGLE considered the suggestion the most
important that could be brought under the consideration
of the house. The noble earl's speech was the best he
had ever heard against the sliding scale.
The Duke of RICHMOND thought the best mode of
keeping the price of corn level was by maintaining the
present corn laws unaltered.
After a few alterations from the Earl of WINCHILSEA
in repl.y, the matter dropped.
The Charitable Bequests (Ireland) Bill was passed
through committee.
The other business on the paper was then disposed of,
and the house adjourned.