The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-03-17 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-MONDAY

In answer to a question from Mr. MACKINNON,
Lord STANLEY said the accounts received from Antigua by
the Government were very imperfect, but he feared the news-
paper accounts were not exaggerated as to the extent of the
damage from the recent earthquake. It might become his
duty hereafter to call upon the house to aid the colon) with
a loan, which was the only shape in which they could afford
relief.

Mr. FERRAND, in moving for papers containing a list of
the guardians, &c., of the Halifax' union, said that the mill
erected in the workhouse of the Halifax union, described by
Sir James Graham as a hand corn-mill. was, in fact, a rag-
mill, used for crushing rags collected on the Continent, and
impregnated with all manner of diseases.
Sir J. GRAHAM said that Mr. Ferrand was sometimes led
astray by inaccurate information, and bad originally de-
scribed this mill as a tread-mill. He had himself, in this in-
stance, been so far misled as to call the rag-mill a corn-mill,
yet, upon the whole, his statements on a former evening
were substantially correct, and he should therefore oppose
the motion.

Mr. C. Woon defended Mr. Clements from the imputa
tions thrown out against him by Mr. Ferrand.

Mr. WALLACE regretted the refusal of the papers, because
he wished to see every complaint made on the part of the
poor fully gone into. _ _

_
After some discussion, during part of which strangers were
excluded, Mr. Ferrand withdrew his motion.

On the motion for going into committee on the Registra
tion of Voters Bill, in, reply to a question from Mr. LID
DELL,

Sirlkstes GRAHAM said that clauses had been prepared
with a view to provide against the fraudulent personation of
voters.

Mr. HUME said that unless more ample practice were
given to voters, he anticipated but little benefit from the
measure.

The house then went into committee

On the fifth clause, --
-----
Mr. T. DUNCOMEE moved an amendment with a view to
compel overseers to state the grounds of objection to a voter
in addition to saying that he was objected to.
On a division, the amendment was negatived by a majority
of 57 to 47.

Mr. TUFNELL moved as an amendment, that when an
overseer objected to vote he should be compelled to have
notice of such objection given to the party objected to.
Sir J. GRAHAM opposed the amendment, which, on a di-
vision, was negatived by a majority of 91 to 38.
On the 11th clause being proposed,
Mr. ELPHINSTONE objected to the continuance of the tax-
paying clauses as necessary to the qualification of a voter.
He thought the payment of the taxes should have nothing to
do with the exercise of the franchise. He moved the omis-
sion of the clause.

Sir J. GRAHAM could not assent to the abolition of the
payment of taxes and rates as a qualification, remembering
as he did that at the time the Reform Bill passed it was said
that had it not been for the tax-paying, clauses a higher quali-
fication would have been demanded. The clause now
before the committee was an amelioration of the existing
law.

After a short discussion, in which Mr. BROTHERTON, Mr.
HUME, and Mr. EWART took part, the committee divided,
and the clause was retained by a majority of 118 to 58.
On the clause imposing costs to the amount of 20s. against
parties making frivolous claims to vote or frivolous objec-
tions against a voter,
Colonel SIBTHORP moved that the costs be three pounds
instead of twenty shillings.
After some discussion on this point the committee divided,
and the amendment of Colonel Sibthorp was negatived by a
majority of 154 to 34.
The committee having got through 48 clauses soon after
midnight,
The CHAIRMAN, on the motion of Mr. BROTHERTON,
reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again.
Lord 3. RUSSELL moved for leave to bring in a bill for
dissolving certain corporations and regulating certain muni-
cipal corporations in England.
The motion was agreed to, and the remaining business
being disposed of the house adjourned.

HOUSE OF LORDS.-TUESDAY

Lord MONTEAGLE moved for a select committee to in-
quire into the operation of the corn-law of the last session of
Parliament in connection with the distress which prevailed
throughout the country. The noble lord entered into a
variety of arguments in order to show that the distress was
mainly attributable to the corn-laws. Ile felt himself called
upon to enter into details in order to establish his argument,
but these details would be wholly unnecessary if he believed
their lordships would grant the committee. The noble lord
then recapitulated all the areuments which have been so re-
peatedly urged against the existing corn laws, and after a
speech of two hours and a half duration, left the whole matter
to the calm consideration of their lordships.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE said that if he were certain that the
evils complained of were to be attributed to the corn laws
there should be no doubt but their lordships would instantly
take steps to repeal them. He did not however believe this
to be the case, nor did he believe that the corn law of last
session had anything like a fair trial. He should oppose the
motion because the bill had only been nine months in opera-
tion, and a government having the slightest pretensions to
stability would not chance its policy with such an insufficient
experience of the propriety of its measures.
The EARL of CLARENDON said there could be little use in
speaking to a starving man of what would be done for him
six months hence ; and it could bring little satisfaction to the
working classes to find that they had nothing immediately to
expect. The house should be on its guard, the power of en-
durance appeared to be nearly exhausted ; and unless the
house entered boldly and resolutely into an inquiry into the
whole state of the operative classes, there could be no secu-
rity for the preservation of the tranquility of the country.
lie thought it would give great contentment to the country
if their lordships would agree to the appointment of such a
committee of inquiry, and hear impartially all the evidence
which could be presented to it. He believed the sliding
scale was one of the greatest evils which could befal the
country. It was almost a matter of necessity that it should
be so, for it professed to do that which it was impossible it
could effect, namely, something like a stability of price in
corn.

Lord ASHBURTON attributed much of the distress of the
country to the failure of the markets in America. and was
glad that there were already symptoms of improvement ma-
nifesting theinselves.

The Ouke of RICHMOND could not agree in the policy of
those parties who were for changing the corn-laws every day.
He could not agree with those parties who, belonging to the
corn-law-league, thought it right to set one class of men
against another; but he had sufficient confidence in the ma-
nufacturing and commercial interests of the country to feel
satisfied that they would despise those who sought to lead
them astray.

Earl FITZWILLIAM was astonished that the noble lord
should have felt so strongly the effects of the loss of the
American markets, and yet have a disposition to refuse in-
quiry into the operation of the corn law, to which the loss of
those markets was mainly attributable. Their lordships
might rely upon it that if they persevered in.the present re-
strictive system foreign tariffs would become less and less
favourable to British commerce and manufactures. The for-
mer corn law he always maintained must have been altered,
and of the present law he would also say that it must be al-
tered, and in so saying he was the best friend of the British
farmer; for he warned him that it was beyond the power of
man to secure to him those artificial prices to which he was
always_looking forward.

bird BROUGHAM praised the calm and statesmanlike man-
ner in which Lord Monteagle had brought the question before
the house, contrasting it with the manner in which the sub-
ject had been discussed'out of doors. A very considerable
step had been made in the progress of free trade, not alone
in the corn laws but also in the tariff,• and yet the zealots of
free trade instead of thanking Sir Robert Peel for the extra-
ordinary strides he had made, united with the ultra opponents
in abusing the right hon. baronet for the very concessions
which some time ago would have been deemed most extraor-
dinary. The noble and learned lord, after some most severe
and unmeasured animadversions on the leaders of the Anti-
corn-Law League, contended for the necessity of an inquiry
which could only be feared by those who were wrong. He
denied the statements which had appeared in the papers be-
longing to the league, to the effect that he had applied to be-
come the medium of communication between the Anti-Corn-
Law League and the House of Lords. It was altogether
false—the truth being that he had been applied to for that
purpose and had refused. The noble and learned lord then
contended, at considerable length, for the propriety of a free
trade in corn, asserting that no revenue should be levied upon
corn for the purpose of protection, though a duty may be im-
posed for the purpose of revenue.
Earl St. VINCENT thought that the distinction between a
duty for protection and a duty for revenue was merely nomi-
nal, for any duty must operate to a certain extent in the way
of protection.

The Earl of MOUNTCASHEL did not support the existing
corn-law, for it did not give sufficient protection to the agri-
culturist, and the same motive induced him to oppose the al-
teration of the tariff. lie could not, however, support the
motion of Lord Monteagle, for it did not go into the wbole
question ; but he hoped before the session closed, a select
committee would be appointed to inquire into the distress
existing amongst both agriculturists and manufacturers.
Lord MONTEAGLE replied, after which their lordships di-
vided, when the motion was defeated by a majority of 200
to 78.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—TUESDAY.
Sir R. PEEL gave notice of his intention on the 28th of
March to move for leave to bring in a bill to complete a sur-
vey map of the metropolis, on scientific principles.

'Mr. WARD moved for a special committee to inquire whe-
ther there were any peculiar burdens specially affecting the

I interests, o

whether there were any peculiar exemp-

Lions enjoyed by that interest, and if so to ascertain their
nature and extent. He was of opinion that inquiry would
show.a case of exemption on the part of the landed interest
without parallel in the history of the world. A corn law was
per se a bad thing, and could only be justified by very pecu-
liar circumstances.
Mr. BAN KEs moved as an amendment—" That it is ex-
pedient as a remedy for a state of anxiety, embarrassing end
unfair to the agriculturists and injurious to commerce, that
the attention of this house be directed to the continued ex-
istence of associations, which, in matters affecting agricul-
ture and commerce, pretend to influence the deliberations of
the' legislature, and which by their combination and by their
proceedings are at'once dangerous to the public peace and
inconsistent with the spirit of the constitution." If protec-
tion were to be removed, it should be removed impartially—
the landed interest should not be the only sufferers. The
hon. member replied to many of the arguments used by Mr.
Cobden on a former evening.

Mr. Conn EN regretted th7.lt a great national question should
be mixed up with anything like a personal altercation. As
for the attacks on the Anti-Corn-Law League, their only
effect was to contribute to its extension and to the propaga-
tion of its opinions. He had on the previous evening at-
tended a meeting at Southampton, at which there were farm-
ers who had come forty miles to hear him. Thus, it was
that the league was paving the way for the repeal of the corn
laws.

Mr. W. MARTIN entered into arguments in order to prove
that the landlords enjoyed no peculiar exemptions.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS contended that by the present system
of corn-laws the British public was taxed to the extent of
£20,000,000 per annum.
Mr. WoDEHOUSE said, that if the corn laws were not de-
fensible on general grounds they could not be defensible at
all. The hon. gentleman entered into calculations showing
the different proportions in which land and mills were assessed
in the different counties.
Mr. B. COCHRANE denounced the Anti-corn-law League
us an illegal and seditious body.
Mr. M. GIBSON hoped that before the house came to a
decision on the motion of Mr. Ward they would come to a

decision on the amendment of Mr. Bankes. What did that
amendment imply ? A suspension of the Habeas Corpus
Act, and nothing less. It should, however, be remembered,
that there were corn-law as well as anti• corn-law leaguers,

id that the one had as much attempted to intimidate the

legislature as the other. Those corn-law associations were
not content with this, however, but were at the present
moment proposing to rob the national creditor, as was clear
from a letter purporting to come from the secretary of the
Central Agricultural Society, in which it was proposed that
the Anti-corn-law League should give up agitation, and join
in an attempt to establish an irredeemable paper currency.
He would not assent to any improper •mode of propagating
his own opinions, nor had the Anti-corn-law League resorted
to any but legitimate means for enlightening the public.
The motion before the house did not necessarily involve the
repeal of the corn-laws, but of the sliding scale. He must
say that the alteration of last year was a virtual acknow-
ledgment, on the part of the landed interest, of its great
injustice.
Sir It. PEEL did not think the amendment a proper' one
to the peculiar motion before the house, and he should,
therefore, meet it with a negative. If the Anti-Corn-Law

League were deemed an improper association, the existing
law should be enforced against it, or the defects, if any ex-
isted in the present law, should be supplied. It would ill
become him, as a minister of the crown, and more particularly
as an individual who owed all he possessed to manufactures,
to sneer at the manufacturing interests. He could not per-
ceive any good that was likely to result from such a com-
mittee as that proposed. Let returns be called for, to show,
for instance, what proportion of the probate and legacy duty
was contributed by land, and let these be submitted not to a
committee, the opinions of whose members were pretty well
made up, but to parliament itself. So also of other burdens
respecting which there prevailed great difference of opinion.
He was prepared to agree to returns which might show what
proportion of such burdens were borne by the landed in-
terest, leaving it to parliament to deal with it as it pleased.
He had never argued for protection solely on the ground of
'the peculiar burdens pressing on the land; he had rested it
on other grounds, the capital invested in the cultivation of
the soil under a long continued system, the danger of sudden
disturbance, &c. It was said he had unsettled the minds of
the agriculturists by the corn law of last session; but what
settlement could result from a protracted inquiry such as
the one proposed? The government had consulted what
they conceived to be the interests of the country, and though
he was the author of the corn law of last session no fear of
any imputation of inconsistency or loss of power would re-
strain him from repealing that law, if the evidence of facts
convinced his judgment that it was injurious in its operation.
He was, however, by no means satisfied that any change of
the present law would be advantageous.
Lord Howtcx said that it would be absurd to move for

returns which might be made to prove anything on either
side_ of the question: The report of a select committee

would be a valuable document, even if it were drawn up-by
members all from the ministerial side of the house. The ex-
istence of the anti-corn-law league he thought a great evil,
but, in the words of Lord Plunkett, it was " the spawn of
their own wrong."
Mr. BLACKSTONE said that the letter referred to by Mr.
Gibson was not authorised by the Agricultural Society. It
was the letter of a Mr. Brown, who bad intruded himself
upon them as a secretary.

Mr. VILLIERS read other letters from secretaries of other
agricultural societies, in which
it was suggested that even the
supplies should be stopped until an inquiry should take place
into the state of the agricultural interests. Under these cir-
cumstances the hon. member for Dorsetshire had better look
at home before he attacked the. anti-corn-law league.
Mr. WARD replied; after which the house divided. and
Mr. Ward's motion was defeated by a majority of 232 to 133.

gesttd how the house was to
to avoid the difficulty. Ile quite agreed

Sir T. Wilde, he had not so'

That no one could be a proper judge of the pt ivilege.s of tile
House of Commons. It must itself be the only judge of
those privileges. Still pleading to the action would not pre-
vent the house from taking any other step it thought neces-
sary; and if they did not plead what would be the result?
Judgment would go by default, and the under-sheriff would
have to assess the damages with the aid of a jury. Would
the lion. member for Worcester, in that case, imprison the
under-sheriff and the jury, and also those who were subse-
quently called on to levy the execution? If the sheriffs re-
fuse to levy the judges will issue an attachment against them ;
and in that case would they call the judges to answer at the
bar before them ? The honourable and learned gentleman
argued at great length that it was impossible to exclude the
jurisdiction df the courts of law, and quoted a variety of pre-
cedents in which privileges claimed by the house were dis-
cussed in courts of law. If the latter decided against the
privileges of the house (which they had no right beforehand
to assume they would do), the only remedy was by a legisla-
tive enactment. He also contended against the propriety of
calling Mr. Howard to the bar, even if they should decide
upon telling the officers of the house: to plead to the action.
Lord HOWICK protested against the course they were
about to adopt. The whole argument of Sir William Follett
amounted to this—that the House of Commons'ought to be
and was the only judge of its own privileges, but that they
had no earthly power to enforce them—that to enforce them
they must trust to the courts of law, although those courts
had, according to Sir William Follett's own opinion, decided
wrongfully against the privileges of the house in the case of
" Stockdale v. Hansard." The house had sufficient power
to enforce its privileges, for though its power of commitment
was confined to the session, yet the session might be length-
ened by adjourning instead of proroguing parliament.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said that this action was on the part
of Mr. Howard a wanton defiance of the authority of the
house, for he questioned the legality of the Speaker's war-
rant after stating formerly that it was not his intention to do
so, and thereby iaving obtained the omission from the Printed
Papers Bill of the clause which would have put an end to the
actions then existing. He supported the motion of Lord J.
Russell, for if the house did not make a stand, there would
be no end to these actions.

Sir R. INGLIS opposed the proposition of Lord John
Russell.

After a few words from Mr. HARDY the house divided,
and the amendment was negatived by a majority of 157 to
84. The original motion was then agreed to by a majority
of 135 to 71.

THEATRE-ROYAL

For the BENEFIT of MISS FANNY TERNAN,

The celebrated Juvenile-Actress, only Seven Years of age,
and positively the LAST NIGHT BUT TWO of her ap-
pearance, on which occasion she will, for the first time,
perform the Last Act of KING RICHARD the THIRD.

i-AN WEDNESDAY EVENING next, the 22nd instant,
Viv will be presented Mr. Inchbald's celebrated Comedy,

EVERY ONE HAS HIS FAULT

In which Mr. W. Fart-en, Mr. Ternan, Mrs. Glover, Mrs.
Ternan, and Miss Fanny Ternan will perform.
After which, the Fifth Act of Shakspeare's Tragedy of

RICHARD II l.
Richard, King of England..
Her first appearance in that character.
To conclude with, (by desire,) and positively for the last

_
time, the
YOUNG ACTRESS

Written expressly fOr—ilis.s7F;;; Ternan, in which she will

sustain Six different Characiers!

TO MERCHANTS, BROKERS, &c,

The largely increased and most respectable circulation
which the Tuesday's Edition of the LIVERPOOL
STANDARD has now obtained amongst the mercantile
body in Manchester affords its proprietors the gratify-
ing power of urging this, amongst the other undeniable
claims which it possesses, upon the favor of that portion
of the mercantile community of Liverpool who desire to
bring their advertisements before the notice of buyers in
the neighbouring manufacturing districts. In most of
the surrounding towns of Lancashire the circulation of
the STANDARD is steadily increasing. In Manchester,
however, the centre of the manufacturing district, our

publication of Tuesday—occurring upon the most im-
portant market day of the Cotton Trade, when its
Exchange and Hotels are thronged with country manu-
facturers, spinners, and calico printers—is firmly es-
tablished in circulation, and is perused with increased
and increasing interest.

Under these encouraging circumstances, we trust to
receive an increased measure of support from the mer-
chants and brokers of the town generally ; and it affords
us great pleasure
,to assure those of our friends amongst
those classes, who have hitherto bestowed their adver-
tising favours liberally upon us, of our increased ability
to do justice to the interests committed to their care.