The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-05-16 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-THURSDAY

In the House of Commons last night Mr. Ross moved for
leave to bring in a bill to relieve her Majesty's Roman Catho-
lic subjects in Ireland from the obligation to take the oath
prescribed by the act 10th Geo. IV. c. 4, commonly called
" the Catholic oath."

The Irish ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that he would not,
on the part of the government, object to the bringing in of
the bill, as there were in election committees contradictory
decisions as to the necessity of administering the oath. They
were not, therefore, to be supposed to give their sanction to
the principles which the bill might contain.
After a short discussion the motion was agreed to.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE moved an address to her majesty,
praying that she would be graciously pleased to direct that
the petition of William Jones, a prisoner in Leicester gaol,
complaining of the conduct of Mr. Baron Gurney on his trial
at the late Leicester Assizes, should be taken into considera-
tion. By the inquiries he had made he found that the com-
mentaries in the public prints on the conduct of the judge
were not fully justified, but still he had used hasty and in-
temperate expressions, and the prisoner complained that
they had had a prejudicial effect upon him while e3nducting
his defence. There could be no doubt but Jones had acted
indiscreetly ; yetostill Mr. Baron Gurney might have remem-
bered his own early career, when he was the friend and de-
fender of men of liberal principles, by means of which it had
been said that he drove a good trade in sedition, and made
sonic allowance for the errors of a foolish young man.
Sir J. GRAHAM said, that although the hon. member had
constituted himself public prosecutor—a judge of judges, and
a censor of harsh language, yet he should exercise some cau-
tion in making accusations against men venerable for age,
station, and character. Jones, on his trial, had spoken for
three hours, and in all that time he had been but thrice in-
terrupted by the judge. At the close of the trial he thanked
the judge in open court for the patience with which he bad
heard him. The learned judge denied the expressions attri-
buted to him, and had only given a sentence of six months'
imprisonment for a very aggravated seditious offence. Under
such circumstances there were no grounds whatever for the
motion.

Mr. HUME bore his testimony to the excellent. manner in
which Sir James Graham executed the duties of his office,
but he still thought that Mr. Duncombe was rendering ser-
vice to the country, by taking up such cases as this, for the
manner in which political prisoners were now treated in pri-
son, as compared with former times, was very discreditable.
He was glad so complete a defence. had been made out for
Mr. Baron Gurney, for whose early services in the cause of
liberal principles he felt a great respect.
Mr. Sergeant MURPHY recommended Mr. Duncombe to
withdraw his motion. He bore testimony to the admirable
manner in which the learned judgc discharged his judicial
duties.

After some further discussion, in the course of which the
ATTORNEY-GENERAL vindicated the conduct of Mr. Baron

Gurney,

Mr:T. DUNCOMBE withdrew the motion

The adjourned debate, on the motion of Mr. Villiers, was
then resumed by Mr. BORTHWICK, who admitted the cor-
rectness and truth of the principles of free trade ahstractedly
considered, but contended that there were practical difficul-
ties in the way of their application to the trade in corn in
this country.
Mr. WRIGHTSON supported the motion, contending that
unless some further change in the corn laws took place we
might make up our minds to the fact that commerce would
forsake our shores.

Mr. R. PALMED. thought the corn laws essential to the
best interests of the country, and said the time might yet
come when we might be made to feel the importance of re-
lying upon our own resources. He was of opinion that Mr.
Blackstone had libelled the nobility and gentry of the country
when he said upon a previous evening that they had deserted
the yeomanry.

Mr. MARSLAND had no doubt of the power of the landed
interests, but he bad doubts of their sense of justice. Still
the advocates of total repeal bad no occasion to feel de-
spondent, for the question was one of principle, which time
would decide. The commerce of England had prospered not
because of but in spite of the corn laws, and the time had
now arrived when we should abandon the suicidal policy we
had hitherto pursued. There was a strong opinion in the
minds of the people that ministers were aware of the wrong
inflicted by these laws upon the community, but that they
were deficient in courage to face the difficulties in the way of
rectifying it.

Sir' E. KNATCHBULL denied that Sir Robert Peel, in
altering the corn laws, had been actuated by any views to
their ultimate repeal. He feared that low prices would bring
low wages, and for this reason he was not disposed to agree
to the motion of Mr. Villiers. The right hon. baronet con-
tended that Mr. Cobden could scarcely be sincere in advo-
cating the repeal of the corn laws for the mere benefit of the
manufacturing interests, when he found that he was looking
forward to further agitation for political rights after his efforts
for the repeal of the corn laws should have succeeded.
Lord J. RUSSELL described his alarm at the course the
debate had taken. Mr. Gladstone had described the land-
owners as sinecurists who ought to be compensated by a
longer continuance of their monopoly, and the right hon.
baronet (Sir E. Knatchbull) had supported the corn law be-
cause it enabled the landed aristocracy to provide for their
marriage settlements. lle had no doubt, therefore, but if
the corn laws were done away with compensation would be
demanded, as in the case of the slave trade. Sudden changes
were to be deprecated, and therefore he could not support the
motion of Mr. Villiers, although he might do so upon the
principle laid down by Lord flowick—that in committee a
moderate fixed duty might be adopted—because his motives
might in that case be misinterpreted. They could not always
go on alleging expediency as a reason for not agreeing to that
which was true in principle, and under this conviction, to-
gether with the reasons he had stated, he could not support
the motion of Mr. Villiers.

Mr. DARBY contended that the unlimited importation of
corn would not benefit this country. He trusted, therefore,
that the government would stand firm, and resist all further
alterations in those laws, which were so important.
On the motion of Mr. BR°Tit ERTON, the debate was ad-
journed till Friday ; after which the house adjourned.