The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1848-06-20 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-THURSDAY,

In reply to a question from Mr. Banks, Lord Jon's
RUSSELL stated that the departure of the Spanish ambas-
sador from this country had not taken place in conse-
quence of his being recalled by his own government, but
was the result of some communications which had passed
between him and Lord Palmerston relative to the recent
dismissal of Sir -H. Bulwer from Madrid. It was the in-
tention of her Majesty's Government to place on the ta-
ble both these communications and the correspondence
which had immediately preceded Sir 11. Bulwer's depar-
ture from Madrid.
Mr. STAFFORD then moved for the issue of a new writ
for the borough of Leicester, in consequence of the void-
ance of the election by which 'Sir Joshua Walmsley and
Mr. Gardner had been appointed to serve for that
borough.
Mr. FREWEN stated, that he had received intimation
from one of the first attorneys in Leicester, that all the
respectable inhabitants of that town were surprised that
Mr. Stafford had given notice of this motion without any
communication with any persons who took a concern in
its local affairs. His own family had been connected with
Leicester for many years ; and from his own knowledge of
it he believed that it was one of the most notoriously cor-
rupt boroughs in Great Britain. In the year 1826 it was
said that X. 60,000 had been expended there between three
candidates. When he offered himself as a candidate for
it in 1839, he stated publicly that he would rather lose
his election than spend one shilling in bribery ; and the
election subsequently went against him because his com-
mittee refused to undertake such proceedings as had been
carried on at the last election. He was speaking the sen-
timents of the respectable inhabitants of Leicester when
he said that they wished the writ to be suspended until
the freemen were disfranchised, or the electoral district
was so extended as to render such bribery, altogether im-
possible. He should certainly vote against the issue of
the writ.

In consequence of Mr. Stafford persisting in his mo-
tion, the house divided, when it was negatived by a ma-
jority of 129 over 6 voices.
On the motion of Lord MORPETH the house then pro-
ceeded with the further consideration of the report on the
Public Health Bill.

After an amendment moved by Captain PECHELL bad
been negatived, the report was agreed to, and the bill was
ordered to be read a third time on Monday.
After a few words from Colonel SIBTHORP and Lord
JOHN RUSSELL, the house resolved itself into committee
on the Borough Elections (No. 2) Bill, and was occupied
for a considerable time in discussing the different clauses
of the measure.

HOUSE OF LORDS.—FRIDAY.
Lord FITZBARDINGE presented two petitions, one from
Mr. Webster, the lessee of the Haymarket Theatre, and
the-other from the performers at the Lyceum, complain-
ing, of the eatronage bestowed upon foreign theatrical
entertainments.
Lord BEAUMONT, Lord BROUGHAM, the Duke of
CLEVELAND, and Lord SPENCER were unanimous in
condemning the illiberal spirit in which the petitions
were conceived.
Lord STANLEY then called the attention of the house to
the present state of the laws regulating the importation of
foreign corn. He did not mean to renew the discussion
as to the policy of giving protection to the agricultural
interest ; but it must be recollected that we had at the
present time a euty on corn which had neither increased
the price on food nor aggravated discontent. The noble
lord then went into the statistics of the corn trade, and
put it to the government, whether it would not be in ac-
coreance with sound policy, and with their own sense of
public duty, not that a permanent alteration of the law
should now take place on so important a question as this
but*that a short bill should be introduced for the pur-
pose of continuing the existing duties as they now stood
for a period of five or six months, so as to enable parlia-
ment, on reassembling next year, to determine with suffi-
cient experience whether the inconvenience of the impo-
sition of a duty to a trifling extent would not be more than
counterbalanced by the financial advantage of receiving
three-quarters of a million of money.
FAA GREY, after expressing his satisfaction that Lord
Stanley should advocate a duty on corn not for protection,
but for the purposes of revenue, proceeded to deprecate
any :disturb n e of the settlement which had been come to
after so much agitation in 1846.

The Duke of RICHMOND said, that the exchequer was
not in such a flourishing state, that it could afford to
throw assay £500,000 a year. The noble duke concluded
by stigmatizing the way in which the present Corn Law
had been carried as scandalous. The House of Lords had
lowered itself by its conduct in 1846 in the estimation of
the great body of the people of England ; and if the house
did not mind what it was about it never would regain the
confidence of the people.
The conversation then dropped.