The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-08-15 00:00:00

HOUSE OF LORDS.-FRIDAY

Lord BROUGHAM withdrew his bill for suppressing
seditious speeches and meetings in Ireland, in order to
ascertain if the Irish Arms Bill and an act passed by the
Irish parliament, in 1797, would ILA conjointly produce
the effect he contemplated to attain by his bill. The noble
and learned lord said he was led to turn his attention to
the subject by a speech of Mr. O'Connell's, the object of
which would appear to be to seduce the sergeants of the
army in Ireland from their allegiance:
The Duke of WEELINGTON said he-had no fear what-
ever that the army would be seduced by any such at-
tempts. The noble duke shortly but strongly animad-
verted on the conduct of Mr. O'Connell.

On the motion of Lord WFIAELNCLIFFE, the Theatres
Regulation Bill went through committee.
Their lordships adjourned soon after., ‘,„.: •

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-liigi,Zy

- - - --- •
The report on the Coalwhippers Bill was brought up
and agreed to ; the Factdrfes Bill went through commit-
tee ; Holyrood Park Bill was read a third time and
passed ; the Exchequer Bills Bill was a read a second
time, as was also the Consolidated Fund Bill ; the Ma-
chinery Exportation Bill, and the Militia Pay Bill, seve-
rally passed through committee.

On-the third reading of the Poor Relief (Ireland) Bill,
Mr. C. BULLER moved that the clause relating to
emigration should be omitted.

Sir J. GRAHAM said that in the English poor law there
was an emigration clause, and there was, therefore,
nothing new in its being introduced into the bill before
the house.

The bill was read a third time and passed.
On the order of the day for going into committee on
the Apprehension of Offenders (America) Bill,
Mr. V. SMITH requested information respecting the
provision relating to the surrender of fugitive slaves. He
thought those slaves should not be given up without the
sanction of the colonial secretary.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL was desirous of affording
every protection to the slave, but a fugitive slave might
have been guilty of piracy, murder, or other crimes, in
which case he should not be protected.
Mr. MACAULAY said that the Attorney-General had
not got rid of the difficulty. No country, and he might
adduce India as an illustration, would surrender a fugi-
tive who was liable to undergo a punishment in another
country which was revolting to its own usages. If a
slave in Georgia killed his master in defence of his
daughter's chastity, he was guilty according to the law of
Georgia but not according to the law of England of the
crime of murder, and thus also in other instances in
which slaves were denied the rights of freemen. America
had by the treaty of Washington conceded a principle
which England was not disposed to abandon, and it
would, in his opinion, be better not to give effect to this
part of the treaty, but to deal with cases individually as
they arose.

Lord PALMERSTON wished to know if it was to be
understood that the British government were now pre-
pared. should a vessel with a cargo of slaves be driven by
stress of weather or any other cause into a British port,
to recognise the principle that such slaves should be en-
titled to the rights of freemen. He also wished to know
if British cruisers were henceforth to be absolutely pro-
hibited from destroying the slave barracoons on the coast
of Africa.

Lord STANLEY said there was no diference of opinion
between the present and the late government as to the
law of nations in reference to the destruction of slave bar-
racoons in the dominions of a neutral chief. Mr. Macau-
lay objected to any mutual right of extradition, which did
not recognise at the same time mutual equality of condi-
tion and law. The common law of the United States,
however, prohibited the surrender of fugitives, and every
scoundrel and criminal could cross the Canadian frontier
and elude the grasp of justice. It was for such a state of
things that the treaty provided a remedy. With respect
to the other question of the noble lord, he had to state
that instructions had been sent out to the Bahamas to the
effect that the authorities should, in all cases where they
had credible testimony that slaves were detained on board
an vessel against their will, at once afford them their
protection, and allow them the benefits of British law.
The late government had recognised the principle that
fugitive slaves guilty of crimes of which there was suffi-
cient proof should be surrendered, and it was upon this
very principle that the treaty proceeded ; and he believed
it would be found more beneficial to Canada than to the
United States, and it was to be remembered that there
was a clause in the bill as well as in the treaty by which
on a proper notice from either party the right of mutual
surrender might be abandoned.
The bill went through committee.
The Apprehension of Offenders (France) Bill also went
through committee.
The Customs Bill was read a third time.

IMPORTANT TO THE CUTLERY TRADE.-:-TWO cases
came before the Sheffield bench of magistrates on Tues-
day last of great importance to the cutlery trade through-
out the kingdom. The informations are said to have been
laid at the instigation of the Cutlers' Company, for the
purpose of suppressing a practice which has prevailed in
the cutlery trade, of putting the marks of superior articles
on things of inferior value and quality. In the cases
before the court, the knives, "which were made of cast
iron, were marked " cast steel," and " shear steel," and
this practice is in direct violation of an act of parliament,
the 59th of Geo. 3, chap. 7. The first case gone into was
against a Mr. Naylor. It appeared that on that morning
about four gross of table blades were brought from Mr.
Naylor's warehouse, which were marked shear steel ;"
the master cutler stated on oath that he had, examined
these blades arid found that they were made of_ i)ot.metal,
the same kind as fire stoves were made of:Mr. Naylor
said that the blades being thus marked were of no more
advantage to him than if they had been marked by any
other mark. The man who had ordered them to go to
America, had got the invoice of them, and in that invoice
they were charged " cast blades." He himself derived
no more profit from the spurious article than the genuine
one. The next case heard was against a manufacturer of
the name of Sanderson, from whose warehouse four grOss
of sailor's or pocket-knive blades had been-procured,
bearing the mark of " shear steel," which the master
cutlers said were made of cast metal. Another similar
charge was made against the same person, of having up.
wards of forty-two gross of blades marked " cast steel,"
which were not in reality of that article. The bench said
they found the penalty upon Naylor was £417 10s, and
upon Sanderson £1395 ; and the magistrates requested
the master cutler to take the first opportunity of destroy-
ing the things forfeited,