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

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. He 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 arguments 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 themselves.

The iiuke of RICHMOND could not agree in the policy of
those parties who were for changing the corn-laws every day.
lle could not agree with those parties who, belonging to the
corn-law-league, thought it right to set one class of me❑
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 operatiau_olthe 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.
Lord BROLGH m 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 lion. 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. He could not, however, support. the
motion of Lord Monteagle, for it did not go into the wade
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.---TVESDAY.
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. BAN KES moved as an amendment—" That it is ex-
pedient as a remedy for a state of anxiety, embarrassing and
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 combiisation 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. COBDEN regretted tCat 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
as 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,
and 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 R. 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 gronnd 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
be 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 Howicx 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 had 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.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.--WELINESDAY.
The adjourned debate on the question of privilege was re-
sumed by
Lord J. RUSSELL, who referred to what had been done
upon former occasions, in order to show that the house was
in these matters surrounded with difficulties. He feared
that the course suggested by Sir T, Wilde would be attended
with the most serious inconveniences, while on the other
band the course proposed by the Solicitor-General was
making the courts of law judges of what were the privileges
of the House of Commons. It would at once invest those
courts with the power of curbing and controlling the House
of Commons in the exercise of its privileges. The House of
Commons was the only check upon the misconduct of the
courts of law, and those courts might be very much gratified
to find that they had the power of limiting the privileges of
the house in return. If the judges went on enlarging their
own powers, while curtailing those of the House of Com-
mons, the result might be that the latter branch of the
legislature would become less beneficial to the country than
it was intended that it should be by the constitution. See-
ing all the difficulties of the case, be should feel disposed to
say that they ought not to allow the plaintiff in the action to
be entirely free from examination. It would be very absurd
to have committed the present plaintiff when acting as a
subordinate in opposing the privileges of the house, and yet
take no step against him when he proceeded to act as a prin-
cipal. He would therefore suggest that he should be called
to the bar and examined, and if he was proceeding against
and in despite of the authority of the house that he should
be committed. This wound deter others from a similar course
of procedure. The noble lord concluded by moving that
Thomas Burton Howard should be desired to attend at the
bar of the house on Thursday (yesterday.)
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that in theory he quite
agreed in the resolutions which had been formerly agreed to
by the house. After the former debate it was impossible to
doubt that the house was the only judge of its own privi-
leges, and from that principle he never would recede ; but
he still thought it was not becoming of the house to commit
attorneys' clerks and sheriffs' officers, and plaintiffs, for seek-
ing redress for what they conceived to be a wrong done them
in the only way which appeared to them to be open. In the
former case the privileges of the house were admitted, hot
damages were given for excess in the execution of their war-
rant. The object of the plaintiff was. no doubt, to get as
much money as he could, and if was called to the bar he would
probably provoke the house to commit him, in order to en-
hance the damages by holding himself up as a martyr to op-
pression. In the case of " Burdett v. Abbot," the house had
not only pleaded but had obtained a verdict ; and yet it had
permitted one of its own members to defy its powers so far
as to carry the question to the House of Lords. When the
former case was decided in favour of Mr. Stockdale, he was
of opinion the House of Lords should have been appealed to,
that the opinions of all the courts of law should have been
exhausted, or that they should have proceeded at once to le-
gislate. The Court of Chancery had this power of commit-
tal, though it could not trace that power to its origin ; but
this was not the sort of precedent which the House of Com-
mons should choose to follow. He thought the course the
house ought to adopt would be to plead to the action, taking
it for granted that the courts of law in Westminster Hall
would take cognisance of the privileges of the house as part
of the law which they had to administer. He should there-
fore oppose the motion of Lord J. Russell.
Mr. ELPHINSTONE said that great inconvenience might
arise if the privileges of the house were permitted to be ques-
tioned. He suggested the propriety of passing an act autho-
rising the Speaker to stop actions by injunction, being in each
case empowered to issue such injunction by a vote of the
house.

Mr. BORTHWICK opposed the motion of Lord J. Russell.
Sir R. PEEL said he would readily accede to the suggestion
of Lord J. Russell for a select committee had he not, on the
part of the Government, determined to assume the direct
responsibility. He was at first strongly disposed to refuse to
plead and to rely upon their privileges, but recollecting that
if the action went on the house would be compelled to com-
mit innocent parties who were merely subordinate functiona-
ries, he came to a different conclusion. He was the more
induced to this by the consideration of the powerful minority
opposed to the former course of proceeding, and to the fact
that public opinion was against such a stretch of power. He
felt deeply that t whole of the privileges clainaed in modern
time by the House of Commons were essential to the exercise
of their functions, and he also feared that the courts of law,
naturally jealous of their own authority, and closely looking
into all the technical bearings of the case, might not take a
favourable view of the privileges. According to the consti-
tution, the house had a controlling power, and if the decision
of the Queen's Bench in the case of Stockdale had been al-
lowed to pass unquestioned by parliament, it would have been
a foundation for the complete degradation of the house.
Although he would not hesitate to commit the plaintiff in
this case to Newgate if it were necessary to do so for the pre-
servation of their authority, yet under existing circumstances
he did not think it would be judicious to do so. It would
not be advisable to enter upon a contest with the plaintiff at
the bar unless they were ready to go through with the pro-
ceeding by committing him. He thought it would, upon the
whole, be better for the house to obtain a clearer definition
of the law, and then pass an act which would give them full
and unquestioned authority to support their privileges.
Mr. WYNN was of opinion, that all modern precedents
committed the house to the necessity of pleading in the pre-
sent instance.
Mr. ESCOTT supported the proposal of pleading to the ac-
tion.

Sir T. WILDE regretted that the course recommended by
Sir R. Peel did not correspond with the sentiments he had
expressed. All difficulties might be obviated by a manly
assertion of their privileges, of which they were after all butY
trustees for the benefit of the public. As to passing an art
of Parliament to define their privileges, it was not in the
power of mortal to surmise what might be the functions
which that house might not be called upon to exercise, nor
perhaps was it desirable, on public grounds, that those privi-
leges should be defined. Eminent as were Lord Denman
and Mr. Justice Patteson, they had laid down most startling
provisions as regarded the privileges of the house, and if they
persevered in their present course they would place the House
of Commons subordinate, not only to the House of Lords,
but to the courts of law also, and thus make a serious inroad
on the constitution of the country. The precedents relied
upon should be rather regarded as so many warnings that a
similar course should be avoided hereafter. They were by
the proposed course of pleading to the action only postponing
the evil after all, and rendering it more difficult to be dealt
with when it should arise. He could not admit the unpopu-
larity of the power claimed by the house to be a legitimate
reason for not exercising it,when, in any other point of view
circumstances demanded that it should be exerted. He op.,
posed pleading to the action, because, in so doing, they were
not following bad precedents, but making a new precedent
which might become seriously injurious to the authority of
Parliament.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said he admitted the import.
ance of not taking a false step in the present case, and he
regretted that, notwithstanding all the learning displayed by

FRIDAY MORNING, MARCH 17, 1843

Under the circumstances attendant upon our posi-
tion, with regard to the authorities and the people
China, a feeling of jealousy, if not of active hostility,
towards us might well have been anticipated. 'We 10/
extorted from that people, by force of arms, vast con-
cessions for our commerce—concessions in the benefit
of which it is as yet uncertain how far other nations
were to share ; we had inflicted, too, a deadly violind
upon their national pride; and we might have safely
calculated, therefore, not only Upon being met, for a
time, in our new relations with them, by every Petty
annoyance within their reach, but, as well, by the
secret intrigues of the residents of other nations, t°
embitter and increase existing jealousies, and impede
the march of our commercial enterprise in that coun-
try. What, then, under such circumstances, was the
imperative duty of every British merchant, and 1
every commander of a British mercantile vessel,
trading in a Chinese port ? Obviously, it was t°
exercise every possible circumspection, to use every
effort, in the carrying on of their business operation,
to avoid any unpleasant embroilment with the popula-
tion, and by conciliatory and careful conduct to allay
9
the ill-feeling so naturally existing against themselves
and their country. Yet this, we regret to say, (13es
not appear to have been the policy pursued by the rwea
sidents at the port of Canton ; and, as the result,
are advised by the last mail of a serious outbreak I'l
the population, directed exclusively against the British
residents, and attended with the destruction of I°
factory, whilst the property of every other foreigner...,
was protected—a calamity out of which may arise v,iej"ct
serious results, and which at all events serve to inn
re,
injury upon British commerce, by retarding the
od
turn, on the part of the population, to a state of ge
feeling towards the entire British nation.
Whether the tone of reproof, in which the mercantile
body in Canton have been addressed on the occaEi°e
by Sir Henry Pottinger, is fully merited or not' n,4 ,v'oer
shall not presume to express an
opinion. That °we
the
entire the extreme length of stating that, during
entire period of eighteen months, during which bep huato
been engaged in the effort to settle our entanglel3"
with China, the merchants trading in the water! 0
Canton hove, by their conduct, retarded, rather than
aided, his success. If such be the case, we htt,bw of
no language too strong to characterise their folly and
wickedness. Trusting, however, that no English ilost
chant, in Canton or elsewhere, can have been soi. pia
to every feeling for the honour and advantage 0'
country as to have pursued the course
pointed at by
the British plenipotentiary, there does certainlY aP
from every information which we can gather, have°
of
been most unjustifiable proceedings on the Pert, of
some of them. Opium smuggling, and sinugglini6pd
every description of merchandise, have been openly 300
insultingly carried on, both at Canton and Whaltb;
and to an extent which, had even the conduct °L
not
riotous crews of the Fort 'William and other ships
precipitated a popular commotion, must nltiel,
Chinese
have drawn down a remonstrance from the
authorities, if not led to a second rupture between
two countries. Indeed, it is openly hinted, that.e's is
a consummation would not, to some of the Polio
question—the speculators in tea—have been une
to be very unwelcome. ton,
rqj
We trust, for the credit of the merchants of dit
that such conduct will not be persisted in ;
of
might to some extent conduce to the preservatin'. ..
tranquillity in China, if the owners at home, °f Britte
ships trading to Chinese ports, were to insist ulro
0
exercise of strict regulation over the conduct t,O
least'
is
by whom they are navigated. This much, at lee
certain. If our commerce in China, however valuable..c
to us as a nation, cannot be carried on without res
on the part of traders to a system of gross disbonesil
ting tO
and outrage of all law—a system almost at:oo°l3,oor
piracy—it can no longer be consistent with the In vast
of Great Britain to equip fleets and maintain
armies and establishments for the protection of r r
so flagitious and disgraceful. • ate letter
We take the following extract fromnv
a p
dated Hongkong, Dec. 31, 1842:
riots °Jeri"
" The correspondence relative to the Canton 11
s
perusal, and will prove that the Plenipotentiary actedhots,
The feeling here, or rather at Macao, among the %job the
is that the Chinese will break faith. I believe they orlon that
would, as it would give a grand lift to tea at home;gariol
ground alone they have set up such a howl. The n°circuttv
of the Imperial Commissioner at Canton is an ugly o oil'
stance. However, here at the Government-house 00
trust or apprehension of bad faith on ti. part of t.4_.: 0
of all
is entertained ; at the same time, the non-reesir