The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-05-06 00:00:00

Mr. LABOUCHERE supported the motion of Mr. Baring
- - -

Six R. PEEL could not see why foreigners should beex-
empted from this tax, or why they should profit by the im-
provement of the funds in consequence of this tax being re-
sorted to, and yet be exempted from contributing his share
of the very impost by which stability was given to his invest-
ment.

Mr. HUME contended that it was a breach of faith to tax
funds at all, but if the tax was to be laid on he could not
by a distinction should be made between foreigners and
sh men, and he could not, therefore, support the motion
of Mr. Barine.

Mr. J. A. SMITH supported the motion, on the ground
at we should do nothing which would have the effect of
irrupting the constant flow of capital into this country.
r. ASTIRMAN thought the foreigner ought in justice
br tixed as well as any other holder of the public funds.
After a few observations from Mr. HAwEs.
14r. F. BARING replied, and the committee divided, when
otion was negatived by a majority of 203 to 40.
aviug got as far as the 88th clause of the bill,

The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the
use adjourned.

HOUSE OF LORDS.-TUESDAY

Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from the provisional
council of the National Complete Suffrage Union, praying
for nniversal suffrage, annual parliaments, vote by ballot, and
that no qualification should be required for members elected
tv sit in the House of Commons. As the petition was signed
by 3,300,000 people, he hoped their lordships would not think
he was asking too much when he proposed it should be read
at length.

'rhe petition was accordingly read at the table.
The report to the Queen's Prison Bill was brought up by
the Earl of Su Arritsisumr, after which their lordships ad-
journed until Friday.

II OUSE OF COMMON S.—Ty man AY

question from Mr. HUME, as to whether
as appointed as British consul at Texas,

Sir R. PEEL -repireil, that he was appointed as consul at
Texas, but that he was detained in London in order to give
some explanations respecting the transactions at Hong-Kong.
His salary would not commence until he departed for Texas.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE then called the attention of the house
to the national petition, and expressed the thanks of the
people for the respectful manner in which it had been re-
ceived. The hon. member put forward various precedents
to show that the petitioners might be heard at the bar of the
house in support of the allegations contained in their peti-
tion ; and then gave a sketch of the progress of parliamentary
reform, which might be considered identical with the chartism
of the present day, for in each case the principle was the
same. It was not to be denied that the Reform Bill was a
failure, and that the present House of Commons was even
more disposed than the unreformed house to support class
legislation. He feared that a large majority of the house
would not assent to the allegations contained in the petition.
For his own part, he did not agree to all of them, but still
be was of opinion that the petitioners ought to be heard by
counsel at the bar of the house.

Mr. LEADER seconded the motion with much gratification,
and contended for the sincerity of the petitioners in the ob-
jects wbicb they were endeavouring to carry out.

Dr. BowRING said, that this petition was the most nu-
merously signed that had ever been presented to the house,
and he believed that all its allegations might be sustained by
evidence.

Mr. FIRLDRN hoped that the olive branch would be held
out to the people, and that they might be heard by counsel
at the bar of the house.
Sir J. EASTHOPE said, he had, on a former night, opposed
the motion of Mr. S. Crawford, because be thought it pledged
the house to what was termed " chartism." This, however,
was a different motion; and though he differed from many
of the allegations of the petition, still he dared not say to
3,000,000 of his fellow-subjects that they ought not to be
heard at the bar of the house in support of their allegations.
Sir J. GRAHAM admitted the distress under which the
petitioners were struggling, but believing that the avowed
political objects of the petitioners would lead to disastrous
consequences, be felt bound to resist the motion, more par-
ticularly because, if carried, it could only lead to delusion.
Mr. M ACA lILEY was strongly opposed to the charter, and
~fore strongly opposed to the prayer of the petition. He
illy agreed with some of the principles contained in the
such as vote by ballot, and the abolition of a property
Ation for Members of Parliament ; but he was opposed
-sal suffrage, because he believed that its adoption
ke the security of property. There were contained
ion opinions which, if carried out, would not only
xtir,ction of the national debt but would involve
confiscation of property. If the petitioners ob-
means of what they asked for, little less than ab-
,:ver, they would proceed, by means of universal
• to universal spoliation, until the projects of ameliora-
/led in total ruin, and perhaps the erection of a military
r),n, on the wreck of our liberal institutions.
r. RnEeccic would not judge of the working classes of
4 country by the trashy document before the house, nor by
e conduct of the demagogue who drew it up ; but he would
udge of them by their patience under suffering, and by the
comparison which his travels in all parts of the world enabled
nim to draw between the people of England and those of
-nuntries. He should vote for the motion of the hon.
..tier for Finsbury, because be supported the charter, and
because he beli-- • -ore granted the representatives of

-..ieved if it • - b—
the People would be chosen from the wealthy, the educated,
and the influential classes of the community. He could not
envy Mr- Macauley the estimate he formed of the people of
England; for hia own part he had a better opinion of them.
and did not think that entrusting them with power would
burlead to the rapine anticipated by the hon. member for Edin-
gh.

Lord F. EGIRTON opposed the prayer of the petition, and
said he thought Mr. Macauley had not been used with perfect
fairness by Mr. Roebuck.
Mr. HANvEs said Mr. Roebuck had relieved him from all
culty as to his Vote, for he had said that the vote on this
'ion was to be considered as a vote for or against the
r, and to the charter he could not give his support, for
opposed to any au°. u
indefinite extension of the suf-
was prayed for by the petitioners. He was not op-
gradual extension of the suffrage, but in the pre-
f the education of the people,habelieved a sudden
Ich as that sought for, wouldlead to mischievous

Jiff
clue
Cha
be

it,ngland, if entrusted
people of ENI s denied that the
r, would be likely to turn
_ .respassin
which they
~er for Edinburgh. to purpnwsasorPPosed by the
the prayer of the petitioners they spoliation. By
,rbe trance, and inciting the revolutionw
,apprehend. r
heard with great regret the speech of mr.
and little thought that such a speech would have-'
-I from a metropolitan member. The descriptio of
England given by the hon. member for Edin-
-
~ely frightful. Where were our army and
a ? Were they cowardly, treacherous, and
se ? He denied that the question was "aye"
avour of the charter. He was himself in favour
in liar/lents, and could not therefore vote for the
r ; but the question before the house was simply
would or would not hear 3,000,000 of their fel-
at the bar of the house to point out the grievances

We' ,
Mr. lb AKI

aken fro

under which they laboured.
Ltd J. RUSSELL felt boundatodexhpisreassbhaotrtrheleioseamfoertitmhee
hi, respect for the petitioners o
doctrines contained in their petition.
He
for a moment that the grievances complained oi d n
f byo not
the believe
d
peti-
tioners would be in the slightest degree
twould be remediedthe by acced-
ing to the prayer of their petition, while
signal for a general panic, and cause an immediate transfer
of capital from this to other countries, and thus increase
the distress so forcibly set forth in the petition. Thinking
as he did that the question before the house was that de-
scribed by Mr. Roebuck, " aye" or " no," for or against_
the charter, he should give his vote against the motion of
the hon. member for Finsbury.
Sir R. PEEL said that, even if the question was not as to
the policy of granting the charter, still be should oppose the
motion for hearing the petitioners by their counsel or agents
at the bar in support of these allegations. He thought it
more honest to tell the petitioners at once that they could
not be heard at the bar, rather than, by hearing them, to
awaken hopes which must inevitably end in delusion. The
petition was an impeachment of the whole constitution of the
country ; and was he to be called upon to suspend all the
business of the country to enter upon an inquiry like this,
which must terminate in nothing ? It was far more honest
to tell them at once that their prayer could not be listened

to than to hear them first and then tell them that their arga.
ments had made no impression upon his mind. To adopt
the principle of universal suffrage would be to establish a
democracy on the ruins of the mixed monarchy under which
this country had, for 150 years, enjoyed more substantial
happiness than had ever fallen to the lot of any other nation.
111 r. MUNTZ said he voted for the motion simply because
it was one of inquiry, and he could not make up his mind to
refuse inquiry when he heard of the state of suffering in
which such an enormous number of his fellow-subjects were

struggling.
Mr, Osw.kLo said he would be no party to the delusion
of hearing the petitioners at the bar of the house, when be
knew such a proceeding could lead to no beneficial results.
Mr. VILLIERS supported the motion of Mr. Duncombe.

Lord CLEMENTS opposed the motion.
Mr. O'CONNELL supported the motion, because be was
an advocate for universal suffrage ; but he could not in any
way identify himself with the petition.

Mr. DUI,iCOMBE replied, after which the motion was nega-
tived by a majority of 287 to 49.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and
the house adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—WEDNESDAY.
When the order of the day was moved for the second
reading of the Church Patronage (Scotland) bill,
Sir J. GRAHAM said, that, owing to the division which had
heretofore prevailed in Scotland upon this question, govern-
ment had felt that it would be useless to bring forward any
measure with a hope that it would lead to reconcilement of
the differences which prevailed. Now, however, matters
wore a different aspect, and, from the communications which
had taken place between the government and influential par-
ties in Scotland, he had reason to hope that some healing
measure might be now advantageously adopted. Under
these circumstances he would ask the hon. member who had
charge of the bill, to postpone its second reading, in order
that government might have time to consider of the proper
course to be pursued ; and if in a reasonable time govern-
ment should not be prepared with a measure, the bon. mem-
ber would, of course, be at liberty to proceed with his own.
Mr. CAMPBELL said that, under these circumstances, he
should postpone the second reading of his bill for six weeks.
Mr. F. MAULS was opposed to the postponement, believ-
ing that the measure which the government intended to in-
troduce would be the same as had formerly been brought
before the other house of parliament by Lord Aberdeen,
upon which the opinion of the people and of the church of
Scotland had been already unequivocally expressed. He
should therefore move that the bill be then read a second
time.
Mr. PLUMPTRE supported the postponenient.
After some discussion, in which Mr. Campbell, Mr. Coch-
rane, Mr. P. M. Stewart, and Mr. Wallace took part,
Sir R. PEEL said that it was a most unprecedented thing
to move the second reading of a bill after the hon. member
whose bill it was announced his intention of postponing it,
and in the present instance it was the more strange on the
part of Mr. Fox M rule to attempt to force on legislation
upon the subject, when it was recollected that lie had been
for five years in office without attempting to do anything
whatever to put an end to the dissensions which prevailed.
After some further discussion the house divided, and the
postponement of the bill was carried by a majority of 131
to 48.
The Public-house bill was re-committed pro forma, with
a view to introduce some amendments, after which it was
ordered to be read a third time on Wednesday week.
After some other bills had been disposed of, the house
adjourned.

PORTER'S PATENT ANCHOR

The following properties peculiar to this anchor are fully
verified by reports, founded on practical experience of its
merits.

It is impossible to foul it, either by hemp or chain cable;
consequently a vessel may ride at single anchor as secure
from fouling as if moored.
It cants and takes hold more quickly than any other.
It has extraordinary holding powers, whether the bottom
be chalk, clay, sand, or mud, &c.
It holds on to the shortest stay peak.
It presents no upper fluke to injure either the vessel her-
self or others in shoal water ; and the risk and delay occa-
sioned by hooking the cables of other vessels in crowded an-
chorages are avoided.
It is most convenient for stowage, as the flukes can easily
be separated from the shank and passed into the hold ; it is
therefore most convenient as a spare anchor. It can also be
easily separated and transported in two boats, which is an
advantage where it is of great weight.
it produces the desired effect of ground tackle at much
less weight.
In consequence of the upper fluke coming down on the
centre of the shank, the greater portion of the strain is re-
moved from the pivot, and transferred to that part of the
shank on which the upper pea rests, thus dividing the re-
sistance more equally by bringing the leverage nearer to the
ring ; the anchor is thereby enabled to bear strains and jerks
which would be fatal to one of the ordinary construction.

In consequence of the arms being made apart from the
shank, with bars extending from pea to pea, the risk of an
unsold weld at the crown is avoided ; and as that is the part
where other anchors so often fail, this is considered to be an
important advantage.