The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-06-28 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-FRIDAY

Mr. SHEILv
gavenotice, that in the committee on the
Bribery at Elections Bill he would move that the offence of
intimidation be included.
In reply to a question from Mr. SHELL respecting the re-
appointment of Mr. St. George to the magistracy of Galway,
Lord ELIOT said, that the re-appointment of Mr. St.
George was made in deference to the numerous applications
in his favour from persons of all shades of politics. He had
however, before his re-appointment, sent a letter of expla-
nation to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland ; but he must say
that that explanation was neither a retraction of his former
letter to the Lord Lieutenant which had led to his dismis-
sal, nor an apology for having written it. He could not con-
sent to the production of the correspondence.
Mr. SHELL then gave notice that he would move for the
production of the papers.
On the order of the day for the house resolving itself into
committee on the poor law amendment bill,

Mr. LAWSON moved that it be an instruction to the com-
mittee that they have power to divide the bill into two
parts.

Sir J. GRAHAM observed that a very large portion of the
measure before the house was but a repetition of the bill of
last year, which had been very much discussed ; and as the
bill as it now stood had been six weeks before the house and
the country there was no excuse for the factious opposition
threatened by the hon. member for Oldham and other hon.
members.

Capt. PECHELL expressed his determination to make one
in this factious opposition, and to delay the bill by every
means which the forms of the house would admit of.
Dr. BOWRING declared that he strongly felt the magni-
tude of the abuses of the old system, and the necessity of a
remedy ; and he had also anticipated much benefit from the
establishment of the central commission. Judging, how-
ever, from his experience of its operation in Bolton, he must
say that the powers of the commissioners were not exer-
cised in a humane or impartial manner. He opposed the
continuance of those extraordinary powers; but he would
not lend himself to any factious opposition to the bill.
Mr. O'CONNELL was opposed to the bill, but thought it
better that it should not be divided.

Mr. FIELDEN would resist the bill in every way, whether
such a course were deemed factious or otherwise.

Sir H. W. BARRON supported the bill, which, when party
animosity subsided, would be regarded as a great benefit,
both to rich and poor, throughout the kingdom.
Mr. GRIMSDITCH thought the hon. member who had just
sat down could not have the means of judging of the work-
ing of the English poor law.
Ultimately the motion was withdrawn.

On the question that the SPEAKER leave the chair,
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE moved a resolution to the effect, that,
considering the prevailing distress amongst the commercial
and industrious classes, together with the advanced period
of the session, and also the fact, that the poor law bill ex-
pires on the 31st July, there was not sufficient time to enable
parliament to deliberate on the subject, and that it was
therefore better to adopt measures of a temporary nature, to
meet any inconvenience which might ensue. The hon mem-
ber said there were other matters demanding more immediate
attention ; and as the people were strongly opposed to the
poor law bill, it would be better to defer it until an early
period of next session.
Mr. WALLACE seconded the motion ; and declared his
resolution to resist the progress of the bill on the table. The
condition of the starving population of the manufacturing
districts demanded the immediate consideration of ministers
and of parliament.
Sir J. GRAHAM said the motion was a very important one,
and had been very fairly brought forward. if a decided sup-
port should be given to the motion, it would have a very sen-
sible effect on the determination of government. They felt
deeply for the distress of the people, wide spread as it un-
doubtedly was, there being no less than 1,200,000 in the re-
ceipt of parochial relief; and he believed that that distress
could only be met by a measure such as the one under consi-
deration, which adopted the wise course of giving ample and
uncrippled powers, instead of weakening them by conferring
a merely temporary authority. He therefore called upon the
house at once for a decided expression of its opinion, assuring
them that he was prepared to discuss every clause in com-
mittee, in the most dispassionate and conciliatory spirit.
Mr. HUME expressed his approbation of the bill, but in-
sisted that the government was not treating the people fairly
in keeping up those laws which had been the occasion of the
distress.

Mr. LIDDELL was in favour of passing a temporary mea-
sure. and proceeding with the bill itself early in the next
session. The temporary bill might consist of the first five
clauses of the bill on the table. With respect to what had
fallen from Mr. Hume, he stated his belief that a free trade
in corn would have no effect in alleviating the existing dis-
tress.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that, after the first five clauses
were passed, the house would be in a better position to judge
whether there would be time or not for carrying the whole
measure.
Col. WOOD thought it was the duty of Parliament to de-
fine the nature of the relief to be given to the poor, instead
of entrusting it to the direction of the commissioners. He
would therefore support the postponement of the bill till
next session.
Mr. FERRAND condemned Mr. Mott's report respecting
the Keighley union as scandalously false. He contended
that the country had been betrayed, for the present govern-
ment was supported on the faith that they would not main-
tain the new poor law, and yet they were now using all their
power to pass it. The hon. member spoke at great length,
designating the charges made by Mr. Mott against the
guardians of the Keighley union as false and disgusting, and
denouncing the Poor Law Bill with great vehemence. He
had no difficulty in predicting that if the government should
persist in the present measure that it would take only two
years to destroy all the power and influence of Sir R. Peel.

Colonel. T. Woo) supported the new---POor
pressed a desire to see it calmly and deliberately discussed.
Mr. S. WORTLEY said he was not disposed to offer any
factious opposition to the government on the question, but
Sir. J. Graham claimed such a decided permanence for the
commission that he should support the motion of Mr.
Duncombe. _ _

-
Mr. WAKLEY said that although he had been strongly
urged to delay the bill by every means, in order that the
commission might die a natural death next month, yet he
would not do so if the government would only propose its
continuance for another year, in order to give further time
for consideration. He hoped government would exhibit a
spirit of conciliation and agree to the motion of his hon.
colleague.
Mr. A. B. COCHRANE was Opposed to the Poor Law Bill,
which he regarded almost with disgust.
Mr. ROEBUCK said Sir Robert Peel must have been aware
of the uses which had been made of the poor law agitation
for the purpose of removing the late government from office.
The suppression of monastic institutions had led to the poor
laws, but the act of Elizabeth was gradually diverted from
its original purposes until the great measure of the poor law
amendment restored its advantages and secured for it a
character not to be destroyed by any vulgar outcry which
could be raised against it. He felt convinced that the really
honest and industrious poor had received more benefit from
the " three kings of Somerset House," as they were called,
than from any other plan that had ever been thought of. He
was therefore quite prepared to take his full share of any
unpopularity which might attach to voting for the permanence
of the measure.

Sir R. Putt, could not hold out any expectation that go-
vernment would acquiesce in the proposition to delay this
bill for another year. There had been ample time for deli-
beration, and he therefore hoped that no factious opposition
would he offered to the bill. Indeed, from his experience of
the fair opposition he had hitherto received, he could not
believe that any unfair obstruction would be presented in the
present instance. He denied that he was open to the charge
of having allowed the Poor Law Bill to be turned into a
party engine. He iad supported it most earnestly from the
period of its first introduction, both on the hustings and in
the House of Commons, as being well calculated to increase
the comforts as well as raise the moral character of the poor.
The right hon. baronet then contended the Poor Law Bill
deprived the poor of no right to which, by law, they were
entitled ' • because it was a mistake to suppose that the law
of Elizabeth gave to the poor an indefeasible right to relief,
for in fact its principles were similar to those on which the
measure before the house was founded. The right hon.
baronet concluded by calling on the house to support, by so
large a majority. the principles upon which the government
had framed this bill, that the minority might refrain from
offering to it any opposition beyond that which was legiti-
mate and fair.
Lord HOWICK supported the general principles of the poor
law, and contended that Sir R. Peel's defence of himself
against the charge of allowing the conservative party to avail
themselves of the agitation against the poor law was not
made out.
Sir E. KNATCHBULL defended the conduct of Sir R. Peel
and the government upon this point.
Lord SANDON then rose, but owing to the noise and con-
fusion which prevailed in the house and the frequent calls for
a division, his observations were very indistinctly heard in
the gallery. He said he was desirous of explaining the
grounds on which he intended to give his vote, lest his con-
duct might be open to some misconception. It was his opi-
nion that it was desirable to confine the powers of the poor
law commissioners within the narrowest possible limits. He
thought that during the last two months the commissioners
had evinced a disposition to reconsider and relax some of
their most severe and extreme regulations—regulations which
were wholly inapplicable to many districts of the country.
He would like to see the commissioners continued in office
for a short period longer, in order that an opportunity might
be afforded of ascertaining whether they still continued to
effect modifications in their former plans ; and when he had
seen the line of conduct they pursued, he would be ready to
give an opinion as to whether they should be entrusted with
the power:for the term of five years, On this ground he
thought that the commission might be continued for a year
longer, in order that the house might be able to judge of the
policy of adopting it as a permanent measure. He would,
therefore, support the amendment of the hon. member for
for Finsbury.

• •
Mr. COBDEN said, there could not be a chance for a de-
liberate consideration of the distress in the country if this
Poor Law Bill were pressed in the face of the opposition
against it. He contended that Sir R. Peel had not redeemed
the pledge he had given on taking office, that he would do
something effective for the relief of the labouring classes of
the community.
After a few observations from Mr. CRAWFORD and Gen.
JOHNSON,
Mr. FIELDEN moved the adjournment of the debate.
Mr. FERRAND, Colonel SIBTHORP. and other hon. mem-
bers said they were opposed to the bill, but would remain

away from the debates if they saw such a factious course per-
sisted in as the one now begun by the lion. member for
Oldham.

Mr. WAKLEY defended Mr. Fielden, and said that the
adjournment was necessary in order that the fallacies pro-
pounded by Mr. Roebuck might be answered.
Mr. FIELDEN, after some observations, persevered in the
motion for adjournment, upon which the house divided, and
the adjournment wos negatived by a majority of 297 to 29.
Sir C. NAPIER then moved the adjournment, on which
Sir R. PEEL said lie deeply regretted the course that had
been pursued, as the adjournment of the debate to Monday
would necessarily cause the postponement of the new tariff.
He hoped that in the future discussions on this bill the house
would not forget that Mr. Fielden had expressly declared
his object was to prevent the progress of the bill until the
existing one should have died a natural death.
After a few observations from Mr. Hawes, Mr. Wakley,
and Mr. Fielden, the debate was adjourned until Monday.
The Colonial Possessions Abroad Bill went through com-
mittee, and was ordered to be reported on Monday.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and
the house adjourned.

AMERICAN AND ENGLISH POLICY UPON THE
SUBJECT OF FREE TRADE.

(From the Guiana Times)

The Radicals of England clamour for the admission of
foreign corn. In America, at the self-same time, the farmers
and manufacturers of that new country cry out for protec-
tion. " The time is coining, when there must be action at
Washington, energetic and decisive - when the product of
the farmer, and the skill of the manufacturer, of our country,
must be protected." Thus enunciateth Brother Jonathan
the strength of his attachment to the principles of reciprocity
in his trade with John Bull. Even in the South, alarm is
taken at the want of national protection for native goods.
" We learn that large orders have been sent from Boston
and Salem to the East Indies for cotton, during the last
month. The increasing products of cotton in the British
East Indies will soon attract the attention of our Southern
producers, who must resort to a tariff of protection." It is
to be observed, that the quegtion of the duties proper to be
levied on foreign imports was one which the Southern States
and the Northern were accustomed to split upon. But, not
only cotton, but boots and shoes (of French manufacture),
are admitted into the States, to the ruin of the republican
artizan. One vessel, from Havre, recently brought 5,256
pairs. These, and other instances of the prevalence of the
trade with foreigners, are loudly exclaimed against in the
papers before us. Indeed, the " Friends of Domestic In-
dustry," in America, are almost as active as the English
" Anti Corn-Law-League," with this simple but noticeable
difference, that the former go patriotically to work, while the
latter play into the hands of the rivals of their fellow-coun-
trymen. Good heavens! What changes time works in the
temper of nations ! America, in the sixty-sixth year of her
existence, begins to repudiate the doctrines of free-trade, and
reads a salutary and striking lesson to the wavering politi-
cians of England who talk of opening the English ports to
the ships of the whole world !

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.-FRIDAY