The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-06-24 00:00:00

Mr. BERNAL said that within the last three days the
channels of retail trade had been dammed up by the difficul-
ties arising from the proclamation. In the country the evil
must be much greater than in the metropolis, for in many
parts of the kingdom the small traders would have no means
of changing their gold at all.
Sir R. PEEL said that nothing could be more discouraging
to public men than to be found fault with when they were
acting right. In January last a representation had been
made to the government by the bankers of London that the
quantity of gold coinage of deficient weight in circulation
was so great as to be a serious evil, and they suggested that
the Bank of England should be empowered to clip all light
sovereigns, and to purchase them at the mint price. This
was a proof of the necessity of the measure, and as to the
time chosen for carrying it into operation being injudicious,
on account of the distress prevailing at the moment, he
would only say that in the state of the exchanges, government
had not seized the opportunity when circumstances were so
favourable to this country, it would have incurred a very
serious responsibility. Under such circumstances it was
unfair to bring forward individual cases of loss, as if they
were a true criterion by which to judge of an important
measure like the one in question. The right hon. baronet
also contended that the loss attending the calling in of the
coinage ought not to be borne by the treasury.
Mr. HUME said that the government had done right to
seize the opportunity of calling in the light gold, but they
should have provided greater facilities for its exchange, and
should have taken care that there should have been a proper
supply of silver ; whereas it appeared that on that very day
the Bank of England had not a single pound's worth of silver
with which to accommodate the public.
Captain BERKELEY complained that since the proclama-
tion light sovereigns had been issued by the government
offices. The men in the dockyard at Portsmouth had been
paid in light sovereigns.
Sir G. COCKBURN said he had the authority of Admiral
Bouverie for contradicting a portion of the statement in a
Hampshire paper, respecting this payment of light sove-
reigns to the men in the dockyard, and in a few days he
hoped to hove further information from the gallant admiral
on the subject.
Aftep a few observations from Lord EBRINTON, Mr. M.
ATTWOOD, and Mr. TURNER, the subject dropped.
On the motion that the Speaker should leave the chair,
in order that the house might go into committee on the poor
law bill,
Colonel SIDTHORP moved, as an amendment, that the
committee be postponed until that day three months.
Mr. WAKLEY said the more he saw, and the more he heard
of it the greater was his repugnance to it. It was to be con-
sidered as the measure of the great tory party, the individuals
of which, with few exceptions, had decried it at the hustings.
He thought that every ob,; Icle should be thrown in the way
of the progress of this bill, which, he believed, would sow
the seeds of revolution in the country. It was a coercion
bill against all the poor of England, and was denounced by
the people of England as a tyrannical and detestable mea-
sure. This bill was introduced, not for the purpose of pro-
tecting the poor, but for the purpose of grinding them into
dust ' • and for that purpose powers were conferred upon the
poor law commissioners which the two houses of parliament
and the crown united did not possess. It was said that the
poor law act would have the effect of raising wages, but he
would ask the house if it had done so ? Why, any man of
sagacity must have known it would not have such an effect,
when the poor were compelled to accept whatever wages were
offered to them, with the only alternative of a gaol. The
hon. member referred to the dietary in London and some
parts of the country, showing that in London it was nearly
double what it was in the country, and appealed to Sir R.
Peel to say if it was justifiable thus to give a starvation die-
tary to the poor in those places where wages were lowest ?
The whigs were hated and despised for passing the poor law
bill, and now the great tory party were treading in their foot-
steps; but they might rely upon it if this bill passed ad-
dresses would pour in from all parts of the country praying
her Majesty to dissolve the present parliament, as inimical to
the best interests of the people. There was no proposition
in the bill to diminish the size of unions, though it was one
of the most important recommendations of the committee.
The hon. member commented on the purposed mode of pay-
ing medical men (under the last order of the commissioners)
according to the nature of the operations they might perform,
which held out an inducement to perform such operations
when they might not be absolutely necessary. He concluded
by heartily seconding the amendment.
Lord COURTEIVAY in supporting the original motion, re-
ferred to the evils which prevailed under the old poor law,
and argued for the necessity of a stringent and definite law to
correct the abuses and the idleness of which the former sys-
tem was the fruitful parent.
Mr. LAWSON opposed the bill.
Sir R. PEEL said, be was the opponent of the government
which had originally introduced the poor law bill ; but upon
that measure he had given it his support, and he had since
seen nothing to cause him to regret having done so or to
change the opinion upon which he then acted. The house
should not forget the idleness, the indecency, and want of
moral feeling arising out of the old system. It would be
easy to acquire a temporary popularity by opposition to this
law ; but convinced as he was that no period short of five
years would enable them to appreciate the operation of the
poor law commission, and believing also, the vices of the
former system were too inveterate to be removed, be gave
his cordial support to the bill before the house.
The house divided, and the amendment of Col. Sibthorp
was negatived by a majority of 219 to 48.
FERRAND then moved the adjournment of the debate
for one week, and
Mr. FIELDEN, in a speech of considerable length, second-
ed the motion.
Mr. M. PHILIPS defended the motives of those who were
the authors, supporters, and administrators of the Poor Law
Bill.

Sir J. GRAHAM, in reference to some statements made by
Mr. Ferrand respecting the proceedings in the union of
Keithley, said that if the hon. member would move for a
committee of inquiry to ascertain the facts, he should have
the support of the government in a searching investigation.
Sir J. HANMER. opposed the adjournment of the debate,
and said that such motions as that of Mr. Ferrand were cal-
ulated to produce much mischief.
Mr.. COLVILLE supported the motio❑ for adjournment.
Mr. FERRAND said, if he could have the committee re-
d to by Sir James Graham, he should not divide tho
house. _ _

Sir .1. GRAHAM said he did not wish him to give up his
motion upon a misunderstanding. The committee he would
not oppose would be one to inquire into the management of
the poor in the Keithley union.
Mr. FERRAND said in that case he would divide the house,
for what he wanted was an inquiry into the conduct of Mr.
Mott and Sir John Walsharn.
The house divided, and Mr. Ferrand's motion was de-
feated by a majority of 255 to 18.
The house then went into committee pro forma, and the
Chairman immediately afterwards reported progress, and ob-
tained leave to sit again next day.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and
the house adjourned.

HOUSE OF LORDS.—TUESDAY.
The Earl of CLARENDON presented a petition from the
Cape of Good Hope, praying for an extension to the Cape of
the principles of the British constitution. The petitioners
were dissatisfied with the present form of government, and
were of opinion, that if they had some share in it, it would
be better.
Thel. d lal
1:10uof RIPON said that government was naturally
aonfxtihoeuscaabpoeuutptohne
twheells-lbthe
subject.
Lord that important colony, and
inhabitants
had caused some communications to be made to the governor
scarcely applyvjoe
GRAM was opposed to any immediate extension
of the British constitution to the Cape : first, because the
because where
ere composed of various races to whom it would
recently relieved 1
; secondly, because, in our colonies, such ex-
tensions only nominal, and not real ; and, thirdly,
could become at once portion of the population had been but
the constitution bondage, it was not likely that they
as fitted to exercise the right given by
as those persons who had never been slaves
themselves.
After a few words
Marquis of CLAN
from Lord HOWDEN, the petition was
laid upon the table.
George stated the circumstances
The Mar
under which Mr. St.
magistracy of the county ogfeGaall been dismissed from the
by himself (the marquis) to obwtoY, and the attempt made
St. Geoarge refusing
attempt failed in consequence Ofl his restoration, which
to retract the letter which had led to dismissal. He had,
attributed to an
gdoovueern -
to his surprise, been recently informed
bad been restored, which was perhaps to be Mr. St. George
glad of his
atsikonthtoe
article in a leading Dublin newspaper.
restoration if it were correct ; and he beeg,Zis
noble duke if it were so, and also if he had any ot;;•e
produce the correspondence which led to his restoration.
The Duke of WELLINGTON said that the former
went could not have acted otherwise than they had
in
sequence Mr. St. George, and he had been restored in con
sequence of the strong representations made by other persons