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

filiperial Variiament.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—TnunsDA

Mr. :H. J. BAILLIE moved for copies of the correspon-
dence of Sir Alexander Burnes with the Governor-General
of India during his mission to Cabool in the years 1837 and
1838. Also, copies of the correspondence of the Governor-
General of India with the President of the Board of Control,
and with the secret committee of the East India Company,
from the Ist day of September, 1837, to the Ist day of Octo-
ber, 1839, relative to the expedition to Affghanistan. His
object was to obtain such information for the house as to
enable it to form a judgment whether the occupation of Aff-
ghanistan was the result of due and mature consideration

tk. Burnes had condemned the projected war as both im-
politic and unjust, and had warned the Governor-General of
the probable consequences of sending an army into a country
so remote from all the resources of the Indian empire. That
the occupation of Affghanistan was a great political mistake,
was, he believed, now universally admitted, and it would be
also admitted that it would be a fortunate occurrence if we
could now withdraw our troops from that country without
any stain upon our national honour, and without lowering
our military character throughout our Indian empire. He
referred to the proclamation of the Governor-General decry-
ing Dost Mohammed and stating the necessity of upholding
Shah Soojah, who was so very popular throughout Affghanis-
tan, and said that this proclamation was so contrary to fact
that it must have been issued for some peculiar purpose, the
real state of the case being that Dost Mohammed was be-
loved, owing to his strict dispensation of justice, while Shah
Soojah was universally unpopular. The hon. member then
gave a narrative of the negotiations held with Dost Moham-
med, who had evinced the best disposition towards the Bri-
tish nation, and had offered to break off all negotiations with
Persia and other countries if he could be assured of the sup-
port of the British Government. It was clear, therefore, he
contended, that the Governor-General of India might have
made a most advantageous treaty with Dost Mohammed, and
might have acquired all that was desirable without any ne-
cessity of going to war. He did not dispute the course which
it was now deemed necessary to pursue—on the contrary,
whatever might have been the cause of the war—however
impolitic in its origin and deplorable in its results hitherto,
there could now be but one opinion as to the necessity of
maintaining our character, if we would maintain our glorious
empire in India.
Mr. DISRAELI seconded the motion, and adverted to the
important fact, that the chairman of the East India Com-
pany had intimated at a recent meeting of the company that
he expected that the British Government would pay all the
expenses incurred in consequence of the occupation of Aff-
ghanistan. He commented in terms of strong disapproval
upon the course pursued by Sir J. C. Hobhouse and Lord
Palmerston in these unfortunate transactions, and who had,
strangely enough, alleged as a reason for invading Affghanis-
tan, that the territories of the company were threatened at
the side of Nepaul and Burmah. . Thus because there was
apprehension as to the safety of the empire on the one side,
all the troops that could be collected were instantly sent
3,000 miles in another direction for the purpose of invading
another country. He did not think that our recent losses
would lead to any disastrous results to our Indian empire.
At the present day, Burke's declaration, that our Govern-
ment in India was a government of opinion, was not exactly
true; for our empire there comprised about thirty different
nations, many, if not most of them, were scarcely known to
each other; so that, in point of fact, we had a strong power
beyond that of public opinion—a power more than ordinarily
great, owing to the isolation of those states, and the impos-
sibility of the native princes communicating with each other;
and also owing to the segregation of religious sects, which
prevented anything like combination. But there was a dan-
ger to our Indian empire from this war, arising from the very
efficiency of our civil and military system in India, the dan-
ger that a revenue could never be derived from the country
adequate to maintain it in its efficiency, and therefore it was
that unnecessary wars were to be most strenuously depre-
cated. In another point of view also they were productive
of much mischief by interfering with commerce to an extent
scarcely credible to those who had not turned their attention
to the subject. The hon. member then contended that it
was altogether unnecessary to raise a barrier against Russia
for the protection of our Indian territories, and said that, if
Russia menaced those territories, our course should be, not
to confine the war to Asia, but to make Europe its theatre
also. The whole foreign policy of Lord Palmerston he
described as characteristic of fatal inertness, or of more ter-
rible energy. He always began by neglect of his duties, and
terminated by the violation of the rights of other countries.
Sir J. C. HOBROUSE said, that without meaning any of-

fence to either the hon. mover or seconder of this motion,
he must say, that unless Indian affairs were more fairly dealt
with, more deeply understood, and more impartially dis-
cussed than they had been, by either of those two hon. li
members, the time of the house would be perfectly wasted
by referring to them at all. The charge made by Mr.
Baillie against, the Governor-General of India was of the
most serious description, and such as ought to draw down
upon that officer the severest punishment, if true, that par-
liament could inflict. But the Governor-General was a man
incapable of issuing any document with a sinister motive—
he was a man of the most singular integrity, and would never
be followed in his government by any person more estimable
as a man of honour. When the proclamation referred to
reached England he.: Majesty communicated to parliament
the fact that a British army had commenced operations be-
yond the Indus. Upon that occasion Mr. D'lsraeli had not
attempted to condemn the proceedings, nor had a single
member in either house of parliament attempted to do so.
The Duke of Wellington alone expressed a wish for informa-
tion, adding, that he would not condemn the Governor-
General of India, but that he looked at the whole proceed-
ings with the deepest anxiety. The right hon. gentleman
then adverted to other instances in which the measure might
have been condemned had honourable gentlemen thought
proper to do so, and said the only observation made in the
House of Lords was by Lord Brougham, who said that he
would wait for events, as it appeared the two hon. gentlemen
had done who had just addressed the house. Even when the
late powerful opposition had attacked the late government
with the want of confidence motion, they had not thought pro-
per to make the Affghanistan war one of the points of attack,
which they would have done if the statements of the hon. mover
were to be relied upon. The right hon gentleman then quoted the
authority of the East India Company and of Al r. Hoeg,
than whom he thought there could not be a better authority,
in support of the sagacity of the policy respecting the occu-
pation of Affghanistan. The war was undertaken on the
fullest consideration, and the proper authorities were con-
,Alted, but wL.ther the -r.a. 5.,-,‘3 Just was a matter rur the
consideration of the house. In justification of the policy
pursued by the government, the right hon. gentleman read
some communications from Mr. Ellis, our minister at the
court of Persia, to the effect that the Persian government
regarded a great portion of Affghanistan as part of the terri-
tory of that empire, and that Affghanistan, therefore, could
be considered as little better than the first parallel from
whence an attack on India might be made. Russia also was
by her agents at the time advising the attack on Herat, and
it was said that the Russian minister had even assisted at
the siege. He then entered into a statement of various in-
trigues carried on by Russia, which led to communications
between Lord Palmerston and Count Nesselrode, and these
intrigues were the immediate cause which led Lord Auckland
to take the decisive stop of sending an army beyond the
Indus, believing the time had come when it was requisite to
prove to the Shah of Persia that Britain was as resolute in
its actions as Russia was in its promises. He next quoted
a letter from Sir Alexander Burnes, insisting, upon the ne-
cessity, now that the policy of Russia was apparent, to warn
the court of Persia not to interfere with Affghanistan, and
also by implication, pointing out the necessity of sending a
British force to Affghanistan, declaring that Dost Moham-
med, by going over to the Persians, had lost his popularity,
and that two regiments of British troops would be sufficient
to place Shah Soojah on the throne for ever. He did not
imagine that any government would dare to materially
change the policy of Lord Auckland, which, if followed up,
would enable us to repair our late disasters, and secure our
Indian empire.
Lord JOCELYN was of opinion that his country should
pause before it attempted to reconquer Affghanistan. Lord
Auckland was, no doubt, an able an enterprising man, as
Governor-General of India ; but he thought, notwithstand-
ing, that the interference in the concerns of Central India
was mistaken policy. He contended that this country had
fallen into the trap laid by Russia, and had played the game
of that empire both politically and financially.
Mr. HOGG said, than an erroneous interpretation had
been placed upon what he had said on a former occasion,
and also upon the resolution agreed to by the Court of Di-
rectors when returning thanks to Lord Auckland. At the
time the resolution was proposed he had objected to the
word " sagacity," as implying forethought, and conveying
the impression that they were approving, not only of the
means of carrying on the war, but that they also approved of
the car itself. The majority of the meeting held, however, •
that the word did not convey such a meaning, and it was,
therefore, suffered to remain. With respect to the motion
before the house, he wholly disapproved of it. Although he
was opposed to the policy of invading Affghanistan, still
there was but one course now to be pursued—perfidy must
be punished—murder the moat shocking must be avenged,
and the honour of the country must be upheld. He wanted
no more information. The papers already on the table proved
most amply the extent of Russian intrigues, and also proved
that our Indian government was placed by these intrigues in
an embarrassing position. While, therefore, he condemned
the war as unjust and impolitic, he still thought the Govern-
ment of India was placed in a position in which the wisest
might err, and in which none should be condemned. He
did not complain o one chief being preferred to another for
the throne of Afghanistan, but he complained that we had
interfered at all. We should have confined ourselves to
commercial intercourse, and if it was necessary to check the
designs of Russia, why not do so by a fleet in the Baltic rather
than through the medium end 4t the expense of the Indian
people? The Court of Directors of the East India Company
never knew anything of the hostilities in contemplation until

they read in the public papers that the army was actually on
the Indus. Ile of course excepted the secret committee,
who must have known it, but who were sworn to secresy.
The general opinion in India was that the war was impolitic
and unjust; and even in the India House he would find it
difficult to lay his hand upon a single individual who approved
of the policy of occupying Affghanistan. In thanking the
officers and soldiers engaged in the war, they avoided any
observations which could detract from the graciousness of
the vote ; but the general feeling was, " whatever we may
say or do, for God's sake let it not be assumed that we sanc-
tion or approve of this horrible war."
Mr. HUTT defended the policy pursued by the late Govern-
ment with respect to Affghanistan.
Sir R. PEEL said he was convinced that in the present po-
sition of Indian affairs it would not be for the interests of the
public to grant the papers moved for. With respect to the
fears of Russia, entertained by the late government, he was
willing to admit that owing to the conduct of some Russian
As far as
agents there was strong ground of suspicion of the intentions
of that power, and Lord Palmerston was justified in requir-
ing, as he had done, explanations from the Government of
ei
tethem.
Russia. Those explanations were frankly given, and were
so full and so explicit that the noble lord had himself de-
claredmecalas-t
his (Sir R. Peel's) knowledge andexptehreienspceiriwteonf htt,heed
that he was perfectly sad up to
xthisifid with
most
bdthe perAfe perfect and
rsaatyiotnhsatthßeuhss made,
adhea,d and
dnche
aadcte e
friendly good faith both as regarded Persia and Affghanistan.
If then there was the most perfect good will now between
Russia and this country, would it be right to produce docu-
ments which might give evidence of a different feeling at
another time, and under different circumstances? It would
not be right or proper, and he would upon that ground refuse
the papers moved for. W ith respect to the hope expressed,
that the present Government would follow up the policy of
Lord Auckland, he would only sayt that at the distance we
were from the scene of operations i would be going tee far
to give any pledge of any particular course of action, which
must in a great measure be governed by circumstances ; but
no course should be pursued calculated to compromise the
nor did he think it
of the British arms, right that the
honour
had taken place shoud
Perfidy and treachery whichgo wholly
unpunished. it was not
Lord PALMERSTON agreed that
such expedient
that
now that suc
those papers should be produced,ussia and England. He
un-
derstanding prevailed between
fatal *He
D'lsraeli of resting with supine-
was accused by Mr.
* into terrible energy; but he
ness, and suddenly starting
must say that for three years the ion. member had been
resting in fatal supineness on this subject, though he bad
not at length exhibited any very terrible energy in returning
to action. The noble lord then contended that the whole
current of authority at the time was in support of the neces-
sity of our crossing the Indus if we meant to protect our -
In-
dian empire. The fact was that for a series of years we had
regarded Persia as a frontier against any danger to our Indian
empire from that side ; but we subsequently ascertained that
Persia seemed to have an altered feeling, and to wish to
ex-
tend her frontier, so as to include Affghanistan, and it

tnerefore became necessary that ,Affghantstan should t

maintained as an independent state, or that it should in some
measure be open to British influence. He should be sorry to
have it supposed that we were sending an army into Affgha-
nistan for the purposes of revenge, though he could well un-
derstand the feeling that the disaster of Cabool ought not to
be quietly and ignobly acquiesced in. He approved of the
policy of Sir R. Peel in abstaining from giving the smallest
insight as to the future plans of the Government with regard
to Affghanistan. The noble lord concluded by eulogising
the merits of the late Government as to their foreign negotia-
tions, and especially in maintaining the peace of Europe.
Mr. [hymn said he would divide upon the motion.
A division accordingly took place; and the motion was
negatived by a majority of i 5 to 9.
. .

The house went into committee on the bonded corn ; and
a resolution on which to found a bill was agreed to.
The orders of the day were then disposed of, and the house
adjourned.

HOUSE OF LORDS.-FRIDAY

The Marquis of LONDONDERRY presented a petition from
the coalowners of Durham and Northumberland respecting
the bill regulating the employment of children in mines. The
petition prayed that their lordships would not legislate in a
period of excitement with haste, in consequence of a report
which did not apply to the collieries in those countries.
The Bishop of NORWICH said that he should reply to what
was said by the noble marquis when the bill should be be-
fore the house, but he could not avoid stating at that mo-
ment that it was much to the credit of Ireland that in no in-
stance were women and children employed in mines of any
kind in that country. _ _

..... .......,_______, _
In reply to a question from the Earl of BELHAVEN,
The Duke of WELLINGTON said that the Government had
vainly endeavoured to find means to settle the dissensions
which prevailed in the church of Scotland. They had pre-
pared a measure, which they subsequently gave up on finding
that it was not likely to be well received by the parties in-
terested. It was a difficult question to deal with, but Go-
vernment would continue to give its attention to the subject,
with a view to ascertain some means of settling the question.
The Copyright Bill was read a third time and passed ; after
which their lordships adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—FRIDAY.
Mr. SIIEIL gave notice, 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. SHEIL 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-

al, nor an apology for having written it. He could not con-
tra to the production of the correspondence. _

iotice that he would move for the

Mr. SHELL tl
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 o(
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. GRIMSDITC R 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 inr,onvenience 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 distrest
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 fora 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. I-I ctitu expressed his approbation of the bill, but in-
sisted that the government was not treating the Pc°ple fairly
ixt 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. .

----.-.
COI. 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 I'. WOOD supported the new poor law, and ex-
pressed a desire to see it calmly and deliberately discussed.
Mr. S. WORTLEY said he was not disposed to offer gny
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 bad 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. PEEL could not hold out any expectation that go-
vernment would acquiesce in the proposition to delay this
bill for another year. There bad been ample time for deli-
beration, and he therefore hoped that no factious opposition
would be 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 had 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 ifght 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 Howiex 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 hp intended to give his vote, lest his con-
duct might be open to some misconception, 4t 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 tp many districts of the country.
Re 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 powerjor 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
f the labouring classes of
the pledge lie had given on taking office, that he would do
something effective fer the relief 0
the community. •
After a few observations from Mr. CRAWFORD and Gen.
JOHNSON,
Mr. PIELDEN 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 inter saw such a factious course per.

siste-d in as the one now begun by the-Won. membei for
Oldham.

Mr. WAKLEY defended Mr. Fielden' and said that theadjournment 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 he 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 corning, 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 question 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

TO CORRESPONDENTS

The correspondent who forwarded us the result of the cricket
match between the Kensington and Leander clubs should
also have sent a record of the innings.
" A Subscriber" wishes us to call the attention of the Dock
Committee to the fact that the dredging-machine was
worked last Sunday in Coburg Dock. The excuse made
for a former violation of the Sabbath (low spring-tides)
cannot be pleaded in this instance.
We decline reluctantly the communication of " An English
Layman." It would bring about a collision we are always
anxious to avoid.
" A Protestant and an Orangeman of the Old School" writes
sensibly, but the publication, of his letter would only give
additional notoriety to the article in question. We cannot
insert the communication of " A True Protestant" for
the same reason.
A correspondent, " Clericus," informs us that serious of-
fence has been taken by some of our clerical readers, at a
few lines appended to a letter of the Rev. F. Barker, upon
the subject of the alleged mismanagement of the Edge-hill
Infant School, contained in our publication of June 14th.
Our remarks were, verbatim, these :—" We have been
egregiously misled if the facts turn out as represented by
Mr. Barker, and shall have more to say when we have
made a little further inquiry into the matter." This sen-
tence, Mr. Barker, we understand, has interpreted as im-
plying a doubt of his veracity—a thing the furthest pos-
sible from our thoughts. Our meaning, and the obvious
meaning of the sentence, in our humble opinion was, that
if Mr. Barker's version of the facts was correct, we had
been misled by our informant; and if ours was correct,
Mr. Barker had been misled. We certainly never dreamt
of casting a doubt upon any statement made by that Rev.
Gentleman, of his own knowledge; and we do really think
that the general character of the journal under our con-
troul is such as ought to have protected us from such a
supposition. We are gratified to notice the admission of
" Clericus," that the case, as brought under our notice,
was one which it was quite proper should be sifted.

REGISTER !-REGISTER !!-REGISTER ! !!

We call upon our Conservative friends to attend to the fol-
lowing instructions upon the all-important subject of the
registry. From the 20th of June, and to the end of the
month, persons may send claims to the overseers for in-
sertion in the county list, and must pay one shilling with
each claim. The following form qualifications to vote if
duly registered :—Freeholds, or any rent charge thereout,
of the annual value of 40s. ; and Copyholds of the annual
value of £lO, provided they have been in the possession
or ownership of the claimants six months on the 31st of
next July. The Occupation of Lands or Tenements, at a
yearly rent of £5O at the least. Leaseholds, for the rest-
due of a term originally created for not less than sixty
years, of the clear annual value of £5O. In the three last
cases an occupation or ownership must have existed for
twelve months up to the 31st of July in the year of claim-
ing. A Freehold for Life or Lives, of the clear annual
value of £lO, in the claimant's ownership for six months
previous to the same 31st of July. Mortgagees, in the
receipts of rents and profits, and Annuitants also, may
claini, if long enough in possession. With respect, how-
ever, to the time required for ownership, previous to
claiming, it ought to be explained that where any person
acquires property by descent, succession, marriage, mar-
riage settlement, devise, promotion to any benefice in the
church, or promotion to any office, he is entitled to be
registered the then next revision, although the property or
emolument may have come into his possession an hour
only before the 20th of July, which is the last day for
sending in a claim. No claim can be sent in later than
the 20th of July. The Christian name and Surname must
be written at full length. The place of abode must be
particularly stated, naming the street or place. Persons
are not required to make any fresh claim to be registered
so long as they retain the same qualification, and continue
in the same place of abode, as described on the register.
Describe qualification as a Freehold, or Copyhold, or
Leasehold, House or Warehouse, Stable, Land, Field,
Annuity, Rent Charge, &c., as the case may he ; and if
the qualification be as Occupier, it must be so stated, and
such a description of the property given as may serve to
identify it, as " Lord-street, Liverpool." If the property
be not situate in any street, lane, or other like place, then
say, " Name of the property, Parkfield Farm," or "Name
of the occupying tenant, John Smith."—Occupiers of £lO
houses and upwards, in boroughs, should see that they are
properly rated in the assessment for the relief of the poor,
and claim if their names be omitted, or correct any error
if entered incorrectly.