The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-02-22 00:00:00

tinprriai Vatitaiant.

HOUSE OF LORDS.-

-THURSDAY

Lord CLANCARTY, according to notice, moved for a great
variety of papers respecting the operation of the New Poor
Law in Ireland, so far as the appointment of chaplains to the

large proportion of Roman Catholics and .Presbyterians in
the population, a minister of each form of worship, together
with one of the Established Church, was appointed to each

paid to each minister, the Poor Law Commissiorer in whom
this power was vested had shown an undue preference to the
Roman Catholic and Presbyterian ministers over those of
the Established Church. This grievance was aggravated by
the circumstance, that although the Commissioners were in
communication with the Roman Catholic bishops on the sub-
ject of these appointments, the Protestant bishops had not
been consulted. He moved, therefore, that, in addition to
the papers for which he had given notice, minutes of all con-
versations with the dignitaries of either Church should be
laid before the house.

The Duke of WELLINGTON objected that the noble lord's
motion should have been either for a total repeal of the Irish
Poor Law, or at least of that clause under which the ap-
pointments were made, instead of for a number of papers and
minutes, for the production of which he had made out no
case ; and, after contending that the salaries of the ministers
should be in proportion to the amount of duty which each
had to_perform, concluded by moving the previous question.

Lord NORMANBY and Lord BROUGHAM expressed their
entire concurrence in the course taken by the noble duke,
and, after a short explanation, Lord CLANCARTY consented
to withdraw his motion, although the Bishop of EXETER
thought that the returns should have been granted, and that
the motion had not received the support which it deserved.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-FRIDAY

Mr. WAKLEY read a letter from the Lord President of the
Court of Session in Scotland, stating that be wrote to him
because he believed he had taken part in the debate upon the
motion of Lord John Russell, from motives wholly uncon-
nected with party. He further stated, that in the course of
eleven years be had been absent but three times from the

trial orjury causes, and he regretted that the motion of the
noble lord had been opposed, though he had no doubt upon
sufficient parliamentary grounds, as it might lead to an erro-
neous impression as to the frequency of his attendance.
Sir R. PEEL said, he had also received a letter from the
Lord President denying that he had tendered his resignation
in 1835.

Mr. F. MAULE felt himself called upon, after these state-
ments, to express his regret for having been led into an error.
The debate on Mr. Thesiger's motion relative to the peti-
tion of Lord Ennishowen against the return from the late
Belfast election was resumed, when the SPEAKER declared
his opinion, that as the petition was presented, and as no
objection was made at the time of its presentation, it had
been received.
Mr. C. Noon contended, that having been received, they
were hound to send it to the committee.

In this opinion the house generally coincided, and Mr
TIIESIGER withdrew his motion.

The house having resolved itself into a committee for the
consideration of the corn-laws,
Mr. VILLIERS brought forward the motion of which he
had given notice, in lieu of the motion of Sir R. Peel, " that
all duties payable upon the importation of corn,-grain, meal
or flour do now cease and determine." The hon. gentleman
contended that the house was not a faithful picture of the
intelligence out of doors, but was guilty of a breach of trust
in turning the power entrusted to them to. their own advan-
tage rather than to that of their constituents. The result of
the laws imposed by the legislature on the importation of
foreign corn was to produce an extent of distress throughout
the country which could not be exaggerated. In such a
state of things a small measure of justice would not be suffi-
cient to meet the evil, as the right hon. baronet (Sir J.
Graham) appeared to suppose from what he said in the last
debate, to the effect that he had sufficient experience of the
inutility of attempting to satisfy the people by large measures
of concession. He and others were called impracticable
men, because they asked for the total repeal of the
corn law, but he would ask if there was anything half
so unreasonable in asking for the repeal of the law,
as their was in maintaining for years this very law which
was now admitted on all hands to be bad. They should
have altered the law long since ; the people could no

longer wait, they had neithe—r time nor tenatipe'r to wait the

result of their modifications, for they were starving. They
talked of the wrong they would do by the immediate aboli-
tion of the law; but he would tell them to remember the
wrong and mischief they had perpetrated in maintaining it.
The hon. gentleman quoted the opinions of Lord Grenville
in 1815, who opposed the imposition of any restriction upon
commerce in food, and said that any bounty to the corn-
grower would be a tax upon the consumer for the benefit of
the landed proprietor. Some very large landed proprietors
had declared that this protection was wholly unnecessary for
the agriculturist. Lord Spencer, Lord Fitzwilliam, Lord
Leicester, and other persons of great judgment and exten-
sive property, were of this opinion, and it could scarcely be
said that they would not be extensive sufferers, if a withdrawal
of the existing protecting duties should prove as injurious as
by many people supposed. He denied that any peculiar bur-
dens were imposed ucpon the land, so as to justify them in
requiring the protecting duties on corn. The landowners
claimed compensation in the shape of these duties for local
taxes and for the malt duties) but who were to compensate

the people—they paid more for their beer, and more for their
bread ; and who was to compensate them for this ? The
landowners, however, had shown no ground whatever for ob-
taining this bounty on corn—they had shown no peculiar
charges pressing exclusively on them. The county rate fell
as well on towns as on the country, and the poor laws were
settled in a most favourable way for thelanded interest. They
were constantly hearing of protection in that house for vari-
ous interests, but they never heard of protection for the poor.
In fact, the protection afforded to these interests was no-
thing less than injustice to industry. The hon. gentleman
read a statement sent him by a labouring man, who earned
lls. a week, and who paid in indirect taxation no less than
ss. a week, or nearly half the produce of his labour. What
taxes pressed upon the agriculturist comparable to these ? Or
what right could they show to protection more than this
poor labourer ? It was a mistake to suppose that every quar-
ter of wheat imported would necessarily supersede a quarter
of home-grown ; for such would not be the case, the conse-
quence would be an increase of consumption of wheat, which
was now beyond the reach of about one third of the commu-
nity.

Mr. OSWALD seconded the motion, and contended that
no one class of the community had a right to impose a tax
upon all the other classes for its own benefit. He was op-
posed to monopoly, which he designated as a robbing of the
many for the benefit of the few ; a proceeding quite as impo-
litic as it was manifestly unjust.
Lord MATioN contended that, as regarded the labouring
classes, the question resolved itself simply thus—whether
they would have moderately dear bread and moderately high
wages, or low bread and low wages, and quoted various au-
thorities to show that one was so far dependent on the other
that the labourer would not be materially benefitted by a re-
duction in the price of bread. One great object they should
not lose sight of in their legislation—they should always seek
to render this country as far as possible independent of fo-
reign nations for its supply—that, in fact, any foreign supply
should be only supplementary to our home produce.
Mr. ELPHINSTONE contended that the only way in which
they could hope to relieve the existing distress was by a re-
peal of the corn laws.
Mr. G. HEATHCOTE said that the arguments of Sir R.
Peel were much more forcible for maintaining the present
law than for the alteration be proposed to effect in it. He
was in favour of a graduated scale of duties, but he was of
opinion that the proposed measure would not be satisfactory
to the agriculturist, although, placed as they now were, they
must be content to accept the best bargain they could get.
Mr. LEADER gave his hearty support to the motion of
Mr. Villiers, and contended that the working classes were
opposed to the corn laws, though many of them thought it
was better to direct their efforts to get rid of what they very
appropriately termed "class legislation" at once; in which
case the corn laws would fall with other laws, perhaps equally
obnoxious. The working classes, in fact, thought, with
Franklin, that these restrictive laws on trade were political
blunders or jobs, perpetrated for the advancement of a parti-
cular class.

Mr. MAINWARING said he must oppose a motion which
could not fail to be ruinous in its consequences to the best
interests of the country.
Mr. BROTHERTON said, that in the manufacturing dis-
tricts the merchants were ruined, the manufacturers bank-
rupt, and the operatives starving. All this he attributed to
the operation of the corn-laws, and expressed his conviction
that their repeal would confer essential benefit on the com-
munity. He could not look upon this measure as a conces-
sion to the people. The corn-law was in its nature unjust,
and they had no right to call that a concession which was
only the partial restoration of a right. The agriculturists
were said to be the best customers of the manufacturers, but
if a man went into a draper's shop, and robbed his till of a
shilling, and then came back and spent sixpence, the draper
would not be apt to think him a very good customer. The
hon. member referred to an attack which he said was made
by Mr. Ferrand on a former evening upon himself, Mr. Cob-
den, and others, and said, that so far from Mr. Cobden
working his mills day and night, with cruelty to the opera-
tives, to his own great advantage, as Mr. Ferrand described
him, the fact was that Mr. Cobden never had a mill in his
life. As to himself, he was said to have grown enormously
rich in the same way, whereas in truth his riches consisted
in the fewness of his wants.

Mr. FERRAND read a letter, in which the facts he stated
were contained.

Lord J. MANNERS was glad to perceive that the debate
was introduced by the hon. member for Wolverhampton, and
subsequently conducted, without any of the asperities which
attached to the subject out of doors. The noble lord opposed
the motion of Mr. Villiers as calculated to produce most
mischievous effects.
Sir C. NAPLER said he had voted for an 83. fixed duty be-
cause he thought it quite as much protection as the agricul-
turists were entitled to expect, and because he thought that
if they had the fixed. duty they would very soon get rid of it
altogether. (Great laughter.) The gallant officer stated that,
according to his calculations, 18s. would be a prohibitory
duty. and intimated his intention of voting for the motion of
Mr. Villiers.

Captain BERKELEY regretted that this motion had been
brought forward, for he feared that it would rather retard
than otherwise the very object the hon. gentleman had in
view. He should, however, support the motion as a choice
of difficulties.

On the motion of Mr. HARDY, the debate was adjourned
until Monday.

We understand that the Manchester Protestant and Refor-
mation Association intend to hold their annual meeting some
time dnring the first week in March. As the Rev. Preben-
dary Townsend, of Durham, and the Rev. Prebendary Tot-
tenham, of Bath, are expected to take part in the proceedings,
we doubt not the meeting will prove a very attractive one.
The Rev. H ugh Stowell, M. A., president of the association,
will take the chair.

_ r e
BONDE DM rii GO.—On Wednesday last, the " John," of
Preston, brought into our river the first cargo of wines and
spirits
consignee
imported, under bond, into the port of Preston. In
commemoration of the event, a large party was invited on
board
of the
cargo,Threl when a
fall,the owner of the vessel, and the
improvemlaeynta whichvery pleasant afternoon was
spent. The " John"
offtheOlidiaQvuuabyee.
nlenffcertesdeqiun ence
of the great the
Ribble, she was enabled to come up thus far three days after
low.—Preston the high tidal water—on that day, too, when the tide was
unusually
forwarded to the Bishop of '
Chronicle.A
TRH OXFORD TRACTS. address has been recently
to the doctrines promuln.atGloucesterd and Bristol, relative
lordship, in the rent
tions :—" I beg leave, therefore, °I
v, makese the following observa-
tions the Oxford divines. His
return to yourself and
those of my brethren who havee'sutscrtibed the address this
assure best thanksy o
uof
tzep . 0 tilniewntrsoudbeclelarwedhicihn
extreme ydoauy presentedh
ave
taken; to
me,e ton' y
satisfac-
tion which it gives me to find that the
my late charge, regarding some material parts .
cations on which the address animadverts, have
eof the publi-
cations the
approbation of so many of my brethren. Inthemt
which has since elapsed, I have seen no causeto depart from
the opinions and counsel which after mature deliberation I
then addressed to my clergy, with all the solemnity of place
and occasion ; a printed copy of which I have since at their
desire, placed in their hands. It would therefore be super-
fluous to repeat them on the present occasion. I have only
to add my hopes that the present uneasiness will, under Di-
vine blessing, disappear, when an interval of repose and godly
quietness shall have allowed the authors and admirers of the
tracts in question calmly to consider the dangers to which
those publications have an apparent tendency."