The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-05-17 00:00:00

kinptritit

---~*--

HOUSE OF LORDS.-THURiDAY

The Dublin police bill was read a second time.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE moved for returns respect-
ing the exemption of foreigners from the operation of Tho in-
come tax. This he said was the first time that the property
of foreigners in this country had ever been subjected to the
income tax, for in the income tax of Mr. Pitt it was not
deemed expedient that the tax should be levied upon the pro-
perty of foreigners. The noble marquis proceeded to com-
ment upon the injustice of subjecting the property of fo-
reigners to the duty, and contended that a measure compre-
hending them in a fiscal imposition was a gross breach of
faith. He considered foreigners holding property in this
country to stand in the position of mortgagees, and it was
not desirable that, in order to save some £lO,OOO or £20,000
a-year, any imputation should be thrown upon the esta-
blished reputation of this country for strict honour in all its
financial operations.
Tne Earl of RIPON had no objection to the returns moved
for by the noble marquis, though he was by no means satis-
fied with :the reasons the noble marquis had advanced in
support of them. Ile was of opinion that all parties inter-
ested in the maintenance of public credit in this country had
a right to contribute to its public burdens. It was true that
Mr. Pitt had exempted the property of foreigners in the Bri-
tish funds from the tax; but, in doing so, he believed that
that great statesman was more influenced by motives of po-
licy than by any abstract notions of justice or propriety.

After some observations from Lord BROUGHAM, the Earl
of WICKLOW, the Duke of NEWCASTLE, and Viscount MEL-
BOURNE, the motion was agreed to.
On the motion of Lord BROUGHAM, the bribery at elec-
tions bill went through committee; after which their lord-
ships adjourned.

HOUSE OF OF COMMONS—Fainar

The first public business in the flOuse of Commons this
day was Mr. Roebuck's motion to nominate the committee
to inquire into the recent compromises of elections.

Mr. MILNES believed the result of the last few days' con-
sideration to have been a general regret that the house should
have granted a committee at all. That concession evinced a
remarkable want of moral courage on the part of the house.
It was monstrous that while members talked so lightly in
private about bribery, they should affect so indignant a tone
of morality about it in public. His own conviction was that
experience had proved the people were unfit for the exten-
sive representation that had been bestowed upon them by the
reform bill.

Mr. HUME thought the people more honest than they were
described to be, and asserted that a further extension of the
suffrage would be the best remedy for corruption.
Sir Joux WALsU considered it objectionable that the
inquiries of the committee should be extended, as the altered
words of the notice now purported that they were to be, be-
yond the subject of the particular compromises, to the gene-
ral question whether bribery had been committed in the bo-
roughs to which these compromises related.
Some conversation followed respecting the names of some
of the members proposed ; and a discussion took place whe-
ther a given number of members shculd constitute a quorum,
or whether every member should be bound• to attend con-
stantly. The house appeared to expect that members would '
observe the latter course.

Mr. T. DUNCOMBE then moved that each member of the
committee should subscribe a declaration, solemnly averring
that he had never directly, or indirectly, committed or con-
nived at any act of bribery or corruption. That individuals
should be condemned by a committee of men notoriously as
guilty as themselves, would not be satisfactory. Corrupt
practices had been common with a large majority of the
house; he had himself, both at Pomfret and at Hertford,
spent large sums in bribery.

- Lord POLLINGTON shOwed that the bribery system at
Pomfret had been set in motion by Mr. Duncombe himself,
and followed up by other opposition candidates for that bo-
rough._

Mr. WARD objected to the proposed declaration, as tend-
ing to frustrate a very useful inquiry. He felt persuaded
that, as that declaration was framed, there was no man in
the house who could take it.
Sir R. PEEL thought the house must trust to the character
of the members selected on the committee, without imposing
such a test as this. No such test was imposed on the mem-
bers of election committees. He doubted even whether the
house had a right to require it ; and, at all events, it would
establish a most dangerous precedent.
Mr. HUME would vote for a test of this kind, to be taken
by each member on entering the house, but not for a test to
be taken under circumstances in which its only effect would
be to defeat a useful inquiry.
Mr. ROEBUCK denounced, in very strong language, Mr.
Duncombe's avowals of corruption. The argument that the
whole house was corrupt might do very well to raise a laugh,
but it would not be admitted in the country as a satisfactory
bar to the investigation of a specific charge. He believed
that there was a general desire to get rid of the existing evil,
and that this inquiry would lead to some useful legislation
for that purpose. He therefore protested against treating
this subject with levity and jeering.
Mr. PAKINGTON opposed the motion, as calculated to de-
feat an inquiry which, whether or not it were prudent to have
instituted it, ought now to be fairly pursued.
Lord Jon N RUSSELL regretted the addition of those words
in the appointment of the committee which led to a general
inquiry into the bribery committed in the specified towns.
He protested against any interference that the whole house
must be corrupt, because it might reject this motion. There
were many expenses, such as those of travelling and reason-
able refreshment. which most members had paid. but which,
though not perhaps actually legal, were far from involving the
sort of taint inseparable from bribery.
Mr. WAKLEY defended the motion and the mover. He
hoped the inquiries of the committee would not he confined
to the boroughs already mentioned, but extend themselves to
all the cases where petitions charging bribery had been with-
drawn.

Messrs. Smith O'Brien, Vernon Smith, and Brotherton
having each spoken,

.
Mr: DUNCOMBE retorted the attack of Mr. Roebuck with
an asperity which caused the interposition of the Speaker and
of several members; and the house then divided, rejecting the
declaration.

On the motion for the Speaker leaving the chair, in order
that the house might gitjuto committe on the tariff,
Lord Howtcx movedes general resolution, declaring it
inexpedient to impose dsfferent duties on the same articles
when imported from foreign and from British possessions,
or to increase any such differential duties already existing.
He believed the main arguments of those who maintained
the system of differential duties were, that a distinction ex-
isted between duties for protection and duties for revenue,
and that it was reasonable to give our own colonies an ad-
vantage over foreign nations not admitting our goods. On
the first point his answer was, that all duties ought to he for
revenue, and not for protection ; and on the second point, he
would refer to the observations of Sir Robert Peel himself,
in his speech of last Tuesday, that the refusal of other nations
to receive our goods was no reason for our punishing our-
selves. What was called a protection, was in truth a great
injury to our colonies. Colonial capital should be left to
flow in its own natural channels, and not diverted into arti-
ficial ones, more especially as there was now no want of
natural employment for that capital. This reasoning, it was
true, would go to the length, not only of precluding future
differences of duty, but of removing the differences already
existing, but he was disposed to wave the objection against
existing differences, because he felt desirous not to hamper
himself with fresh difficulties. He appealed to the doctrines
of Mr. Huskisson, and insisted on the effect which the ex-
ample of England would produce in leading foreign countries
to adopt liberal principles in commerce. He was particularly
anxious to avoid such imposts as should give umbrage to the
United States. This argument, of course, applied im-
portantly to corn. It applied also to salted provisions, of
which it was proposed to admit the importation from our
own colonies at one fourth of the rate imposed upon the
same article imported from foreign countries. He believed
that much benefit would accrue from the relaxations already
announced ; he only regretted that their principle had not
been carried out to its full extent.

Mr. GLADSTONE stated that the main articles upon which
material differences of duty were now proposed were those
which government was reserving as subjects of negotiation
with foreign countries. Meanwhile, therefore, the duties o❑
their importation from those countries were of course kept
up ; but this would have been no valid reason for withholding
in the interim that abatement of duty on imports from the
colonies which was intended at all events to be granted,
whatever might be the result of the foreign negotiations. He
observed that the change from one side of the house to the
other had greatly quickened the perceptions of gentlemen
opposite about the evil of differential duties ; and he went into
particulars to prove this allegation. He dwelt upon the ge-
neral importance of the trade with the colonies. and the
great anxiety of the trading community to retain that market.
He admitted that in some respects that market had cost the
country somewhat dear; but it had by no means been uni-
versally disadvantageous one. Ile protested against the sug-
gestion of any title on the part of foreign nations to interfere
about the extent of remission which England might think fit
to bestow upon the distant members of her own empire.
What we were doing now for the colonies was in close analogy
to what we did fifty years ago for Ireland. He added, that
the advantage derived to our marine from our colonial trade
was a consideration not to be forgotten in this argument.
Mr. C. WOOD followed, in support of Lord Howick's
view. _ _

.—Sir C. LEMON objected to the differential duties upon the
articles of tin ore.
~

Lord STANLEY, after representing some inconsistency be-
tween the reasonings of Sir C. Lemon and of Lord Howick,
observed that our colonies were fairly entitled to some ad-
vantages in the tariff over foreign countries, so long as the
mother country should continue to impose on those colonies
her own taxes and her own restrictions. He enlarged upon
the value of the colonial trade, both positively and in com-
parison with our American commerce, and upon the import-
ance.of the feeling and connexion which it bred and main-
tained among our colonists. _ _ _

Mr. BARING said that Lord Stanley's speech would have
been an excellent declamation in favour of the old system ;
but that a warm panegyric on that old system was an odd
sort of support to Sir Robert Peel's tariff, which had set that
old system wholly aside. The interests of the colonists
seemed to be more protected in this scheme than those of
the home growers. The right hon. gentleman referred to
various items in the tariff, and treated them very much in
detail.

Sir R. PEEL wished rather to debate the matter upon its
general principle. Lord Howick's theory was, that the colo-
nies should be placed upon the footing of foreign states, but
it was a theory which cut away the whole connexion between
the colonies and the mother country. At this rate, why take
so much trouble about your colonies—why incur the expense
of defending them ? If it was intended to canvass each
article of this tariff in detail, and to put government upon
proof of the reason for fixing 6d. here and 9d. there, he
avowed that into that sort of minute scrutiny it was impossi-
ble for him to enter. He had understood that‘the subject
was to be treated as a great whole; that was the true way of
treating it ; and in that spirit he would still hope that it
would be treated. So treating it, he was bound to say, that
on Lord Howick's principle there would be an end to the
colonial empire of Great Britain.

Mr. VILLIERS made some general observations on the
impolicy of protective duties.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL regarded the answers given to this
motion as altogether beside the question. He agreed in the
principles laid down on Tuesday by Sir Robert Peel ; but
those principles were quite at variance with the reasonings
advanced to-night.
The house then divided—
Againstit Lord Howick's motion 2Bl
For

Majority

The house then proceeded to dispose of the other busincss
upon the paper, among which was a notice by Mr. Roebuck
of a motion for leave to bring in a bill to indemnify the wit-
nesses who may be called on to give evidence before the
committee on compromises. The hon. member, however,
upon being called on by the Speaker, was found to have left
the house. The house then adjourned until Friday next.

SINGULAR COINCIDENCE.—Previous to the apprehension
of Good, a man strongly resembling the description given of
him in the Hue and Cry, was noticed in the street of Mar-
gate by Superintendent Marchant, who requested him to take
off his hat. The man immediately exclaimed, " Why, you
take me for Good, the murderer ; the alleged likeness is most
unfortunate for me ; this is the second time I have been taken
for him." The fact was, the same individual was stopped in
Ramsgate. by the police superintendent there, who, like IMF.
th4rcl,lt' saw a resemblance to the description of Good pa
Individual, and wished to examine his head. As be did
happen to be bald, he was allowed to depart.