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

I.4l4aMatati ottould
tato, or that It phoold gonno
team He should be sorry to
have it supposed tip-tt 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. HumE said he would divide upon the motion.

alauaramoa dil
to Britt

A division accordingly took place; and the motion was
negatived by a majority of 75 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 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 Noßwicx 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 #ny
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. SHELL 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. 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 ❑otice 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

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. PECJIELL 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 be 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 he 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 woultbe better to (defer it until an early
period of next acanthi,' = I
Mr. WALLAcE\roccitided the motion; and declared his
resolution to resist the progress of the bill on the table. The
condition of the starving population of thl 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 telt
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 di§tress
could only be met by a measure such as the one under cfisi-
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. 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. 1.

‘•
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. 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 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 bon.
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. PEEL 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 be 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 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, be would be ready to
give an opinion as to whether they should be entrusted with
the powerlfor 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