The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-06-21 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-THURSDAY

Mr. O'CONNELL moved the appointment of the commit-
tee to inquire into the proceedings which had taken place at
the last Belfast election.

Sir R. INGLIs said there was no use in opposing the mo-
tion, as it was one which was supported by Sir R. Peel and
Lord J. Russell.

Sir R. PEEL at once gave public notice that he would
never act upon the principle of using party or official influ-
ence to prevent investigations into bribery.
Sir R. INoLis said the right hon. baronet misunderstood
him. He merely meant to say, that as they had divided
upon this question a short time since, as the right hon. hart.
and the noble lord had supported the proposition of Mr.
O'Connell on that occasion, he thought it fruitless to oppose
it.

The committee was then appointed.
Mr. H AWES asked Sir R. Inglis if it was his intention to
bring in any measure of church extension during the present
session ?

Sir R. INGLIS said it was his intention to do so, and if the
hon. member would promise him his support, he would take
his advice as to the proper time for introducing it.
On the motion of Mr. W. 0. STANLEY, the committee
was appointed to inquire into the practices at the last South-
ampton election.

Sir J. EASTHOPE then brought forward his motion for the
abolition of church-rates, and regretted that Sir R. Peel was
not prepared to redeem a pledge he had formerly made to
deal with this subject. He (Sir J. Easthope) proposed that
church-rates should be abolished, and that churchwardens
and other authorities do provide for the repair of churches
and chapels by means of pew-rents when voluntary sub-
scriptions were insufficient. The hon. baronet concluded
by moving for leave to bring in a bill for the abolition of
church-rates.

Mr. M. PHILIPS seconded the motion.
Sir R. INGLIS contended that church-rates were a national
tribute, and as such should be regarded by the public, the
great bulk of whom felt it to be a privilege to pay it for the
support of the national church. Church-rates were a tax on
property, and it was scarcely honest for a person to purchase
land, and then on the plea of conscience seek to rid himself
of the obligations which pertained to it when he made the
purchase. lie opposed the motion on principle, and also on
account of the period of the session n hen it was introduced.

Mr. S. CRAWFORD admitted that the principle of the ex-
istence of a national church was involved in the question be-
fore the house. Still, opposed as he was on principle to
tithes, church-rates, &c., he would support the motion. He
only regretted that Sir John Easthope had not taken higher
ground, and questioned the principle of burdening the people
of England with a church establishment at all.
Mr. G. KNIGHT opposed the motion.

Lord J. RussELL said it was not to be denied that the
present system of raising money for the repair of churches
was replete with much evil, and he hoped the time was not
far distant when some satisfactory alteration of the law might
be devised.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was of opinion that
the plan of raising money for the repair of churches by means
of pew rents was opposed to the doctrines of onr religion,
which said that the gospel should be preached to the poor.
Mr. O'CONNELL referred to the support received from its
followers by the catholic church of Ireland, and to the main-
tenance of its hierarchy unbroken, and asked if the adherents
to the Protestant faith were less sincere, or if it was to be
assumed that they would not maintain their religion as the
Catholics did theirs. _

Sir J. EASTHOPE replied ; after which his motion for leave
to bring in the bill was negatived by a majority of 162 to 80.
Mr. FERRAND then moved, that the house should, on the
Ist of July, resolve itself into a committee of the whole house,
for the purpose of considering a resolution, that an address
be presented to her Majesty, praying for the immediate ap-
plication of a sum, not exceeding one million sterling, for
the temporary relief of the distress and destitution of the
working classes in the manufacturing districts ; and that the
house would make good the same. The hon. member re-
ferred to the twenty millions which had been voted for the
emancipation of slaves in the West Indies, and said that the
small sum he asked for in the name of the suffering people
should not be refused to those who were in a state of far
deeper distress than was ever experienced by those slaves.

Sir R. PEEL said he could not assent to an experiment so
dangerous as the one proposed, nor would he have said one
word upon the motion were it not that it might be supposed
by some that he was indifferent to the distress which it was
proposed to remedy, in a way that would establish a fatal
precedent that would be quickly and repeatedly followed, and
which would lead to a large increase of taxation. There was
certainly a strong claim upon the affluent to come forward
to abate the distress which prevailed, and he hoped they
would listen to the appeal which had been made to them.
He could assure the house that Government was labouring
silently, but he hoped not less effectually, to assuage the dis-
tress which prevailed.

Mr. F. M.AuCxacquiesced in all that had fallen from Sir
R. Peel, who was, in his opinion, pursuing the proper course
under the circumstances.

Mr. WARD was of opinion that to agree to the motion
would be to aggravate the distress, which was very great and
extensive. The only thing, in hisopinion, which would give
relief to distress, which was not of a temporary character,
was by enlarging the field for the commercial enterprise of
the country.

Mr. VILLIERS said that Mr. Ferrand was exciting disaf-
fection amongst the people, and creating disunion between
the people and their employers. He charged him with bring-
ing forward a motion which he knew he could not carry, in
order to increase this disunion, and with proclaiming aloud
the great distress of the people, while he opposed, since he
had been in the house, every measure proposed to alleviate
the misery of their situation.
Mr. J. HEATHCOAT said that the master manufacturers, as
a class, were in as great a state of distress as their workmen.
After a few words from Mr. WALLACE,
Mr. ESCOTT thought the proposition of Mr. Ferrand not
only extraordinary but most mischievous, and he should
therefore vote against it, though he hoped the hon. gentleman
would not press his motion to a division.
Mr. AINSWORTH said if the hon. member divided he should
vote with him. _ _ _

Mr. WILLIAMS said that if the million of money would
effectually relieve the existing distress he should vote for it,
but not believing it would have any such result he would
vote against it.

Mr. COBDEN said that the number of the unemployed in
this country was greater than it had been before, and the
poor-rates were also greater. The distress was still on the
increase, and would go on if not arrested until the poor-rates
devoured all the property in the kingdom, as they were now
rapidly doing in the manufacturing districts. He hoped,
therefore, that in the present session some measure would be
adopted to remedy the evil, and that the corn law would be
again taken into consideration.
Mr. T. S. DUNCOMBE supported the motion, as called for
by the intensity of the prevailing distress. For his own part
he would vote for five millions instead of one, but he believed
the house would not believe in nor remedy the extent of the
distress until 400,000 or 500,000 of them came up to London
to exhibit it to their view.
Mr. FERRAND replied, and retorted the charge of exciting
the people upon the anti-corn-law association, whose agents
were put down, and, in great measure, by his exertions.
The house then divided, and Mr. Ferrand's motion was
negatived by a majority of 106 to 6.
The report of the committee on the Customs Duties Acts
was brought up and agreed to, and a bill was ordered to be
brought in founded on the report.
The Earl of LINCOLN moved the order of the day for the
committee on the Forest of Dean Ecclesiastical Districts
Bill, which was opposed by Dr. BOWRING and Mr. T. DUN-
COMDE, on the ground that the people should not be called
upon to advance money for church extension, when the church
was itself sufficiently wealthy for all such purposes.
Mr. FROTHEROE supported the measure as indispensable,
inasmuch as the Forest of Dean being extra-parochial, there
was no sort of spiritual instruction for the inhabitants.
The Earl of LINCOLN defended the bill as necessary to the
spiritual wants of the people of the Forest of Dean.
Mr. LABOUCIIERE did not think this bill involved the
money
Principle of church extension. He should vote for the bill
After to the
unite ground of the necessity of the case.
coromittee°r:fe
Itimvits opposed the bill as an attempt to apply public
purposes of church extension.
further discussion the motion for going into
the Speaker should mr. HUMS carried by a majority of 101 to 25.
After some furthof 101 to 13.
ried byagain divided the house on the question that
a majorityuld leave the chair, but the question was car-
LiAms, and other lior
other orders of the
opposition from Mr. HUME, Mr. Wm-
mittee. hon, members, the bill went through com-
Theday were then disposed of, and the
house adjourned.

e by means
said
1:: Ireland,
distributed in In reply toHaOquesStEionOfFromLOCZS.--FRIDAY.
Cloncurry, as to whether
adi.iveepnoistiloantteorf
wasthe tmaobneedy
noble
be prepared to
The Duke of WELLINGTON loena nthseo fn ethx the
(rive an answeyo the question of the
Iches of
'evening that house should meet.
Lord FITEG*.*AI;D said that the noble lord shnue
remem-
ber that the Queen s letter was only read in the
Enghind, Wales, and Scotland.
Lord CLoscuttsx observed that it was read in some
of
the churches in Ireland also, and therefore it was that
wished to know if the people of that country were to be pare
ticipators.
The Earl of Roos then moved the third reading of the

Id, in doing so, entered into a financial
sting to a

statement, in order to prove the necessity of r
measure so extraordinary for the purpose of equalising our
income and expenditure, and placing the finances of the
country upon a sound and proper tooting. The excess of
expenditure over income was owing to the increase in our
military establishments, which increase had become neces-
sary in consequence of the occurrences in Canada, China,
and India ; and he believed there was no other way of raising
a certain income to meet the increased expenditure than that
of resorting to an income tax ; and to that accordingly the
government proposed to resort, though he admitted that such
a measure could be only justifier, upon the ground of strong
neceessity.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said it was not his wish to
obstruct this bill in its progress through the house, but to
give an opportunity to noble lords to express their views
upon a measure so important. He admitted the necessity of
raising a revenue sufficient to meet our expenditure, and it
was upon the means alone that he differed in opinion from
the government. Their lordships, in considering of an in-
come tax, ought to take care that they were not, by agreeing
to it, laying the foundation of a total change, be it for good
or be it for evil, of our whole system of taxation. The noble
marquis then proceeded to contend that the imposition of
an income tax was wholly unnecessary to meet so small a
deficiency as two and a half millions. He did not object to
the powers granted by the bill, because if they would have
the tax the powers were indispensable, and he would there-
fore support the details of the bill if the bill itself were to be-
come law. The tax was essentially an unequal one, but if it
was to be efficacious it was vain to seek to remedy its inequa-
lities; and this of itself was the strongest objection to resort
to the income tax at all. He next proceeded to show how
the deficiency might be met without resorting to an income
tax, and in doing so adverted to the mode in which the corn
law was so ingeniously devised as to raise the price to the
consumer without adding anything to the revenue. It im-
posed a heavy tax in one way upon the consumer, without
giving him the consolation of knowing that he had some
equivalent in another way by its increasing the resources of
the country. From an alteration in the corn, sugar, and
timber duties, a revenue, he contended, might be derived
sufficient to obviate the necessity for such an inquisitorial
tax as that on income, and in accordance with this opinion
he submitted an amendment admitting the necessity of meet-
ing the deficiency, but that as it might be provided for by a
judicious alteration in the duties on corn, timber, and sugar,
the income tax was thus rendered unnecessary.

Lord COLCHESTER contended that the deficiency in the
quantity of sugar from the West Indies was to be attributed
to a series of droughts; and it was probable, therefore, that
more favourable weather would give an adequate supply to
the people of this country without reducing the duty on
foreign sugar.
Lord IlitouGHAm said, that further consideration had only
the more convinced him of the propriety of thci views he had
formerly expressed to their lordships upon this subject. He
agreed in all that had fallen from the noble marquis who
moved the amendment, and he furl her objected to the bill,
because an income, tax was a weapon which he never would
entrust to any government as a permanent source of revenue
—a weapon which, by the turn or half turn of a screw, might
raise an income from £200,000 to as many millions. He
admitted, however, that a continually increasing revenue, as
compared with the expenditure, left them but a choice of
evils—national insolvency, or an income tax. The measures
suggested by the noble marquis—though, in his opinion,
some of them were very good—were yet, as measures of
finance, not to be relied upon at all. With respect to the
proposition of reducing the duty on foreign sugar, it was
nothing less in effect than an absolute premium and en-
couragement to slavery. It might be said that we received
slave-grown cotton and tobacco, but slavery on a sugar estate
and slavery in cotton picking, or in any other employment,
were the same only in name—in all other respects, slavery
on a sugar estate was infinitely worse, more cruel and life-
destroying than in any other kind of labour. The noble and
learned lord then proceeded to state his objections to many
of the details in the bill, and read several clauses, which he
said were utterly unintelligible, but which their lordships had
no power whatever to alter, owing to a rule as respected
money bills, by adhering to which too rigidly a great deal of
mischief escaped being questioned or remedied. The evil
was the greater, as in no place could measures be so usefully
sifted as in their lordships' house, where many of the pit-falls
sent them from the other house were for the great benefit of
that other house most usefully detected. The noble lord
concluded by regretting the necessity for so objectionable a
measure as that before their lordships.

Viscount MELBOURNE supportedthe amendment, regard-
ing this measure as the most important that had for many
years been brought before parliament, not even excepting the
Reform Bill itself. He challenged Lord Brougham with in-
consistency, inasmuch as he had been himself the great
leader of the attacks on the former income tax of 1816. Yet
now he supported the bill before the house, while condemning
it with invectives quite as strong as those in which he in-
dulged when denouncing the bill of 1816. The income tax,
with all its defects, had many advantages. It was said to be
unpopular because of its inequality, but he thought its un-
popularity was attributable to its equality, for every body had
to pay. It had, however, a tendency to drive capital out of
the country, and other objections of minor importance. He
did not, however, feel the same objections to this tax that
was felt by others, but he thought that at the present time,
and in the present circumstances of the country, such a mea-
sure was necessary.
The Duke of WELLINGTON opposed the amendment, con-
tending that any alteration in the duty on foreign sugar
would throw great difficulties in the way of the exertions
making by the Government to put a stop to slavery in the
Brazils and other places. He also contended that the ne
cessity for an income tax had been clearly established, and
he should therefore support the bill. Nothing but necessity
would have induced the Government to propose such a tax,
and he hoped it would be maintained as long as it was neces-
sary but not one_hour longer. _ . . . .

The Earl of WicKLow thought it was injurious to Ireland
to have it supposed that it was not able to contribute its
share towards the burdens of the country, and he was at a
loss, therefore, to conceive why the income tax had not been
extended to Ireland.

The Earl of CLARENDON supported the amendment, and
defended the financial propositions of the late government.
He also contended that the tariff would not be an equivalent
for the income tax, for the great articles of consumption,
such as butter and cheese, were left untouched.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE contended that, under the circum-
stances in which the country was placed, there was no tax
whatever so well calculated to meet the emergency as an
income tax.

After some observations from the Marquis of CLANIU-
CARDE and Lord LYTTELTON,

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE shortly replied.
Their lordships then divided, and Lord Lansdowne's
amendment was defeated by a majority of 112 to 52.
After another division upon the adjournment of the de-
bate, made by the Marquis of CLANRICARDE, which ended
in the defeat of the noble marquis's motion, the debate was
carried on until near three o'clock, when, by consent, the
debate upon the third reading of the Property-tax Bill was
adjourned until Tuesday (this day).

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—FRIDAY.
Mr. F. MAULE said that he should not follow up the mo-
tion, respecting the state of the church of Scotland, of which
he had given notice tor the sth of July, believing that his so
doing would lead to no beneficial results.
Sir R. PEEL regretted that there had been no opportunity
of discussing the question, in order that he might have been
enabled to state why it was that the government had aban-
doned its intention of legislating upon the subject.
Sir J. GRAHAM moved the second reading of the New
Poor Law Bill.

Mr. C. BULLER rose to complain of the crying grievance
inflicted upon the public by the proclamation respecting the
gold coinage, and said that he was not to be prevented by a
stringent application of the rules of the house from calling
the attention of the house to the subject.

Sir R. PEEL and the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
complained that no notice had been given of the question,
upon which Mr. Buller gave notice for Monday, after which
the debate on the Poor Law Bill proceeded.

Mr. S. CRAWFORD moved as an amendment that the bill
be read a second time that day three months, strongly con-
demning the bill as a violation of the constitutional rights of
the people, who had a right to fall back for support on the
property of the country, and also because of the despotic
power which it conf;?rred upon the poor law commissioners.
Captain PECIIELL seconded Mr. Cray.-ford's amendment.
He defended the Gilbert unions which this bill went to de-
stroy, and strongly protested against the measure.
Mr. PANTNGTON, in supporting the bill, dwelt strongly on
the mischiefs of the former poor law prior to its reform, and
declared his opinion that the Gilbert unions ought to be
abolished, because otherwise there would be no unity of ac-
tion in the administration of the law.

General JOHNSON was opposed to the power vested by this
measure in the poor law commissioners, and suggested that
the expense of assistant commissioners should be saved to
the country. It now appeared that, after eight years' expe-
riment, the commissioners were unable to carry the law into
execution.

Colonel SISITHORP and Mr. Gnimsnizett opposed the
bill, the latter gentleman asserting that the poor law, as ad-
ministered by the central board of commissioners, was con-
demned by the general voice of the country.

Sir C. NAPIER. strongly disapproved of some portions of
the bill, which he pointed out, and strongly dwelt upon the
unfair operation of the bastardy clauses.
Mr. FERRAND repeated his former charges against the
master manufacturers of the north of England and the poor
law commissioners, both of whom he accused of conspiring
to kidnap the surplus population of the south, who were
afterwards worse treated than slaves in the West Indies, and
left to die at the doors of their masters.
Sir J. GRAHAM was not to be deterred from pressing the
second reading of the bill by the vehemence of the hon.
member, or by the power of his language. The right hon.
baronet, after replying to some of Mr. Ferrand's charges
against the poor law commissioners observed, that there
could be no doctrine more fatal to social order and the rights
of property, and, indeed, to the poor themselves, than the as-
sertion that the people had an unqualified right to receive
support without any condition to be observed on their part.
The people had hitherto exhibited the greatest patience under
very great privation and suffering, and it was only when ex-
cited by unwarrantable and lawless language from persons in
a superior station of life that they displayed any disposition
to be discontented. The right hon. baronet then contended
that the control provided by this bill was necessary to be
maintained, and said he should be betraying his duty if he
did not maintain it as far as lay within his power.
Mr. S. WORTLEY, though he disapproved of the power
conferred on the poor law commissioners, yet deprecated all
harsh language as applicable to them, He did not wish for
the immediate abrogation of the powers of the commissioners,
great as they were, but he felt it necessary to caution the
house against its perpetuation, believing the local authorities
were the best administrators of the law.
After some words from Colonel Wool) (Brecon), in sup-
port of the bill, notwithstanding its defects,
Mr. LIDDELL said he would oppose the third reading un-
less some improvements were introduced inte the bill in com-
mittee to remedy various evils to which he adverted.
The house then divided, and Mr. Crawford's amendment
poor.
bill was carried
waGl
Tshneegthaitrivderdeabavina mgoajftohreitypoefan26FOotroeTp.
on a division by a majority of 82 to 21.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the
house adjourned.

11 LORDS.—SATURDAY.
themr
The LORl3woolsack at
OCUILS‘NECEOLF DSLOLROtoRok.
his ea
half-past two o'clock ; soon after which the Commons
summoned to hear the commission read for giving were
the royal
assent to several public and private bills.
The SPEAKER, accompanied by several members, ha
taken his place at the bar, the commission was read and the
ng
royal assent (riven in the usual forty to the following bills :
the Sugar Duties Bill, the Witnesses Indemnity Bill, the
Pentonville Prison Bill, the Fines and Recoveries Bill, the
Capital Punishment (Ireland) Bill, the Civil Bill Decrees
(Ireland) Bill, the Newcastle and Darlington Railway Bill,
the Bristol and Gloucester Railway Bill, the Warwick and
Leamington Railway Bill, the Yarmouth and Norwich Rail-
way Bill, the Arbroath and Dundee Railway Bill, the Great
North of England Railway Bill, the Forth and Clyde Navi-
gation Bill, the Birmingham and Liverpool Junction Canal
Bill, the Greenock Harbour Bill, the Drogheda Harbour
Bill, the Waterford Harbour Bill, the Boston Harbour Bill,
the Arbroath Harbour Bill, the Southwark Metropolitan Gas
Bill, the Brentford Gas Bill, the Camberwell and Peckham
Improvement 13111, the Clerkenwell Improvement Bill, the
Ely-place, Holborn, Improvement Bill, the Liverpool Health
of Town Bill, the Gravesend Pier Bill, the Tyne Fisheries
Bill, the Guarantee Society Company Bill, and the Marine
Insurance Company Bill.
The commissioners were, the Lord Chancellor, the Duke

of Buccleueh, and the Earl of Shaftesbury.
The remainder of the sitting was occupied with hearing ar
peals.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—SATURDAY.
Mr. Farrell took the oaths and his seat for the borough of
Athlone.

THE NEW POOR LAW

_ .. .
Mr. S. CRAWFORD gave notice that in committee on the
Poor Law Bill he should move a clause to the effect that the
commission should continue for one sear ; and also a clause
enacting that in Ireland commissioners should administer
relief on the out-door test.

RAILWAYS

Mr. HARDY inquired what precautions had been taken on
the occasion of the Queen's late passage by the Great Western
Railway from Slough to London, and was informed by Mr.
Russel, the chairman of the company, that two carriages bad
been interposed between that of her Majesty and the engine,
so as to obviate all risk of collision.

A clause proposed by Mr. HODGSON HINGE, respecting
the places for posting up lists of rates and tolls, was opposed
by Mr. Gladstone and other members, on the ground that it
was foreign to the present, of which the object was, not to
regulate railways on all points, but to provide for the security
of human life and limb. The clause was negatived on a
division. _ _ _ _

Another clause, moved by Mr. PAL➢IER of Berkshire, em-
powering the Board of Trade to require fences in certain
situations where railways might run near common roads, was
withdrawn by its proposer, after some discussion and an ex-
planation from Mr. Gladstone, purporting that the particu-
lar railroad acts were sufficient for this purpose.
The next motion was by Mr. STAFFORD O'BRIEN, for the
insertion of a clause intended to obviate the sort of danger
which has been brought so prominently under the pablic con-
sideration by the late crash on the Versailles railway, and by
the serio-comic letters of Mr. Sidney Smith. The scope of
the clause was to interdict the locking of doors on the side
nearest the stations.

Mr. RUSSELL showed, from a return of the accidents
which had actually happened on the Great Western Rail-
way, that they had almost all occurred to persons jumping in
and out while the train was in motion, and that not a single
misadventure had happened in consequence of the locking of
the doors.
Mr. GLAnseroNE objected to this kind of minute legisla-
tion, and to the responsibility which it would cast upon
government in matters of which the regulation ought to de-
volve upon the directors alone.
Sir R. PEEL thought that public opinion Would supply the
best control; and if there were any old ladies or ecclesiastics
who were afraid of being locked up, the directors and those
people might settle it between them.
_

The claiise, on a division, was rejected by 92 against 69.
Mr. PLUMPTRE next proposed a clause forbidding the use
of railways on a Sunday, except " in cases of charity or ne-
cessity.:!.
_ _ _

Mr: WcAuLAY asked why, when other Sunday convey-

ances were allowed, a prohibition should be imposed on that
particular mode of travelling which caused the least exertion
both to man and beast ?

Other members objected to this kind of legislation, which
Mr. G. BERKELEY characterised as puritanical; and Sir R.
IN GLIB concurred in recommending the withdrawal of the
clause.

It went, however, to a division, and was negatived by 105
against 8.

A clause was.proposed by Lord R. GROSVENOR. and sup-
ported by the gentlemen connected with Cheshire, for ena-
bling the Board of Trade to exercise, over companies having
a common terminus, or a part of their railway in common,
such a control as might bring them to arrangements for con-
ducting their joint traffic with convenience to the public, and
for affording accommodation to other companies on equal
terms. _ _

Mr. GLADSTONE, without denying that this subject, which
involved important proprietary rights, was one for the adju-
dication of which it might be proper to constitute some tri-
bunal, did not consider that the powers proposed could be
satisfactorily exercised by the Board of Trade, and hoped the
clause would not be pressed.
It was brought, however, to a division, and negatived by a
majority of only 41 to 40.
The remaining clauses were agreed to.