The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-05-22 00:00:00

~. L

" Dennis O'Brien." When the laughter raised by this story
had subsided, Lord Stanley went on to say, " I find no fault
with the learned member for having abandoned all his old
opinions, but I do complain of his vituperating me because
I adhere to them." Then addressing himself to the speech
of Lord J. Russell, he condemned the petty trick of announc-
ing government bills to defeat his. And at what period had
these bills beep announced !—not at the beginning of the ses-
sion ; no, not till after the defeat of ministers on the second
reading of the present measure. Even the Solicitor-Ge-
neral for Ireland had not opened the outline of the promised
bill. But Lord John had intimated that it was to be rnadeas
perfect as possible, without reference to the facility of passing
it in the other house. In other words, the government was
preparing a bill which should serve both as an excuse for not
supporting the present measure, and as a peg for hanking up
the subject altogether. The exclusion of the jury, which
Lord John had represented as so anti-popular, had actually
been borrowed from one of the former bills on this very sub-
ject, sent np to the lords by this very goVernment. The prin-
ciple of costs was one of justice, proposed not for the vexation
of the poor voter, but for his protection ; and the clause
enacting it was borrowed from another bill, prepared by the
law officers of the present ministry, and sanctioned by Lord
John Russell himself.—Lord Stanley vindicated some other
details which had been attacked, protesting, however, that
these objections should have been reserved for the committee.
Finally, Lord J. Russell had called on him to declare the
franchise. Was this fair dealing, from a government who
would undoubtedly agree to no declaration of the franchise,
except such a one as they knew the other house would reject
—such a one as they expected would defeat this bill? Lord
Stanley concluded with a vindication of his own motives in
proposing the bill.
Mr. CALLAGHAN then moved an adjournment of the de-
bate. A discussion on this point arose, and the house then
divided on the question of the adjournment of the debate,
when the numbers appeared—For the adjournment, 262 ;
against it, 281 ; majority, 19.
Some further discussion took place, but eventually the ad-
journment of the debate was agreed to, and the house ad-
journed at a quarter past one.

lIOLTSE OF LORDS.—TUESDAY.
The royal assent was given by commission in the House of
Lords to several bills, public and private.
In answer to Lord Westmeath, on the subject of the per-
secution of the Jews at Damascus, Lord MELBOURNE said,
that what was reported in the journals as having been stated
by him on the occasion referred to was precisely the reverse
of what he said. His negative answer was, that he did not
know whether instructions bed been actually sent out to the
consuls at Damascus and Syria, but he knew that it was the
intention to send out such instructions, and he might now
say, that at the time the question was asked distinct instruc-
tions had been sent out to our consuls to interfere.
It appears that his lordship uttered only one syllable on
the occasion alluded to, which, as his lordship never speaks
very plainly, was misunderstood.
Lord ABERDEEN stated that his bill on the church question
Of Scotland hail beet' well received—far beyond his expec-
tation.
Lord IVlEr.BotinE postponed the Irish corporation bill to
the 2nd of June.
After a conversation ending in nothing, on the state of
Ireland, the Archbishop of DUBLIN brought forward his
motion for the abolition of the punishment of transportation.
His Grace went over the same topics which were urged by
Sir W. Molesworth, and with a manly simplicity of style
well worthy of imitation.
Lord NonmANnYimoved the previous question, but after
some discussion the Archbishop declined to divide the house.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—TUESDAY.
The New-Zealand company bill was read a second time,
as was the Weaver churches bill.
In answer to Mr. Cresswell, Lord PALMERSTON stated,
that within the last few days he had received despatches
from Mr. Mandeville, the British minister at Buenos Ayres,
and that active negotiations were now proceeding between
Mr. Mandeville, and the representatives of the French go-
vernment, with a view to effecting an arrangement. A war
was going on between Montevideo and Buenos Ayres, and in
these hostilties the French forces took a part. Into these
events it was not necessary for him at present to enter more
fully than to state that French ships of war had sailed up the
river, and had an engagement with one of the batteries. In
short, there had been several acts of hostility besides the
blockade.
Lord PALMERSTON, in answer to Lord Sandon, stated that
the legal authorities he had consulted upon the question of
certain duties forcibly levied on English merchants by the
authorities at Bilboa, sustained the opinion which he had
entertained as to the illegality of those duties •, and for this
view he contended in his communications with the Spanish
'government. The Bilboa authorities would, however, be
entitled to continue to levy the duty until prevented by the
result of the negociation ; should it prove unfavourable to
them, subject, however, to repayment. The last communi-
cation was from him to the Spanish government, stating the
reasons why he thought the duty ought not to be levied, and
to this no answer had been as yet received.
A bill founded on the resolutions in the Committee of
Ways and Means last Friday, was brought in, but the dis-
cussion was postponed.
IRISH REGISTRATION BILL—ADJOURNED DEBATE.
The adjourned debate on Lord Stanley's bill was then re-
sumed.
It was begun by Mr. D. BROWNE, WhO expressed his per-
suasion that the justice of the cause would supply all defici-
encies of argument and eloquence in its advocates. His own
speech was an exception from his theory. The only material
fact he stated was one for which his constituents will hardly
thank him, viz., that this bill, should it pass, would leave
•but about 400 electors in Mayo. Until this authentic as-
surance of its representative, we had no notion that the
genuine electors of that country bore so very small a propor-
tion to the fictitious voters who return the hon. gentleman.
He concluded with a Latin quotation, which a little knot of
tail liberals greeted with a cheer, probably as evidence that
they had learned the language.
Mr.-YouNG made a short and temperate speech in favour
of the bill, which he was sure would take away the franchise
from no man who was justly entitled to possess it.
Mr. V. STUART admitted that there were evils to be re-
dressed, and professed his willingness to redress them ; but
not by this bill, which he thought would close a necessary
vent for public opinion, and drive the Irish people into poli-
tical associations and movements of a dangerous kind.
Mr. Roctm said there was much less corruption and chi-
canery in the Irish than in the English elections. (It is pro-
bably true enough that less money is spent in Ireland than
in England. The Irish Whigs have a cheaper way of ma-
naging the matter with their poor electors, by religious inti-
midation, and bodily force.) Mr. Roche objected to go into
committee, and observed, that as another gentleman had
quoted Shakspeare, he might be permitted to say that such a
proceeding would be " a wounded snake, dragging its slow
length along."—Shakspeare !
Sir G. SINCLAIR, while he confessed that the rejection of
a bond fide elector is an injury to him, desired to have it re-
membered that the admission of a fictitious vote is a griev-
ance to the whole constituent body. This was not merely
an Irish, but a British question. The whole object was to
overhear the House of Commons, and give indefinite conti-
nuance to bad government. The member for Dublin had
erected a political papacy, and held a certain portion of the
Irish representatives in complete slavery. The hon. baronet
the member for Mayo, whose only offence had been absence
from the division on the second reading of this bill, had been
dealt with in the most summary style of punishment ; " Off
with his head, so much for Brabazon." Ministers them-
selves were in the same bondage, and the Colonial Secretary
had in this very debate assumed the office of Mr. O'Connell's
trumpeter.
Sir G. SINCLAIR then gave a very humourous sketch of
the speech which he himself would make if he had an oppor-
tunity of addressing the " hereditary bondsmen" in the Corn
Exchange of Dublin ; and this highly amusing and sarcastic
episode. in which the delusions practised on the people by
Mr. O'Connell and the priests were broadly exposed, pro-
duced a great deal of laughter on all sides. The hon. baro-
net concluded his ingenious speech by vindicating the policy
and applauding the conduct of Lord Stanley.
Lord C. RUSSELL rose to oppose this bill, prompted, he
said, by the desire to follow up the principles of the great man
whose name he bore. The noble Lord proceeded a little
while in good language, but being interrupted by an unex-
pected cheer, which threw him out of his track, was, from
want of experience in debate, unable to recover himself, and,
though very kindly treated by both sides of the House, was
obliged to sit down.
Mr. H. GRATTAN, with great heat, attacked the speech of
Sir George Sinclair. He inveighed in unmeasured language
against the bill, and talked in terms still more violent against
some whom he supposed to be its authors, and whom he
passionately accused of the worst malignity and fraud. He
thought the passing of this bill would increase the chances
for repeal of the union.
Lord POWERSCOURT supported the bill, and mentioned

• -
gross instances of fictitious votes given at the last general
election, amounting, in the single county of Wicklow, to no
fewer than 46.
Mr. C. Woon expressed his regret that he must concur in
the vote for the committee, against the opinion of those with
whom he usually acted. He would not vote for finally passing
the bill in its present form, nor sanction any measure which
should throw difficulties in the way of the legitimate fran-
chise, hut he felt that there were gross evils to be redressed,
which he saw no means of redressing, except through the
medium of this bill, when properly modified in committee.
The omission of any enactment as to the franchise seemed to
him no sufficient objection ; though he wished to see the
franchise settled in opposition to the construction given by
the Irish judges. The similarity of this to the former bills
on the same subject, which had been sanctioned by the go-
vernment, was in his-mind conclusive against the imputation
that the present measure was designed to destroy the liberties
of Ireland. The objections which had been made to its de-
tails were such as might he easily obviated in the committee.
lie had voted indeed against the second reading, but he had
not then had an opportunity of maturely considering the
matter, and, the second reading having been carried, he could
not now consent to reverse that decision of the house.
Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL besought every member to con-
sider how he would deal with such a bill as this, if the ordeals
proposed by it were to be applied to his own constituents ;
if, for instance, the voters of Halifax (the borough repre-
sented by Mr. C. Wood) were obliged, before they could
acquire their franchise, to serve the complicated notice which
this bill prescribed. Where enfranchisement was to be
granted, as in the case of municipal corporations, the boon
was given to England and to Scotland before it was extended.
to Ireland, where, indeed, even now it was not actually esta-
blished ; but where disfranchisement was the object, it was
applied to Ireland the first. When Lord Stanley came as
Secretary to Ireland in 1830, the repeal cry was a slight one.
Before his administration ended it was loud and general.
The hon. meniber, in conclusion, endeavoured to charge the
Protestant landlords in their turn with an attempt to create
fictitious votes, and entreated the house not to let those
landlords obtain, through this bill, the control of the Irish
elections.
Colonel CoNOLLY vindicated the Irish landlords, and jus-
tified the provisions of this bill. If an increase of the Irish
constituency had been necessary, still it would not have been
hv
warrantable by such means. It would e just as allowable
to increase a country's circulation by an infusion of base
h
money. He must now adopt the connnon cry of e other
side, and call for " Justice to Ireland."
Mr. PIGOT, the Irish Solicitor-General, objected to the
bill chiefly on account of what he considered its main princi-
ple, that of revision, or rather re-investigation. Much had
been said of the evil of certificates. He was prepared to be-
come a party to a measure for the cure of that evil, a measure
which had already been announced by the Colonial Secretary.
(This repetition of that paltry shift was received with loud
contemptuous cheering.) 'What property would any man be
content to hold on condition of being subject to perpetual
attacks upon his title ? In other kinds of property possession
was settled by a fair trial—the franchise was to be the single
exception. (Is not the learned gentleman aware that there
is no limit to the number of successive ejectments which tnay
be brought to take any man's estate from him, except by ap-
plication to the Court of Chancery for a perpetual injunction ?)
He had also a strong objection to the devolution of political
duties upon the judges, and to the vexation, expense, and
multiplied litigation, which he apprehended must be the con-
sequence of an appeal to them against the admission of the
vote.
Lord HOWICK said, he had voted against the second read-
ing to mark his confidence in the Government, though even
then be had thought that the bill ought to go into committee,
and that the resistance of Ministers was highly impolitic !
But he could not now consent to reverse the vote by which
the second reading was carried. He had no great confidence
in the intimation that Government meditated a bill of their
own, an intimation which had been given somewhat late, and
which' was by no means hopeful in the present state of the
session, and of-the feeling between the two houses of Parlia-
ment. Indeed, even now it was not Stated that any such bill