The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-09-24 00:00:00

Sir R. PEEL said there were some forms to he gone
through by the late lord chancellor, for in effect Lord Camp-
bell was yet Lord Chancellor of Ireland ; but independent
of that, the appointment of Sir E. Sugden had not been pub-
licly notified, nor had he kissed hands, and had therefore not
rendered necessary his resignation for Ripon.
Sir R. PEEL gave notice that he would this day (Tuesday)
bring in a bill for the continuance until July of the poor law
commission and other bills. He did not propose to make
any alteration in the poor law bill until it should come before
the house in the next session of parliament.

Sir G. CLERK then moved that the house should resolve
itself into a committee of supply.
Mr. 0. CAVE spoke at considerable length in favour of a
free trade in corn, and asked a variety of questions, to one
of which, respecting the intention of government relative to
to Lord Stanley's Irish Registration Bill,
Sir R. PEEL replied. He did not, he said, identify him-
self with that bill. As it was necessary, however, to pass an
Irish Registration Bill he should, in conjunction with the
noble lord and the other members of the government, apply
their attention to the subject, with the view of remedying the
evils complained of on the one hand, and on the other to
take care that the existing franchise should be preserved, or
that one equally extensive and beneficial should be substi-
tuted in its room.

Sir C. NA PIER complained of the constitution of the
Board of Ordnance, connected with which there was no naval
officer.

Sir R. PEEL said it was not the usual practice to have a
naval officer on the board, which, notwithstanding, gave ge-
neral satisfaction.

Mr. S. CRAWFORD said that, unless the right hon. Bart.
should give a pledge that the state of existing distress should
be immediately taken into consideration, he must record his
dissent to the committee of supply., If the right hon. hart.
should bring forward the bill for continuing the poor law
commission, he would move a clause that the commissioners
should be prevented from forcing it into operation in any
place in which it was not already in existence.
Sir R. PEEL said he deeply regretted the distress referred
to by the hon. gentleman, but it was impossible that a remedy
could be provided by any sudden act of legislation.
After some observations from Mr. THORNELY and Mr.
YORKE the house divided upon the question that the Speaker
should leave the chair, which was carried by a majority of
136 to 22, and the house went into committee.

Colonel SIBTIIO RP took au opportunity of condemning the
job which gave X 17,000 of the public money to Dr. Bowring
and others, for making reports respecting the trade and com-
merce of foreign countries. He found no fault with those
reports, for he had never read them, and never should •, but
he found fault with the government who had thus wasted the
public money. Understanding, however, that the money
was already gone, he was compelled to be content with en-
tering his protest against the job.
Lord C. HAMILTON asked if the noble lord (Palmerston)
had not been under the necessity of making extensive alter-
ations in the reports of Dr. Bowring ?
Lord PALMERSTON said he had b. en obliged to strike out
the word " Sovereign" wherever it occurred as applied to
Mehemet Ali. He was also obliged to erase passages which
the hon. gentleman's prestige in favour of Mehemet Ali in-
duced him to write, but which had nothing whatever to do
with the object of his mission. The statist;c portion of his
reports was, however, extremely valuable.

, __, .......
IVIr. MILNES bore testimony to the excellence of these re-
ports, upon which an hon. member, whose name we could
not learn, said that the whole business was a most scanda-
lous job.

The motion then dropped.
Mr. WAKLEY condemned the estimates generally as reck-
less, but be thought the members generally were more to
blame for this than either the last or the present government.
The hon. gentleman then contended for the propriety of
giving a fair trial to the government of Sir R. Peel, which
was distinguished for ability, which represented a large por-
tion of the wealth of the country, and which was so power-
ful that they could not offer them an effectual opposition.
If upon trial it should be found that they did not bring for-
ward good measures, then would be the time to oppose them,
and perhaps on a future appeal to the country the result
might be different. For his own part, he was quite willing
to give time to the right hon. baronet.
Mr. FIELDEN said that the people were starving, and could
not wait_until February.

Mr. WILLIAMS objected to several items in the votes.
Mr. EWART taunted Mr. Wakley with a probable inten-
tion of supporting the government of Sir R. Peel, and was
cheered by the opposition benches when he did so.
Mr. WAKLEY said that nothing could be more fair than
the demand made by Sir R. Peel for time to consider of his
measures, and he would lend himself to no factious opposi-
tion to his government.
Mr. WILLIAMS expressed his astonishment at the altered
doctrine now laid down by his honourable friend the member
for Finsbury, a doctrine totally at variance with that he for-
merly professed under very similar circumstances.
Upon the vote for the expenses of the Caledonian Canal,
Mr. WILLIAMS contended that it was useless and extrava-
gant to keep up the canal at the public expence.
Sir R. PEEL thought there was much justice in the obser-
vations of the hon. member for Coventry, and withdrew the
vote in order to give time for investigation.
COl. SIBTHORP called attention to the appointment (made
by the late government) of Mr. Vizard, as solicitor to the
Home Department. The appointment was a new one, and
in his opinion unnecessary, and he wished to know if it was
the intention of the right hon. baronet (Sir J. Graham) to
continue it.

Sir J. GRAHAM said Mr. Vizard was his private friend and
his solicitor also, but still he had felt it to be his duty to tell
him that it was his intention, in conjunction with the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, to investigate the legal business of
the public service, and that, after the sth of October, he
must consider his appointment as suspended until that inves-
tigation took place, and that he must also consider that, in
the event of any change in those departments, his appoint-
ment must not be allowed to stand in the way. (Cheers.)
Sir T. WILDE was of opinion that the appointment was
indispensable, and that the whole of the salary was more
than saved by the diminution of fees to the Attorney and
Solicitor General.

Sir R. PEEL, speaking from experience of the duties of
the Home Department, thought that the appointment might
not be indispensable. He did not, however, mean to give a
positive opinion, but he thought with two under secretaries,
one political, and the other professional, the assistance of a
solicitor might be dispensed with.
Upon the vote for a sum for secret services, Mr. WIL-
LIAMS said he should divide the house upon it. He was
willing to vote the sum for foreign secret service, but as the
money for home secret service could be only to pay spies, and
as spies were not wanting in England or Ireland, he would
vote against it.
. . . _

On the division, the vote was carried by a majority of
144 to 7.

On the vote for Maynooth, Mr. PLUMPTRE said he must
oppose this vote on principle.

Sir R. lsor.is entreated that he would not oppose the
vote, as half the money had been already voted, and ex-
penses had been incurred upon the faith of the other half
being paid.

Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL said that if the principle were to
be laid down by the house, that no persons of one religion
were to contribute to the support of another, no persons could
hail the establishment of such a principle more cordially than
the catholics of Ireland.

Mr. PAKIN GTON hoped that, under the circumstances, the
hon. member for East Kent would withdraw his opposition.
Sir R. PEEL said he did not ground his support of this vote
on the fact that half the money had been granted, because he
had supported it for the last thirty years, both in and out of
office ; and he should reserve to himself the right of making
whatever proposition he thought, proper next session.
Mr. PLUMPTRE said that, under these circumstances, he
should press his motion to a division.

Mr. COCHRANE said he should vote against the grant as a
point of conscience.

Mr. HOPE said that the hon. member was inconsistent, for
he had not offered any opposition to the vote for the General
Assembly of the church of Scotland, which was passed in
the early part of the evening.
Mr. COCHRANE said if there had been a division on that
vote he should certainly have voted against it. (Cheers from
the opposition benches.)

Oii a division, the vote was carried by a majority of 99 to
23.

The remaining estimates hiving been voted, the house re-
sumed, the report was brought up, and was ordered to be re-
ceived on Wednesday.