The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-06-16 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-THURSDAY.

THE LATE ATTEMPT UPON HER MAJESTY'S LIFE.
Lord STANLEY said, that having given notice of his in-
tention to move to-day the order of the day for the committee
on the Registration of Voters (Ireland) Bill, and as the hour
for public business had arrived, he should have risen now to
make the motion, but as he understood the noble lord, the
Secretary for the Colonies, would have to make an announce-
ment, on which it was desirable there should be unanimity on
both sides of the house (hear, hear), as it seemed to him de-
sirable not to mix up that matter with any other discussion,
be (Lord Stanley) should abstain from moving the order of
the day, presuming that all sides would agree that the motion
of the noble lord ought to have precedence. (Loud cheers.)
Lord J. RUSSELL said he rose only to say that the noble
lord had rightly anticipated that it was his (Lord J. Russell's)
intention to move an Address to her Majesty, on the subject
of the late atrocious and treasonable attack ; but thinking
it most desirable to follow the precedents on various former
occassions, namely, a joint Address of both houses of parlia-
ment, he preferred taking that course than immediately to
propose a separate address from this house. It was the in-
tention of his hon. friend, the first Lord of the Treasury, to
ask the consent of the other house to agree to an address,
and if that was adopted, he (Lord J. Russell) should then
take measures for adopting that address, and making it the
joint address of both houses of parliament. (Loud cheers.)
The business of proceeding with the orders of the day was
then suspended ; a course of proceeding in strict accordance
with the precedents afforded by the events which happened
in the reign of his late Majesty, George the Third.
At half-past five o'clock, a message from the House of
Lords desired a present conference with this house, on a
subject naturally affecting the safety of her Majesty and the
happiness of her people.
On the motion of Lord JOHN RUSSELL, the present con-
ference, as desired, was agreed to : and the following mem-
bers were appointed a committee to conduct the same on the
part of the house :—Lord J. Russell, Sir R. Peel. Lord
Palmerston, Lord Stanley, Sir J. Hobhouse, Lord Howick,
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Goulbourn, Mr. La-
bouchere, Sir J. Graham, Sir H. Vivian, Sir E. -Sugden,'
Mr. Macaulay, Sir G. Grey, Sir F. Burdett, the Attorney-
General, Lord Sandon, the Lord Advocate, Mr. B. Clive,
Lord Mahon, Mr. R. Alston, Mr. Lucas, Mr. T. Free-
mantle, Sir D. Norreys, Mr. F. Manic, Lord G. Somerset,
Lord Ashley, Lord R. Grosvenor, Lord G. Lennox, Sir G.
Clerk, Mr. Elliott, Mr. Lefroy, and Mr. W. S. O'Brien.
The committee then proceeded to the conference, and on
their return at six o'clock,
Lord J. RussELL appeared at the bar, and reported that
in consequence of the recent atrocious and treasonable at-
tempt on her Majesty's person,_ the House of Lords had
agreed to an address to her Majesty, to which address the
House of Lords desired the concurrence of this house.
Lord J. RUSSELL then moved that the said address be
taken into consideration.

The Address having been read by the clerk at the table,
Lord J. RUSSELL then rose and moved the adoption a
the Address.

Sir R. PEEL rose to express, on th.ercio)ranrteotfotlualoosevewtithlel
whlonmanhla.ecrtetdo,athgeuiersetinotnirepuctotbicyumrrern. concurrence motion of the
noble lord.
Lord J. RussELL said he had two hours ago received from
her Majesty's own lips, that her Majesty's health had not
spuotfeintrreedd
forfrom a
upp
Tus the
sbR 1
sl
Ei late
Le suggested
thanksgiving
could
ogue occurrence.
for(LheorudMCoa
juheesetrys,e.:aescaaypea.p.
lsdtendotthaants:.herertehasthsugldgebstiondat
MLor.dPJL.IIRm
s e nTAtht,
ebauAtqdildit
arwretsaessr
-wdpeaasssettrivisei
innxg
agreed
erdededespt consideration.oT,AnNeLmu pre-
IRISH REGISTRATION BILL.
order of the day for the committee un the Irisho Registration
Bill; when
Mr. C. WOOD, in pursuance of his notice, moved to sub-
stitute the order of the day for the committee on the
Regis-
tration Bill for England. He stated that his sole object was
to put an end to the excitement which had hitherto prevailed,
both on the bill of Lord Stanley and On the bills of the Irish
Solicitor-General. The topics mooted by the Irish bills
might be more calmly discussed on a measure relating to
England alone. He wished to leave both the Irish bills in
their present relative position, and he had no communication
from which he could judge what support he was likely to
obtain.
Lord STANLEY, giving every credit to Mr. C. Wood for
his motives, yet desired to add, that if there was any form
of motion likely to defeat this bill, by quietly shelving it,
Mr. Wood's amendment was that motion. He had himself,
though personally attacked, avoided all topics of irritation,
and he did not see how the danger of excitement would be
at all obviated by the discussion of the exciting points on an
English rather than an Irish bill. If ministers had made

t 133 Pr00:41 at th bagliming ni tiro ztoion, it mititt Iwo
been fitly accepted I but not under the present airaiimatatWea,
whim every resource had been tried to foil him, aria whoa the
period of the session was such that his bill, if longer delayed,
must for the present year be defeated, He was not content
to wait till the English registration .had been settled before
anything were attempted to check in Ireland the fraud, per-
sonation, corruption, and perjury which had been proved to
o many committees, and acknowledged in so many debates :
least of all, when the session was drawing toward a close,
and the bill was opposed by the ministry, by` the parties
having the power of prorogation in their hands.
Mr. J. GnATTAN expressed himself adverse to Lord Stan-
ley's bill. He referred to some letters which he had received,
as showing that some of the abuses under the existing system
had been exaggerated. He thought that Lord Stanley's bill
ought not to be postponed sine die, but he would vote with
Mr. Wood if the amendment were pressed to a division.
Lord PowEuscoußT contradicted Mr. Grattan's details.
Lord J. RUSSELL complained that Lord Stanley had thrown
unjust imputations on him. If he had not introduced a bill
on this subject early in the session, it was because he was
anxious to give the priority to those bills on which there were
differences of opinion between the two houses of parliament,
and which, in former sessions, the government had been so
bitterly attacked by Lord Lyndhurst and others for not send-
ing to the House of Lords in reasonable time. He thought
the bills of the Solicitor-General for Ireland more likely than
the noble lord's measure to work a real improvement in the
Irish registration. Lord Stanley's bill sought to apply to
Ireland the annual revision now subsisting in England. But
this annual revision was a matter of much complaint in Eng-

land, and he was not prepared to extend so questionable a sys-
tem to the sister kingdom. He wished the opinion of the
house to be first pronounced upon its working in England
and he should therefore vote for the amendment, which

would give precedence to the English bill.
Sir R. PEEL took notice of Mr. Grattan's declaration that

he did not wish to postpone sine die the bill of Lord Stanley.
But the speech of Lord John Russell showed that ministers
intended it should be so indefinitely postponed. He hoped

that the house after two decisions ‘titild:for the sake of its

character, proceed with the committee. He was surprised
that the noble lord should take his present course. Never
till five o'clock on the preceding night, when Mr. Wood gave
his notice, did it occur to the noble lord to say that the Irish
registration ought not to be touched till that of England was
settled. The idea was solely a new one. Up to five o'clock
on Wednesday the noble lord intended to vote for the com-
mittee on Lord Stanley's bill. And why should the English
precede the Irish measure ? The provisions of the minis-
terial bills for the two countries were so different, that the
one would be no rule for the other. And even if the two
bills were analogous, what hope was there that a question
bearing upon Ireland would be discussed with more calmness
because it was raised on an English clause ?
Lord PALMEILSTON said, that if in former years it had
never been deemed necessary to precede Irish by English
legislation, that was because in no former year had any man
imagined that such a bill as Lord Stanley's would ever be
proposed for Ireland. He denied that Lord John had in-
tended to announce a postponement sine die of the Irish
registration, but only a postponement for the benefit of fur-
ther experience and fuller consideration, as had been done in
the case of the Irish poor law.
Mr. CALLAGHAN denied the extent of the frauds imputed
by Lord Stanley, nor had bribery in any one instance been
proved against any Irish elector, before any of the election
committees.

Lord HOWICK denied that either Mr. C. Wood or himself
was desirous to evade the consideration of Lord Stanley's
bill. In Ireland, it was imputed to the supporters of Lord
Stanley's bill, that they were desirous to restrict the franchise.
But in the English counties it was not suggested that either
party has an interest to bring the franchise within narrower
limits. He would give to Lord Stanley's motives the same
credit which Lord Stanley had given to Mr. C. Wood's; but
he would add that Lord Stanley, if instead ofseeking to reform
abuses in Ireland, had sought to obtain a party triumph, he
could hardly have taken a more effectual course. He pro-
ceeded to complain of Sir R. Peel's attack on the candour of
Lord John Russell, who he said, was not the master to decide
what steps should be taken by the house ; that decision was
for the house itself. He declared that he had no view to de-
feat Lord Stanley's bill. He had voted for it on a late
occasion, and if the same question were again before him he
would repeat that vote.
Mr. H. GRATTAN delivered an invective against Lord
Stanley, and against the malpractices of the English, who
ought, he said, to correct their own abuses before they di-
rected these severities against the poor and naked Irish. Nor
did Lord Stanley's bill go to remedy the defects which did
really exist in Ireland. He thought the bill would fail, and
that the noble lord would swamp his bill, his friends, and his
party.
After a few words from Sir E. SUDDEN,
Sir W. SOMERVILLE complained that, among the petitions
against fraudulent franchise in Ireland there was one to which
eighteen signatures were forged. He should vote for this
amendment, expressly to defeat the bill.
Mr. D. BROWNE was the next who addressed the house,
and in his attacks on Lord Stanley employed so many irregu-
lar expressions, that the Speaker repeatedly called him to
order, and finally obliged him to make an apology.
Sir C. LEMON expressed his intention of voting for the
amendment, as he thought there was too much irritation to
allow any chance of a calm discussion on Lord Stanley's bill.
The attempt to force it would only waste the time which
might be more beneficially employed on the English bill.
Mr. SLANEY, amidst much interruption, declared the
same opinions. .

Mr. 'O'CONNELL said, that the point in which assimila-
tion between the two countries would be most important was
the registration. He wished, therefore, that the house
should now begin by settling the details of registration in
England, and should-afterwards inquire how much of those
details might be applicable to Ireland.
Mr. V. STUART said that nothing could be usefully settled
till some test of the qualification were provided.
After this speech the house divided upon Mr. Wood's
motion, and the Ministers were defeated by a majority of
ELEVEN'.

Sir D. NORREYS now moved, as an amendment on the
Speaker's leaving the chair, an instruction that the franchise
should be constituted by one year's rating on a value to be
fixed. The reasons he assigned were wholly inaudible.
Lord STANLEY could not concur in a proposal touching a
value left in blank. But, independently of that objection, he
must decline to mix the question of qualification with that
other and distinct matter now before the house—the ques-
tion of registration. The proper time for this motion would
be when the Solicitor-General should bring in his bill on the
franchise. The present measure would not stand in the way
of that bill ; and when that bill should be discussed, he him •
self would gladly give his best consideration to the principle
of this proposal.
Mr. WARBURTON said, it was premature to lay down
strict rules for the registration of votes until it should .have
been settled what should constitute the votes to be so regis-
tered. The construction lately put upon the beneficial in-
terest was a fraud on the Irish electors. Yet the present
bill proposed to give the double appeal to the very judges who
had adopted the objectionable construction.
Mr. O'BRIEN was understood to he in favour of the in-
struction.
Lord MORPETH condemned the construction adopted by
the judges, and approved the principle of a qualification based
upon a rating. But as yet there existed in Ireland no rating
which could serve for such basis; and he should like to see
that rating established with reference to its owls proper ob-
jects, independently of political considerations, which it would
be difficult to exclude, it the rating should be fixed in the
first instance with reference to the franchise.
Mr. LUCAS said that the excitement arising from the
division had rendered Sir D. Norrey's reasons inaudible
across the house; and he was anxious that so important and
beneficial a proposal should be deterred to a season when it
could be better heard and more calmly considered.
The instruction was supported by Mr. Redington and Mr.
Slaney.
Mr. O'CONN ELL said he was not prepared to say that
rating would be the best bieiis or qualification, but he did
think it deserved to be considered in committee. One of
the great defects of this bill was that it proposed to register
a franchise which it did not define. The judges ought to be
relieved from the function of deciding it—from going, as one
of them said of the appeal hearings, into the pillory, to be
pelted with rotten eggs from both sides. He entered at some
length into the legal construction of the statutary language
respecting the franchise, And was shortly answered on this
point by Dr. Lefroy.
Lord J. RUSSELL concurred with those who wished for a
more certain test of franchise, but thought the precise amount
of rating would require great consideration.
Sir D. NORREYS, in consequence of the disposition which
the house had expressed to entertain his proposal at a future
- period, was content to withdraw his motion.
Mr. WARBURTON having risen to move another instruction
to the committee, a question arose whether he was not too
late in point of form. The speaker decided that he was, and
the house then went into committee. As soon as the chair of
committee had been taken, Mr. Warburton moved that the
chairman should report progress, in order that, the house
being resumed, he might have an opportunity of moving his
instruction.
Mr. LITTON concisely explained upon what point, and
how, the judges were divided.
Sir C. GREY followed amidst a general and noisy impa-
tience, which rendered it difficult to collect his meaning.
Mr. 0' CONN ELL, in supporting Mr. Warburton's motion,
went into further details of law, on which several contra-
dictions and explanations took place.
Mr. WARBURTON said the hardship was, that the con-
struction now adopted was different from that which had been
held out to the people of Ireland at the time of the Reform
Bill by Lord Lansdowne and the Duke of Richmond, both of
whom were then in the Cabinet. This allegation Lord Stan-
ley met by quoting verbatim the speeches of both these noble
lords.

The committee then divided on Mr. Warburton's motion,
which was negatived by a large majority.
After the division, Lord STANLEY gave notice that he
should propose to make the committee an order of the day
for Monday, and should press its precedence on that day.
Lord J. RUSSELL said he should insist on the postpone-
ment of the committee to the Wednesday.
Mr. O'CONNELL, in threatening to inove an adjournment,
was interrupted by what he'eatled " beditly bellowings ;" for
which phrase he was called to order. Many members at-
tempted to speak at once, and the confusion was indescribable.
Lord J. RUSSELL intimated, that in the present temper of
the house no business could be done with advantage, and pro-
posed to determine on Monday whether the committee should
proceed on that day or on Wednesday.
Mr. O'CONNELL stated, that whatever might be the ar-
rangement between Ministers and Lord Stanley, he himself
would not be bound by it.
Sir B. HALL said he would be no party to factious motions
of adjournment, and hereupon a few sharp words passed.
The CHAIRMAN reported progress, the SPEAKER re-
sumed the chair, and the next conflict now stands for Mon-
day.—Adjourned.