The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-02-26 00:00:00

upon ti

the reform bill, establishi
tion to the principles the

the reform bill

the present bill took a

at all to givp votes in counties—
en years' lease, and rate
ing interest in the

d to the value (

not one to
than a rac

Cathol

.s also a violat

relief act, by repeal

bill which

gh it did not restore the 40s freeholders, yet.

now this bill would be sup-
ported by a see aof the supporters of her Majesty's go-
vernment, but he could not understand bow it could be sup-
ported by those w. i hr
reform bill as a final

ay infinit

more objeOtion-

well underst

❑o had always professed to consider the
' -ottlement of the elective franchis'

tive speech; -
Mr,' MACAULAY in

guise, wi
(Loi

lord who in

pose of guarc

until V.
the hot

ered onl

object

3 tleman was loudly the

close of his re-marl

;d that the bill of Lord

!red from
,bly effec-

disfranchisement bill in di

f the n3easure of 1:

rmer bill was int

co n clu:

)ad voters and let in gooe

it; but if it was it

nation b

perjury De
lell to deli

eminently childish.

.e under consi

moved the adjournment of the debate
aich was immediately acceded to, and

OF LORDS -WEDNESDAY - EDNSDAN

OF COMMO

The discussion upon Lord Mor

!cond reading of

:tention of then

who br

i to say

sfaction to tt

land, and u

I and Ire-
better un-

the two county
deratanding than that which had heretofore prevailed

brought

contended that the present bill had been
nut with any hope or intention that it should
of which they were

become law, buCwith some.ulterior

at liberty to judge. If the noble lord (Morpeth) really wishes
to benefit Ireland the most efficient way of doing so would be
by the extension of that system of education which his noble
friend Lord Stanley had conferred upon that country.
Sir Wm. SOMERVILLE in reply to the argument of Lord
Stanley that if this franchise was given to Ireland, it must be
extended to England also, observed that he•had never heard
it urged as an objection to an English bill that its benefits
ought not to be given to England, because they would, in
that case, be obliged to extend it to Ireland. It the argo.
ment was good for anything, why was it that the principles of
the municipal bill for England had not been extended in as
full measure to Ireland. The bill of the noble lord the mem-
ber for North Lancashire would, in effect be a total denial of
the franchise to all but the wealthier classes of society, what,
that of his noble friend Lord Morpeth would, o,'"
materially enlarging the franchise, give general

ithout very

He could not help remarking that the noble lord
upon his own showing, would enfranchise one clan
they were at the beck of their landlords, at the ver
he was condemning the enfranchisement of ai
they should be at the beck of their landlords

tisfaction

Stanley)

loment

Mr. Sergeant JACKSON very warmly eulogised the speech
of Sir Wm. Follett, and said that he never was more sur-
prised than at hearing it replied to by the right hon. gentle-
man opposite (Mr. Macaulay), in a speech which he must
characterise as a mere piece of empty and frothy declama-
tion. He thought every man attached to a monarchical go-
vernment, and who was anxious to prevent its being
swamped by the democracy of the country, was bound to
throw the bill of the noble Secretary for Ireland out of the
house upon that—its second reading.
Mr. SLANEY was of opinion that the £5 franchise was
too low, but still they ought to go into committee, as the
principle was good, and, by mutual concession, they might
be enabled to adopt a proper amount of value upon which to
foun their right of voting.
M?: THESSIGER observed that, if the present bill were
defeated, it did not follow that the evils of the present sys-
tem of registration would not be corrected, for, in that
event, his noble friend (Lord Stanley) would persevere with
his measure. It would be almost impossible to remedy the
evils that must necessarily flow from the introduction of the
bill of the noble Secretary for Ireland. It could not fail to
raise expectations which could not be gratified, and a new
pretext had been given to Ireland for continuous agitation.
Mr. C. BULLER was satisfied that, however bad as might be
the bill of the noble lord (Stanley), it possessed the re-
deeming feature of having forced the government to bring in
a good one. The hon. gentleman endeavoured to show that
Lord Stanley, by his bill, did define the Irish franchise,
though by a very roundabout and in a very highly objection-
able manner. The noble lord would leave it to the judges to
decide upon the question of "solvent tenant" or beneficial
interest' qualification, it being already known that ten out of
the 12 judges were in favour of the " solvent tenant" qualifi-
.

Ise. 'Thus

in effect he was giving to Ireland the " the solvent tenant"
franchise through the medium of the judges, instead of re-
sorting to the- more -legitimate mete of defining it by an
act of parliament. He was thus also exposing the judges to
the charge, which would be invariably made against them, of
being intfuenced.by political bias. If, in consequence of the
defeat of the bill before the house, the government should
quit office, it would be but a very short time before a very
liberal government indeed would be called into power. The
bill would be a banner under which the people would seek
to re-establish a liberal administration. The measure of the
noble lord (Stanley), he contended, was an attempt at a re-
trograde movement—to establish, in fact, the old Orange
ascendancy in Ireland. It might be easy to pass one bill,
and to reject another, in the House of Peers ; and hon. mem-

bers on the opposition side were too much in the habit of
imagining that the matter was to he decided in that house

by the result of a few elections, or by the balance of influence
in their favour on the night of a division; but the fact was

that this was a matter that might have to be decided, not by
divisions, but by arms ; and he would ask if their foreign
relations were in a position to rendenthem careless of such
considerations. The hon. gentleman then adverted to the
temperance movement, and said that a people who could ex-
hibit_such an instance of self:denial, must be eminently sus-

ceptib.

, __ _ ..., ...b....—...,.
ability, such as ille world rarely saw. Such ft people, so or-
pulsed and so led, must be sufficiently imposing to cause any

tisfactiou
to the wo

Dublin had tat

oat difficult to be dealt with, was that which was always to
dreaded, but which never broke int. All these consider-
"

Sir JAMES GRAHAM said that the hon. and learned gen-
his speech, of
he would argue
James Graham)

calmness w
house, and

!cl at some of the topic.
:ed and dwelt upon, He
le patriotism which cha.

racterised the latter portion of his speech; and he even
doubted if anything more inflammatory could be found in the
harangues of the English radicals, or in those delivered at
'he
he Corn
,t Exchange in Dublin. The right hon. gentleman
Seer—
d described the bill of his noble
nroduction ' • but if he was
"rd Morpeth), he

~..retaay of War h
Al (Lord Stanley) as a ennutsu v.
y to ask i.he noble lord•near him (Lo.
Juld tell him that it was a troublesome child to deal with—
Jat he had attempted last year to smother it, and bad since
-hen thought to change it at nurse. If in any future debate
the right hon. gentleman would make a similar speech, when
Mild would have an opportunity of replying, he would
Ind that he could give harder hits than he expected, and that
his speeches contained something more than .glittering con-
Thg right hon. baronet pro
ceitg and impotent puerilities.

ar of the

solvent tenantqualificatton

-
as =outing some security to the country of the independence
and respectability of the voters ; and contended that the vice
of the bill before the house was, that it attempted to esta-
blish the franchise upon numbers, and not on property. The
- £5 franchise for Ireland was a concession,
government, to thelon. and learned rciern-
rid he confessed he had the most evil fore-
nanner in which it would be applied if
ionourable member. for Dnblin bad spoken
as explicitly upud the subject of separation, as they had
en threatened with it that night by the honourable mem-
' Liskeard. In order to show how far the govern-
-.cording to their professions, discouraged
-heal of the union, the right hon. baronet
members who, in 1834, voted for
a!,l„dnnsilniotwineednts, thatanmd many of them had
u‘cin'
abl•-

proposition of

on the part of the
ber for Dublin, al

•ed to the thirty-c

,nat e judicia
omce of Chief Baron had been. offered to Mr. the
O'Connell,l
er, declined it, lest, as he said himself, " the
hould be polluted in his person." He took

rorus at the time, and thought them a very singular
t to the gpvernment which 1,1 tendered the office
TT
ould, for his own part. cling to the

, resolved to resist the progress of that
ess checked, would overthtc

the in-
c„

►nvolving the crown

d the right hon. baronet who had just

A, although now avowing
form bill, he had, in a speech at Stroud,

e could. t