The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-06-23 00:00:00

-,

• .
•
-11•" A „
•-3'4-4-11 43rtianwtt ent hills had coMprisa tie cdiiptained oi the siiict-
a ness required in the notice to be given by the claimant, as con-
trasted with the generality and laxity of th 6 notice to be given
by the objector. He censured as needless end vexatious the
frequency of the proposed revisions. He inveighed still
more bitterly against the power vested in the assistant-bar-
rister of striking off such voters as should not keep their
ceases, rates, and taxes paid up. All this, he said, was con-
ceived in a spirit of confiscation and, disfranchisement.
There was quite enough of strictness in the already existing
requisitions of the law, as prescribed by the Reform Act ;
but, when those strict requisitions had been complied with,
the voter was surely entitled, unless new circumstances
should arise destructive of his franchise, to retain it for the
eight years guaranteed by the law. He protested against
that sort of justice to Ireland which would extend to her
whatever was harsh, and deny.to her whatever was liberal, in
the constitution of England or of Scotland. That was the
system of Mrs. Sneak in the farce, who made her husband
eat the drumsticks of the fowls, but allowed him no share of
the brown of the roast beef. He ended by proposing an
amendment retainining the franchise until the end of the
voter's existing term, except where new matter should have
occurred to invalidate it.
Lord STANLEY had hoped that the time at length was
come when these enactments were to be discussed seriatim
and in detail: he had not expected that when the first clause
alone was properly before the committee, the whole scope of
the bill was again to be made the subject of animadversion.
The details had been discussed ad nauseam, when the house
should have been occupied with the principle, and DOW the
principle was again debated when the house should be occu-
pied by the details ; and all this on a clause verbatim et lite-
ratim the same with one introduced into a former bill by the
noble lord himself. The clause was called a wholesale dis-
franchisement of the Irish people. Why was it more a
wholesale disfranchisement of the Irish people than the Eng-
lish reform act, requiring annual registration, was a whole-
sale disfranchisement of the English people ? The same
clause had been introduced into all the former bills, and no
man had ever thought of raising this cry. Nay, the bill
brought in by the Irish Solicitor-General this very ses ion,
and now pending, contained a section equivalent to this
" disfranchising" clause, a section invalidating the existing
certificates, and rendering the new registration the sole test
of the franchise. (The Irish Solicitor-General here nodded
assent.) Why, then, what became of all this clamour
about wholesale disfranchisement? But really this sub-
stitution of a general discussion for a discussion of the
details was a mere keeping of promise to the ear ; and
he called to the house not to let the government thus
shrink from their pledge. It was said that the bill exposed
the voter to harassing objections. An objection in England
might harass the voter, for in England the voter had to prove
his title afresh every year ; but in Ireland, under the present
bill, the voter was relieved from this obligation, and the bur-
den of proof was thrown upon the objector, All this should
have been argued on the ulterior clauses, but it better suited
the noble lord to club up all the objections against all the
clauses, in order to prejudice the house on this one. The
amendment proposed an exception in case of new matter ;
but in case of fraud, of perjury, of personation, the amend-
ment proposed no exception at all. In some 500 cases in the
county of cork the voters had sworn their values at £lO,
which very values, when a rate was to be made, those same
voters swore at a little more or less than £5. Yet these voters
must be left untouched, because there was no charge in the
circumstances of the franchise since the registration. The
doctrine that one successful trial should be conclusive of the
franchise for ever, would lead to a great increase in the
dangerous practice of intimidating witnesses. He apologized
to the house for having travelled into all these matters ; it
was a course into which he had been driven by the generalties
of the noble lord.
Mr. SHEIL repeated that this clause was a disfranchising
one. It destroyed vested and continuing rights, while the
amendment proposed to affect the vote only where the right
whereon it was founded had ceased. Much was said of per-
jury, bribery, and other abuses; but if the indignation were
sincere, why was the evil let alone in England, and all the
virtue reserved to assail the Irish? If there had been such
an excess of undue influence in creating votes, how happened
it that the Irish constituencies were not larger? Tipperary,
with a population of 402,000, had a constituency of only be-
tween 3,000 and 4,000. Lord Stanley had Quoted a letter
from the agent of a conservative club, relating to some indi-
vidual votes ; and in contradiction of this letter, Mr. Shell
read another from a correspondent of his own. He proceeded
to say, that small as was the constituency, it had proved too
large for the views of the Tories ; and he gave a sketch of the
hardship which, under this bill, would be endured by a voter,
harassed by his landlord with an appeal, amerced in costs,
and sent away penniless, as a warning to refractory tenants.
If the divisions which existed soon after the Reform Act be-
tween the Irish members and the Whigs had continued, this
bill would not have been pressed forward. The Spottiswoode
combination failed to dispossess the Irish members of their
seats, and now the attempt was renewed by this bill. He
then delivered an antithetical invective against Lord Stanley,
who, he said, was not fitted for the nice and delicate task of
legislating for Ireland. Ireland had been till now in a state
of general calm ; Lord Stanley was letting loose the elements
of a new agitation ; it was for the house to stop him at the
outset, or Sir R. Peel, who last year felt Ireland to be his
great difficulty, would have occasion to regret the policy of
his noble and formidable friend.
Mr. D'ISRAELI asked the members who call themselves
the representatives of the masses, how they could support a
Government which was kept in office by a party desirous of
overturning the state, and which administered its justice by
giving impunity in Ireland to offences which in. England they
visited with punishment ? He must look on this occasion to
these considerations, and not solely to the specific clauses of
a registration bill. He had never given a vote hostile to the
Irish people ; he had not, like the Ministers, voted for a
coercion bill. He trusted the House would support the ori-
ginal clause.
Dr. STOCK opposed the clause, in a short and wholly in-
audible speech.
Mr. Serjeant JACKSON entered into the particulars of cer-
tain votes, to contradict Mr. Sheil's correspondent and to
show the frauds of the present registration. He was briefly
followed by Mr. BEAMISH. After him Lord POWERSCOURT,
referring to a former dispute about certain fictitious votes
alleged to have been fabricated in the county of Wicklow, said
a few words which were controverted by Mr. J. GRATTAN
and Mr. O'CONNELL. Mr. CALLAGHAN followed against
the clause, and Sir MONTAGUE CHAPMAN entered into some
explanations about the conduct of Mr. Tighe, a revising bar-
rister, which were corrected by by Mr. LEFROY.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for Ireland said the question
was not upon any of the various classes of fictitious votes,
but whether the House should adopt this large clause, or
limit it by the proposed amendment. When the Reform
Bill for Ireland passed, there existed about 20,000 of these
£lO voters. Were they obliged by that Reform Bill to
register tgain ? No ; they were left, as Government pro-
posed to leave them now, upon the register. They ought,
surely, to be some repose ; the holder of the franchise ought
to be perpetually disturbed. You ought not to have a
tribunal so unsatisfactory as to require the constant repetition
of investigation. You would not allow fresh appeals from
the courts of common law or equity, on the ground that fresh
evidence had been obtained since the former decision. The
present tribunal for the determination of the franchise had
been twice selected, first in 1829, and secondly in 1832 ; and
the Legislature ought to rely on its decisions, and leave them
final. Some of the present voters had been registered 11
years, and had polled at five elections ; and now it was pro-
posed to deprive them of their vested right, and this upon
a question of value, on which there was always much
difference of opinion, and much temptation to the valuers
to strain their judgment. Was there not a danger that you
would destroy more good votes than bad ones ?
Sir E. SUGDEN said he would propose nothing for Ireland
which he would not accept for England. He entered into a
parallel between the bills of Lord Stanley and of the Govern-
ment, and argued that, of the two, Lord Stanley's was the
more favourable to the voter. Gentlemen talked as if this
bill would enable objectors to disturb the voter without
cause. No such thing; the cause must be proved.
Mr. MACAULEY said, the effect of the amendment would
not be to perpetuate the franchise, but only to continue it
for the term to which it would have endured without this
bill, a term of eight years from the date of the registration.
He regarded this as a bill to take away the right of voting,
under pretence of ascertaining it. As often as there should
be a new assistant-barrister or a new judge on the circuit,
the same objection might be repeated ; then an appeal to the
King's Bench : a fresh attempt next time before the barrister;
another before the circuit judge, and then an appeal to the
Common Pleas ; and so on, year after year. No such system
was allowed with respect to to the rights of property, and
though that might cause some instances of individual
hardship, yet the sufficient answer was, that there must
be an end to litigation. Some wrongful votes, no
doubt, would be displaced by the bill ; but the bill was
as hard on the rightful as on the wrongful claimant. Sup-
pose a man of great wealth and vindictive temper, giving
orders to his agent to object against all persons obnoxious to
him, would it be too much to suppose that such a man might
become so far the master of an Irish county as to return
both its members to parliament ? His objections to this
bill were increased by the consideration that the franchise in
Ireland was a restricted one. There were more voters in the
county of Westmoreland than in Cork, the most populous
county of Ireland. If the Irish franchise were to be altered
at all, it should be rather by extension than by restriction.
This was the first step in a great retrograde movement. It
mattered little what might be the law of right if you could
contrive to vitiate the law of remedy. The present struggle
was as much for English as for Irish liberties. Or, if no
similar design were entertained against England, the injustice
was only so much the more glaring. That was not the spirit
in which Mr. Pitt effected the union, a settlement which he
himself would defend alike against the member for Dublin
and the noble lord.
The house divided. For the amendment, 296 ; Against it,
289. Majority for Ministers, 7.
the Lord
hon
house
riaNcir.F.y come, th ehne sstha
nt eudl
d, t
oh
ffa
et
ra fnt eor
ftuhret
hdeerc inspi opno ts t
ohni which
the amendment on the remainder of the clause.
It having been admitted,
gain,
and
dt ommittee report pro,rress
Lord STANLEY moved,
sit again,
to which that,
thlOusliad come,
declared however 'nand;
to
with the further progress of the bill
hah nee dmai sgkh
wouldit leave
regretiell
for Monday next.
Lord J. RUSSELL declared his opposition to the tot •
and would propose some other day instead of Monday. on'
Sir R. PEEL remonstrated against such a postponement, as
contrary to the usage which allows the member having 'the
conduct of a bill to choose his own day, subject to the deci-
sion of the house on
Hwje
ouron thato day
havingaywhetheerxoprrensosteditt sthhael I
samethen
proceed. And
opinion, Lord John gave way, and left it to be decided on
Monday whether Lord Stanley s bill or that of Mr. Pigot
should 'then come on for actual discussion.

HOUSE OF LORDS.—THURSDAY.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE, seeing the noble and learned
lord (Lyndhurst) in his place, wished to ask him the course
he meant to pursue to-morrow with reference to the Irish
Municipal Corporation Bill. He wished to know whether
the noble and learned lord meant to proceed with the bill,
or to propose amendments, or to adopt a course which had
been taken on former occasions, to propose the amendments
pro forma', and move that they should be printed for the
information of the house.
Lord LYNDHURST said, it was not his intention to oppose
going into committee, but to propose a number of amend-
ments similar to those which he had proposed last year. He
should therefore propose that they should go into committee
pro forma', when be would move that the amendments be
printed.
A long conversation ensued, in which several noble lords
took part ; but the noble and learned lord (Lyndhurst) did
not intimate that he should adopt any other course.
The Bishop of EXETER gave notice, that he should to-
morrow move for a copy of the royal instructions given to
Mr. P. Thomson when he went out to Canada.
The bills on the table of the house were then forwarded a
stage, and the house adjourned at a quarter to six o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—TnunsDAY.
The Birmingham, Bristol, and Thames Junction Railway
Bill was read a third time and passed.
Sir J. GRAHAM presented a petition from the Leeds and
Manchester Railway Company, praying the house not to
adopt the clause in the bill proposed by the noble lord,
making it imperative upon the railroad companies to pass
their accounts in a particular manner.

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.
Sir J. GRAHAM rose and said, that it had been asserted in
the Morning Chronicic of yesterday, that on Tuesday last he
(Sir J. Graham) had stationed himself in the lobby, and
there endeavoured to prevent the members from coming into
the house, for the purpose of making a house. It was well
known that after prayers and before four o'clock, the speaker
sent a messenger to all of the committees, giving them notice
to attend in the house for the purpose of making a house ;
and he (Sir J. Graham) conceived that any member disobey-
ing that order, and endeavouring to obstruct members from
entering the house acted in a manner altogether unparlia-
mentary. (Hear.) As related to his own case, it so hap-
pened that on the day in question he was in attendance on
the committee of the bank commission. He had not imme-
diately obeyed the summons of the speaker, but at four
o'clock he was proceeding from the committee to the house,
when he was informed that the house had been counted out,
and that the speaker had not consequently taken the chair,
and he then instantly returned to the room which he left.
That was the entire history of the case; and he should not
have noticed the subject if the Morning Chronicle of to-day
had not made a statement which he conceived to be an aggra-
vation of its first assertion. It was said that it was true he
(Sir J. Graham) was not in the lobby,on the day in question,
when the house proceeded to prayers, but that there was an
equivocation in that denial, inasmuch as he had previously
taken means for preventing a house being formed. He need
not say, that such conduct on his part had been highly un-
becoming, and in the most positive manner he should be per-
mitted to deny—(hear, hear, hear)—that either directly or
indirectly he had prevented any member from attending the
house.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. WaantatToN said, that, as a member of the commit-
tee, he could confirm the statement of his right hon. friend.
Sir CHARLES BURRELL thought that the repetition of the
charge should not be passed over by the house without some
animadversion.

CANADA GOVERNMENT BILL.

Lord JOHN Russ—LL,llaving moved the third reading of
this bill, said, he had considered the proposals made, and he
had resolved to adopt the recommendation of the right hon.
baronet the member for Tamworth, that the debts contracted
by the province should not form a charge upon the consoli-
dated revenue before the civil charges. He would not adopt
the right honourable baronet's advice to the representative
body. Then his right honourable friend, the member for
Coventry, had advised the omission of all the clauses as to
district councils. Upon the whole, as there were so many
objections, he proposed to leave out the clauses giving
extensive powers to the councils. He was most anxious that
the bill should pass with every possible unanimity. (Hear,
hear.) If anything should be lost by the omission of the
clauses in point of advantage to the provinces, he thought
infinitely more would be gained by the general agreement of
the house to the bill in the shape he now proposed it.
Mr. HUME was sorry to have heard the speech of the noble
lord, because much that was good in the bill was now, it ap-
peared, to be taken out, and the people were to be altogether
deprived of the self-government of their own resources. The
noble lord would find that he would not carry the opinions
of the people of Canada with him. He knew how useless it
was to offer any opposition to a proposition from the govern-
ment connected with the colonies, whatever it might be ; but
he must enter his protest against the course pursued by the
noble lord, because it would leave the Canadas without those
district and local courts to manage their affairs until the
assembly should have time to make some arrangement. He
begged to enter his protest against the partial destruction of
the little that was useful in the bill. (A. laugh.) He thought
a general amnesty should be passed before the bill of the
noble lord was adopted by the house. He wished to ask the
noble lord whether the habeas corpus were still suspended in
Canada ?

Lord J. RUSSELL said, he believed that according to the
last accounts, suspension continued still.
Sir C. Grey hoped the honourable member for Kilkenny
would not press his objections to the establishment of coun-

Sir R. PEEL said, that he approved of the main provisions
of the bill of the noble lord. He thought that the establish-
ment of the civil list was one of the best provisions of the
measure. He gave his assent without hesitation to the pas-
sing of this bill. He could not conclude the part he had taken
on this measure without expressing his cordial prayer that
the measure which had received the countenance of that house
might promote the interests of the two provinces, which
were as dear to the imperial legislature as to any of their fel-
low-subjects, and that it might lay the foundation for the
prosperous, glorious, and permanent connection between the
two Canadas and this country. (Hear, hear.)
Sir T. COCHRANE had great fears that this bill would be
the virtual declaration of the independence of Canada.
Some discussion took place between Mr. Hume and Lord
J. Russell, on the subject of district councils, which
termi-
nated by Mr. HUME declaring that if his lordship, in the
despatch accompanying the bill, would recommend
into
their local legislature to take the subject of district councilsp
their consideration, he should not divide the house.'
The bill was then read a third time, and passed.
COUNTY CONSTABULARY BILL.

On the order of the day for the further consideration of
the County Constabulary Bill,
Sir E. KNATCHBULL moved that the bill be referred to a
select committee. He admitted the defectiveness of the old
system of police, but one great objection to the new measure
was the immense expense which it entailed on the country.
A discussion ensued, in the course of which
Mr. Fox MAULE said, the amendment, if carried, would
exclude the measure from passing during the present session.
Though the system might on the t'ace of it appear to be some-
what expensive, he was sure that in the long run the counties
themselves would approve of it. He would reserve the con-
sideration of the details until the house went into committee
on the bill.
_

On a division, the motion for going into committee was
carried by a majority of 105 to 39.
The clauses up to 17 were agreed to, after which the Chair-
man reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again on
Monday next.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL obtained leave to bring in a
bill to exempt stock in trade and other personal property
from being rated to the relief of the poor.
The house adjourned at a quarter-past one o'clock.

THE WATERLOO BANQUET.

On Thursday evening his Grace the Duke of Wellington
gave his annual banquet at Apsley House, in celebration of
the battle of Waterloo.
A great number of persons collected at the gates and in
Hyde-park, and among the crowd were recognised several
veterans, wearing their medals, adorned with a laurel leaf.
During the arrival of the gallant guests the band of the gre-
nadier guards (the duke's regiment), stationed in the hall,
played marches and selections from the most admired operas.
The whole of the officers who were engaged in that glorious
victory were invited.
The noble duke, who was in excellent health and spirits,
sat at the head of the table, supported on the right by Lord
Hill, (a seat of honour usually occupied by the Marquis of
Anglesey.) We believe the noble marquis was prevented din-
ing with his grace from slight indisposition.
Covers were laid for seventy, and among the gallant muster
were recognised General Lord Hill, Lord Fitzroy Somerset,
General
Vivian, LV.I
ei snctoeunn B a
nt t
.Geer
nc sefroarid
Sir,
t dw ard Major-GeneralK e r r
is Sir
nn Hussey
Bart.,
JohnMr aLnio rd Sa
be
rt
,n
Sird y s L
Peregrine
e reogrrdi nSe attou Maitland,n Colonel n uel mr waoe
do
ed
n,
aSI
di r,
Colonel Rowen, Colonel Ellice, Sir Andrew Barnard, Col.
Townshend, Colonel Davies' Colonel Clive, Sir Edward Bo-
water, Colonel Drummond, Colonel Freemantle, Colonel
HenryHeeontlri
or
iu
n,secHCo Reeve,
ilo
rerdencivneenlg: Bcn, Drummond,lior r
Charles
kiheatrtl,e
Ellison,
smßroke
rj
onsSkrii
vGTMeheornnneen:eryaaGsl,
e.vvßnS
eieyrrynanGldeDhellao,,mrog:ey
Lordisecli
ry:n
r
James Clark, Sir Robert Gardner, &c.
There were also his Excellency General Alava, the Spanish
minister, and his Excellency Prince Castelciela, the envoy
extraordinary from the King of Naples.
All the guests were in full uniform, and wore all their de-
corations.
At the termination of the repast, " the Queen" was the
first toast, and the customary toasts " the memory of the
heroes who fell at Waterloo,' and " the health of our brave
companions in arms," were given in due order.
The party separated shortly before half-past ten.


~`;~ ~ -~

. _
TRIAL OF COURVOISIER, FOR THE MURDER
OF LORD WILLIAM RUSSELL.

FIRST DAY, THURSDAY.
This case came on for trial on'Thursday morning last,
before Lord Chief Justice Tindal and Mr. Baron Parke.
Ten o'clock was the hour fixed for the commencement of
business, and about a quarter of an hour before that time his
Royal Highness the Duke of Sussex entered the court, pre-
ceded by the Lord Mayor and Sheriffs, who conducted him
to a seat on the bench. The whole court rose to receive his
royal highness. Some of the nobility and gentry were also
present, and every part of the court was excessively crowded.
A model of the house in which the unfortunate nobleman
was murdered, was placed upon the table in the centre of
the court. _ _

The counsel for the prosecution were Mr. Adolphus, Mr.
Bodkin, and Mr. Chambers; and for the prisoner, Mr. C.
Phillips and Mr. Clarkson,
The prisoner, Francis Benjamin Courvoisier, was placed
at the bar at ten o'clock. He looked pale, and thinner than
when under examination at Bow-street, but he seemed firm
and collected. Having,been arraigned, he pleaded not guilty
in a low tone of voice ; and, in reply to the clerk of the
arraigns, said, that he would be tried by an English jury,
waiving his right of having half the jury composed of fo-
reigners. . _ _

kr. ADOLPHUS stated the case for the prosecution. It
was, he said, a most remarkable circumstance, that the father
and brother of the deceased nobleman had both come to an
untimely end, but their deaths had been the effect of acci-
dent, whereas Lord William Russell, in the retirement and
seclusion of his own house, at the advance of 73 years, had
been most foully murdered, and it was the object of their
present inquiry to determine whether that murder had been
perpetrated by the prisoner at the bar or not. The learned
counsel proceeded to detail the transactions of the day pre-
vious to the murder, as they related to the deceased and
Courvoisier, the state of the house on the following morn-
ing, the behaviour of the prisoner, and the discoveries which
had subsequently been made of the property concealed in his
pantry and elsewhere. Having taken a close survey of the
evidence that was to be brought forward, and drawn his
conclusions from its several parts, the learned counsel
said, that he would next anticipate the probable defence.
It might be said that the prisoner was without motive.
But there was not altogether an absence of motive. It
would appear in evidence, that the prisoner was un-
happy, and had a desire to return to his own country.
He also supposed, as foreigners generally do, that English
noblemen always have a considerable some of money about
them. The natural supposition from seeing the Russia box
with the ivory rouleaus constantly in his lordship's possession
was, that they were filled with gold ; and, if so, here was
sufficient motive. Foreigners, unfortunately, generally made
murder the prelude to robbery ; and the prisoner undoubtedly
expected to get a large plunder in ready money, which would
have enabled him to escape at once ; but, being disappointed
in this expectation, he adopted the measures he had done to
induce the supposition that a burglary had been committed.
Doubtless the jury would be warned against convicting on
circumstantial evidence ; and he would read to them what
had been said in the case of Patch, who was tried for murder
thirty-six years ago, on the subject of circumstantial evidence.
Chief Baron M`Donald then said, that the circumstantial
evidence was more satisfactory when the chain was complete,
than even direct evidence. It might also be attempted to
show, that the witness Mansell was unworthy of credit, and,
from what had been published, he imagined that such would
be the defence. Her character had never been impeached.
He then proceeded to vindicate the character of the police
from any imputation that might be cast upon them. The
Bedford family merely prosecuted here as petitioners for
public justice; they had no desire to hunt an unprotected
foreigner to an ignominious death. The feelings of pity
might be appealed to ; but let them remember, that mercy
was a mitigation of punishment, not a denial of justice. The
safety of the community depended upon the verd.ct of juries
in cases similar to this; and it was -for them to determine
whether the defenceless female, the decrepid old man, and
the helpless infant should retire to rest and remain in their
beds in safety.
The first witness called was Sarah Mancell, the house-
maid, whose testimony was similar to that given at the preli-
minary investigation. The witness was cross-examined, at
great length, on behalf of the prisoner, by Mr. Phillips. The
only material point elicited was, that a step-ladder was kept
on the premises, which was sometimes placed in the back-
yard, and sometimes in the bath-room which opened from
the yard. On Tuesday Courvoisier, at her request, carried
this ladder out of the passage of the house, and on the morn-
ing of Wednesday it was found leaning against the wall, with
the summit of which its upper part was nearly level, so that
any person could have put his foot from it over the wall.
Respecting this ladder, not a word had been said in the evi-
dence given at the preliminary investigation.
Mary Hammen, the cook, gave testimony similar to that
already published. On cross-examination, she corroborated
the statements of last witness in relation to the ladder.

William Yorke, the coachman, Emanuel Byring, butler to
a gentleman in the neighbourhood, Mr. Elsgood and Mr.
Nusscy, the surgeons, Thomas Selwyn, a servant at the
house next door to that of the deceased, and Baldwin, a
policeman, repeated their former evidence. Nothing ma-
terial was elicited in the cross-examination of the witnesses.
The examination of Baldwin concluded the day's proceedings,
and at five o'clock the court was adjourned until ten o'clock
the following morning.
The prisoner, during the latter part of the day, was accom-
modated with a chair. His firmness never deserted him for
a moment.