The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-07-07 00:00:00

Emptr(ol Varliatrititt,

HOUSE OF LORDS.--TuußsDAy

•••• ••
Lord HARDWIOKR gave notice, that on Tuesday, upon the
motion for a committee upon the Canada government bill, he
should move that it be committed that day six months.
The timber ships' bill was read a second time, and the
church discipline bill havinn. passed through committee, with
some amendments, Lord BROUGHAM ~resented a petition
signed by 19,000 of the inhabitants of Edinb argh, praying for
the separation of church and state, as the only means of in-
suring the independence of the former.
Lord BRE A.DALBAN E, in reference to his motion for hearing

counsel at the bar against Lord. Aberdeen's bill for regu-
lating the presentation to Scotch benefices, requested that
the further consideration of the measure might be postponed
until counsel might be properly instructed.
Lord MELBOURNE thought that all legislation on the

subject would be perniciou'i while the public mind was so
much excited as at present. The proceedings on either side
had sprung entirely out of the question of patronage, n
which the Church of Scotland had been divided for upwards
of a hundred years. If the bill were intended to put an end
to this schism, it had come a century too late.
Lord ABERDEEN thought it probable that another schism
equally important would take place in the course of the next
month. The General Assembly, in the exercise of their
usurped power, bad ordered their commission to proceed
against ertain -ministers, who were determined to obey the
law as laid down by the house, instead of the instructions of
the assembly ; and all who thought that the law should be
would of course take part with them, although they
iy so doing be guilty of contumacy, and run the risk of
ueposnion. He thought that the bill would do much to
void these and other evils, and he should move that it be

obeyed

committed immediately.
Lord HADDINOTON remarked upon the tacit refusal of
government to adopt any course whatever on the question ;
and after a few words from Lord LONDONDERRY, the house
went into committee, and the several clauses of the bill were

agreed to.
A conversation then ensued upon a motion brought forward
by Lord WEsTmEATH, the consideration of which was ulti-
mately postponed, and Lord MONSON' having withdrawn his
motion for the third reading of the payment of wages' bill,
the house adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—THURSDAY.
WEAVER CHURCHES.
On the order of the day being moved for the third reading
of the Weaver Churches Bill,
Mr. THORNELY moved, as an amendment, that a select
committee be appointed to inquire into the state of the River
Weaver and Weston Canal, and of the quantity and descrip-
tion of traffic thereon, also of the amount of tonnage col-
lected, and the application thereof, with a view to ascertain
what reduction of toll could be made for the benefit of the
public, and to report thereon to the house, and that the
Weaver Churches Bill be not proceeded with until the com-
mittee had made its report. The hon. member, at some
length, went into particulars connected with the navigation
_. Weaver, and contended that further inquiry
necessary before the house passed a bill authorising the
,uilding of new churches from the accumulated funds. He
trusted the house would agree to the appointment of a corn-

f the Rive

mittee.
Mr. T. EGERTON opposed the motion, the effect of which,
reed to, would be, at this period of the session, to post-

pone the bill for another year.
Mr. HDIgE considered the principle of this bill applied to
every county in the kingdom, and it was one of great im-
portance ; therefore he trusted the house would agree to the
amendment of the hon. member for Wolverhampton. The
bill was making a dangerous precedent for the misapplica-
tion of funds belonging to public bodies.
Mr. HINDLEY said the public had a right to demand a
diminution of the tolls, and therefore the house ought not
to appropriate funds in the manner proposed. If a select
committee were appointed, he should move a clause to lower
the tonnage duty from ls. to 10d.
Mr. J. JERVIS trusted the debate would he adjourned, as
he had prepared some new clauses, but could not then use
them, as he had not given the required technical notice in
the Private Bill Office. He hoped, therefore, the hon. ba-
ronet who had charge of the bill would consent to postpone
the debate to a future day. (Cries of " No, no, no.") If
that course was not acceded to, he would avail himself of all
the forms the house allowed, by moving adjournments, if
necessary, until that time tomorrow. (Hear.) He should
not be deterred from doing his duty , and therefore moved,
that the debate be now adjourned until Monday next.
Mr. WILBRA.IIAM seconded the motion for adjournment

of the debate.
Sir P. EGERTON said the course proposed by the hon.
member for Chester was unprecedented. (Hear.)
Mr. HOB/MUSE considered the bill before the house
ought not to pass into a law. He cordially agreed with the
hon. member for Wolverhampton that it ought to be re-
ferred to a select committee. He should support the motion
for adjourning the debate ; and if that was lost, he should
then vote for other amendments. (Hear.) It was abso-
lutely necessary that further time should be allowed to con-
sider the case.
Mr. T. S. DUNCOMBE considered it was a very reasonable
request to ask for a postponement of the debate for a day or
two.
Mr. T. EGERTON thought the proper course for the house
to pursue would be, first to dispose of the amendment of the
hon. member for Wolverhampton, and then take the mo-
tion for an adjournment of the debate until Monday.
Strangers were ordered to withdraw, and the house di-
vided, when there appeared—
For the adjournment of the debate until Monday 151
Against it

On our re-admission, we found
Mr. JERVIS moving that the house do now adjourn. He
was determined to avail himself of all the forms the house al-
lowed, in order to obtain an opportunity of bringing forward
the clauses he had proposed.
Mr. T. EGERTON said there were two ways of defeating a
bill. One was by straightforward opposition, and the other
by factious and frivolous motions of adjournment. (Hear.)
Strangers were ordered to withdraw, and a debate took
place with closed doors. After which the house divided,

Majority against the adjournment of the
house

201
gers 'were aumlteo, moveu

nother adjournment.
Sir G. GREY hoped the bill would be allowed a third read..
ng, and then, if the question that the bill do pass be post-
loned for a short time, the clauses might be brought up and

Considered.
After a few observations from Lord STANLEY, Mr.
THORNELY, and Sir J. GRAHAM,
Mr. J. JERVIS withdrew his amendment.
Mr. THORNELY said he should take the sense of the house
on the amendment he had proposed, for referring the bill to
a select committee._ . . . . .

Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, but no division
took place. After some time the gallery was re-opened ; and
Mr. JERVIS in a very excited tone was complaining of a
noble lord dealing in insinuations as to matters which he had
not the courage to state openly.
Mr. Hume and Lord Castlereagh rose together amid.
t cries of " Chair, chair." loud
The SPEAKER said, the noble lord had not made use of
the expression in the sense which the hon. and learned mem-
ber seemed to understand it. If he had so used it, it would
have been his duty to have called him to order. The house
would bear with him when he said, that he was most careful
to allow no personal allusions to pass unnoticed. (Cheers.)
Mr. HUME : It was always painful to him to differ from
the chair ; but, as far as expressions could bear a meaning,
the noble lord most certainly attributed motives to the hon.
and learned member for Chester, and charged him with hav-
ing made a speech in order to gain time. By the rules of the
house, no member was warranted in doing so, and it was the
duty of the speaker to prevent it.
After some altercation between Viscount CASTEREAGH
and Mr. J. JERVIS, explanations where given and received,
and the house divided, the numbers being—ayes, 201 ; noes,
122 ; majority against Mr. Thornely's amendment, 79.
Mr. G. WILBRAHAM earnestly protested against the third
reading of the bill. . _ _

After some further conversation and discession, in which
Mr. Wilbraham, Mr. Hume, and Mr. F. Hodgson took part,
Mr. E. J. STANLEY said, that if the house would agree to
6tponernent until Monday, he would give a pledge that
no other clauses than those that were now in the hands of
hon. members should be brought up. He would not, how-
ever, trouble the house by dividing it. (Hear: hear.)
The postponement of the further proceedings on this bill,
until the next day, was then agreed to.

the pos

REGISTRATION OF VOTERS (IRELAND) BILL

The motion for the committee "onlorcliataniey's bill
called up Mr. O'CONNELL. He contended that it was too

late in the present session to pass the bill, even if its enact-
ments were less objectionable • but that at all events it was
wholly unreasonable to provide for the registration of the
franchise before the franchise itself was defined by law. Lord
Stanley had deplored the condition of a country where the
minority of the judges refused to he bound by the majority.
Still more to be deplored was the condition of a country
where men struggled to reach the bench by giving scope to
every bad passion. The law had not referred the adjudication
of the franchise to the twelve judges, and their opinion upon
it was, therefore, so far extrajudicial, that several of the as-
sistant-barristers did not hold themselves concluded by it.
Before the Reform Bill it was necessary that there should be
a value, for which a solvent tenant would have given £lO a
year. But words which, under the act of George IV, required
the qualification as thus interpreted, were omitted in the Irish
Reform Act. It had been often said the land should pay 3
rents ; for instance, £lO for the landlord, £lO to repay labour
and capital, and £lO for the tenant's profit. But if beyond
this it were now required that there should be a value for
which a solvent tenant would give a further £lO, then four
rents were requisite instead of three, and the tenant's profit,
instead Of being £lO, must in order to give him the franchise,
amount to £2O. The act of George IV had required a clear
yearly value £lO, but the Reform Bill required only a bene-
ficial interest of not less than the annual sum of £lO ; nor
could these acts be construed as in vari materia, for the
whole system of registration were altered by the Reform Bill.
The judges, however, had construed the beneficial interest
under the Reform Act according to the solvent tenant test
of the act of George IV., by a majority of 10 to 2. But
Baron Richards, one of the two, expressed his opinion that
this construction having been pronounced in private, was
not a binding one, especially as there was no appeal from it,
and he acted on that opinion with the sanction of the Irish
Lord Chancellor and of Judge Perrin. It was enough for
he argument that such a difference among the supreme
dges was admitted to exist ; while that difference remained
-;ettled, it was monstrous to enter into the details of regis-
The legislature should settle the franchise ; and in
his opinion it might properly be settled on the principle of
beneficial interest : for that was matter of fact, and could be
Droved by showing the amount which the land had produced
beyond the rent and the amount necessary for replacing capt-
tal and labour. But if the test were to be the amount which
a solvent tenant would be willing to pay, the whole was con-
jecture, and would vary with each man's imagination. He
concluded by moving that it be an instruction to the commit-

tration

tee to define the qualification.
Dr. LEFROY argued that the law must be taken to be set-
tled. The judges bad the same power to decide this question
as to decide a question of criminal law upon a case reserved.
An appeal had been given to the judge of assize from the de-
cisiou of the assistant-barrister in civil cases under the civil
bill act, and it was always the practice with every such judge
to reserve for the decision of the twelve all points of difficulty
in those civil bill cases. This practice had been adopted by
Mr. Baron Richards himself. It was a practice now long
'abed, and it bad never been complained of. The juris-
diction of the barrister was the same, and the appeal to the
judn was the same in the business of the registration as in
that. of the civil bill. If, therefore, the reservation of points
for the twelve judges was valid in the eases of civil bill, it
Was equally valid in the registration cases. He trusted that
Mr. Baron Richards would not persevere in the course he
had taken, for it was a course which would render it impos-
sible ever to settle a disputed point of law. ,
The ArronNizy-GENERAL protested against the assertion
that the law on this subject was certain and settled. Judges,
committees, and assistant-barristers, all differed upon it. He
would not venture, an opinion of his own, but the alteration
introduced by the reform bill into the words of the act of
George IV. was at least some argument that the legislature
intended thereby to alter the law.
Sir EDWARD SUGDEN said the house had the authority of
Government itself that this was not the proper occasion for
"scussing the qualification ; for there were now pending two
srnment Registration Bills----one providing for England