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

Notritg Odtgintittt

HOUSE Cam' LORDS.,—TtruaspAY.
Lord H4RDwipii4 gavO notice, that on Tuesday, eine 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 having ragged through committee, with
some amendments, Lord BROUGHAM ',resented a petition
signed by 19,000 of the int abitants of Edinbirgh, praying for
the separation of church atm state, as the only means of in-

independence of the former.
TiRE AD AL BA N E , in reference to his motion for hearing
inst Lord Aberdeen's bill for regu-
presentation to Scotch benefices, requested that
her consideration of the measure might be postponed

I at the bar aga

until counsel might be properly instructed.
Lord MELBOURNE thought that all legislation on the
subject would be pernicious 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, on
which the Church of Scotland had been divided for upwards
of a hundred years. If the bill were intended to put an end
schism, it had come a century too late.
I ABERDEEN thought it probable that another schism
ortant would take place in the course of the next
he Genrral Assembly, in the exercise of their
wer, had ordered their commission to proceed
ain ministers, who were determined to obey the
sown by the house, instead of the instructions of
and all who thought that the law should be
• ,e take part with them, although they
uilty of contumacy, and run the risk of
that the bill would do much to
and he should move that it be

.e and other evils

itted immediately
d HADDI

rox remarked upon the tacit refusal of
any course whatever on the question ;
words from Lord LONDONDERRY, the house
mittee, and the several clauses of the bill were

rnment to adop

agreea 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mately postponed, and Lord MONsON having withdrawn his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.

_ rof the day being moved for the third reading
u.. 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 coi-
1, and the application thereof, with a view to ascertain
luction of toll could be made for the benefit of the
and to report thereon to the house, and that the
Churches Bill be not proceeded with until the corn-
id made its report. The hon. member, at some
it into particulars connected with the navigation
Weaver, and contended that further inquiry
wfore the house passed a bill authorising the
w churches from the accumulated funds. He
would agree to the appointment of a com-

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

pone the bill for another year.
Mr. Hymn 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
--nropriate funds in the manner proposed. If a select
vere appointed, he should move a clause to lower
tonnage duty from ls. to 10d.
Mr. J. Jnnvis trusted the debate would be 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 to-morrow. (Hear.) He should
not be deterred from doing his duty, and therefore moved,
that the debate be now adjourned until Monday next.
Mr. WILBRAHAM seconded the motion for adjournment
of the debate.

nmittee v

P. EGERTON, said the course proposed by the hon.
oer for Chester was unprecedented. (Hear.)
ir. HosHousE considered the bill before the house
.ght not to pass into a law. He cordially agreed with the
.on. 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-

sides 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

v.
Mr. T. EGERTON thought the proper course for the house
pursue would be, first to dispose of the amendment of the
In. member for Wolverhampton, and then take the mo-
m for an adjournment of the'debate until Monday.
Straneers were ordered to withdraw, and the house di-

when there appeared—
For the adjournment of the debate until Monday 151
Against it

,ur re-admission, we found
JERVIS moving that the house do now adjourn. He
:ermined to avail himself of all the forms the house al-
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 adirmrnr,•-4.
wit draw, and a debate took
niaratgg'rins—ed doors. After which the house divided,

Majority against the adjournment of the
house
RVIS. before strangers were admitted, moved

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

from Lord STANLEY,

a few observations
LY, and Sir J. GRAHAM,
ma. J. JERVIS withdrew his amendment
Mr. THORNELY said he should take the sense of the house
the amendment he had proposed, for referring the bill to

JCICUI, ,IJI1111.144,,•
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 amidst
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. Humt : 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. WILBRA.IIAM earnestly protested against the third

every bad passion

Ang of the bill.
after some further conversation and discession, in which
r. Wilbraham, Mr. Hume, and Mr. F. Hodgson took part,
Mr. E. J. STANLEY said, that if the house would agree to
stponement until Monday, he would give a pledge that
-lenses than those that were now in the hands of
hers should be brought up. He would not, how-
ever, trouole the house by dividing it. (Hear: hear.)
The postponement of the furthr proceedings on this bill,
ntil the next day, was then agreed to.
REGISTRATION OF VOTERS (IRELAND) BILL.
The motion for the committee on Lord Stanley's bill
lup Mr. O'CONNELL. He contended that it was too
--ent session to pass the bill, even if its enact-
.,, re less objectionable ; but that at all events it was
holly unreasonable to provide for the registration of the
nchise before the franchise itself was defined by law. Lord
oley had deplored the condition of a country where the
arity of the judges refused to be bound by the majority.
,none to be deplore d was the condition of a country
men struggled to reach the bench by giving scope to
The law had not referred the adjudication
~,Aise to the twelve judges, and their opinion upon
, therefore, so far extrajudicial, that several of the as.
..tan-t
-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 1V 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
tot a binding one, especially as there was no appeal from it,
ind he acted on that opinion with the sanction of the Irish
IJord Chancellor and of Judge Perrin. It was enough for
he argument that such a difference among the supreme
edges was admitted to exist ; while that difference remained
nsettled, it was monstrous to enter into the details of regis-
.ation. The legislature should settle the franchise ; and in
is opinion it might properly be settled on the principle of
eneficial interest : for that was matter of fact, and could be
roved by showing the amount which the land had produced
syond the rent and the amount necessary for replacing capi-
-1 and labour. But if the test were to be the amount which
ant would be willing to pay, the whole was con-
-, and would vary with each man's imagination. He
concluded by moving that it be an instruction to the commit-
tee to define the qualification.
Dr. LEFROY argued that the law must be taken to be set-
tled. The judges had the same power to decide this question
4-o decide a question of criminal law upon a case reserved.
appeal had been given to the judge of assize from the de-
a of the assistant-barrister in civil cases under the civil
Act, and it was always the practice with every such judge
eserve for the decision of the twelve all points of difficulty
;hose civil bill cases. This practice had been adopted by
r. Baron Richards himself. It was a practice now long
,tablished, and it had never been complained of. The juris-
,iction of the barrister was the same, and the appeal to the
judge 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 cases 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 inapos-
3ible ever to settle a disputed point of law.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL protested against the assertion
hat the law on this subject was certain and settled. Judges,
-emittees, and assistant-barristers, all differed upon it. He
not venture an opinion of his own, but the alteration
'd by the reform bill into the words of the act of
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
discussing the qualification ; for there were now pending two
Government Registration Bills—one providing for England