The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-03-31 00:00:00

rinperiai Par

HOUSE OF LORDS.—THURSDAY.
Lord MONTEAGLE said, he had recently learned that some
correspondence had taken place between Sir T. Fremantle
and Sir J. Newport on the subject of the Exchequer records.
The series of papers laid before parliament would be incom-
plete without that correspondence, and he therefore moved
that it be produced.
Lord WESTMEATH complained of a misrepresentation in
the Morning Chronicle, but made no motion on the subject.
Several petitions were then presented.
Lord REDESDALE gave notice, that he should this day
move for a select committee to institute an inquiry respecting
the records which had been disposed of by the Exchequer,
and were now in the market.

---The Mutiny Bill and the Marine Mutiny Bill went through
a committee, and were ordered to be read a third time on
Saturday.
The Church Building Bill was reported to the house with-
out amendment.

The Earl of MOUNTCASHEL moved for a return of the
printed instructions sent to the Poor Law Guardians iu Ire-
land, by order of the Poor Law. Commissioners, for the
valuation of property. The noble Earl said the paper was
important to their lordships, as the franchise under the Cor-
poration Bi►l would be regulated by the valuation of property
under the Poor Law Act.—Their lordships then adjourned;

HOUSE OF COMMONS—THURSDAY.
After the presentation of numerous petitions, the disposal
of some routine and private business, and the entrance of
some notices,

Mr. PRYME gave notice that, on Mr. Villiers's motion in
regard to the corn-laws he should move the addition of these
words—" with a view to the reduction of the average prices
specified in annexed tables, and according to the respective
duties imposed therein ;" and that if this amendment should
be agreed to, he would in committee move the resolution of
which he had previously given notice.
Mr. COLQUHOUN gave notice of a question with regard to
the state of the British trade with Java.

The order of the day having been read for resuming the
adjourned debate on the Irish registration bill,
Mr. Sergeant CURRIE rose to address the house. He was
ready to admit that the reform bill as it existed at present in
Ireland, and the laws relating to the registry in that country,
were liable to great objections. He believed, too, that some
of those objections were of very considerable importance ;
but though the present measure merely proposed to meet
those difficulties, it was, in point of fact, calculated to limit
or destroy the election qualification in Ireland. He was
persuaded that whatever might be the imperfections of the
system which it was proposed to amend, the bill of the noble
lord would, in many cases, renew them, and that, in other
instances, it would create others in their stead.
Colonel• PERCEVAL gave a remarkable illustration of the
necessity for annual revision, in the instances of some leases
held in the county of Sligo on the life of King William IV.
The persons registered for these lifehoods in 1832, had actually
voted in 1837, on their oaths that their qualifications still
continued, thus virtually swearing that King William was
alive at the very election which had been occasioned by his
death. Much had been said about interference of landlords.
No doubt they did interfere, but not one in twenty, as com-
pared with the Roman Catholic priests. The real object of
theextraordinary opposition made to this hill was, to maintain
fictitious votes, for the benefit of her majesty's government,
and of those by whom that government was governed.
The O'Coxoß Dos objected to the principle of the bill,
inasmuch as it would diminish the facility of obtaining the
franchise, and the security of it when obtained. He thought
such a bill would work a wrong ; and whenever the legisla-
ture inflicted a wrong on the people, there was a danger that
the people would commit some wrong in return.
Mr. WARBURTON assured the house that an opinion was
growing up against annual registration, even in England. As
to the appeal, he did not think the common law judges were
safe protectors of popular rights ; and he objected to any
measure which would have the effect of reducing the number
of voters.

Sir JAMES GRAFI A M observed, that the course of the even-
ing's debate had shown how little pretence there was for the
adjournment. There had been no anxiety to speak, and least
of all on the part of ministers. It was said that the object
was to narrow the franchise. That consequence might fol-
low ; but the object was to protect the registry, to prevent
perjury, and to vindicate the law. It was only the fictitious
votes which the bill would reduce ; and unless its opponents
were conscious that the votes they-relied on were fictitious,
they had nothing to fear. He then enumerated the services
of Lord Stanley to Ireland, his support of Catholic emanci-
pation, his great measure of ecclesiastical reform, his scheme
of education, and the increase of franchise given in his par-
liamentary reform bill. Mr. O'Connell had denounced the
present measure, and had said that the government thirst not
support it. That reason, in the absence of better, would, he
feared, be strong enough to determine their course. This
was the peace, the hollow peace, which had been vaunted in
Ireland, and these were the means by which the ministers
preserved it.
Lord MORPETH was surprised at any objection against an
adjournment of a bill which would virtually disfranchise a
majority of the Irish people. Four members had spoken
this night against it. For himself, with a view, not to pro-
tect fraudulent voters, but to prevent the disfranchisement
of legitimate ones, he would give it his most downright op-
position. Government had brought in bills from year to
year, but had at length relinquished them from a conviction
that it would be impracticable to obtain for them the con-
currence of the two great parties in parliament. He did not
deny the present system to be defective • but would this pro-
posal amend'or only clog it? He doubted whether, even in
England, where there is no vexatious appeal to a judge, the
annual revision were not very injurious. He questioned
whether it would ever be possible to settle the registration,
unless through some settlement of the construction of bene-
ficial interest ; or perhaps by making the right of voting
depend on the amount of rate paid.
Lord STANLEY, after thanking the house for the prece-
dence which they had granted to this debate, and exposing
the absurdity and untruth of the Dublin petition got up by
Mr. O'Connell, proceeded to the defence of the measure.
It WEIS new to him to hear that annual revisions had become
unpopular in England. He was not aware that anybody
had petitioned to abolish it, still less to substitute the certi-
ficate system of Ireland ; but Mr. Warburton, that lover of
annual elections, had found annual revisions inconvenient,
especially in counties, and now desired to supersede them.
Lord Stanley then dissected the speeches of several of his
adversaries, proving that on their own arguments they were
bound to support him. This should have been especially
the case with ministers, by reason of the similar bills there-
tofore introduced by themselves. But since those bills, Mr.
O'Connell had changed his mind ; and if government should
dare to do now what he advocated in 1835 and 1836—if they
should refuse to change their minds with him, the repeal
cry was to be raised. Thereupon Lord Morpeth had taken
a new " impression," and found difficulties in annual revision,
and fundamental objections to appeal. Mr. Woulf, when
Attorney-General, had praised the annual revision as a great
improvement on the present system, which allowed quarterly
registration, and thus created a quarterly excitement. But
the government bills, it was said, allowed an objection against
a voter only for some cause which had arisen since his last
registration. If it were desirable, which he thought it was
not, to confine the objection within these limits, that altera-
tion was a proper subject for committee. The government
bills had contained not only the annual revision, but also the
twofold appeal. But they had contained, moreover, a de-
claratory enactment on the subject of the "beneficial inte-
rest" necessary to confer a vote, and
.ministers were now
opposing him because no such enactment was tacked to the
present bill. He warned them how they again committed
themselves to refuse an acknowledged good because it was
not coupled with another matter of a questionable nature.
Let them beware of second appropriation clause. He then
entered at length into the construction of the " beneficial in-
terest," and showed that it meant the clear marketable value
which the voters interest would fetch after all outgoings.
Great complaint had been made of the fewness of the Irish
electors, in proportion to the Irish population, as compared
with the electors and population of England. That fewness
arose in no small degree from the unwillingness of the poorer
tenants to register. They were distracted between the in-
fluence of their landlords on the one hand, and that organised
power on the other, which subjected them to denunciation in
their chapels, expulsion from their society, and danger to
their very lives.

Mr. O''CoNNitm. began by coolly declaring, that the alle-
gation of denunciations in chapel was a foul calumny ! He
then went at length into an examination of the principles on
which Lord Stanley had constructed the Irish Reform bill,
and condemned him as hostile and unjust to Ireland " The
noble lord," said he, " is here to-night, when to be elsewhere
would be pleasanter to him, and it ought to be." (Groans
of disgust, and loud cries of " Shame," burst forth from all
parts of the house at this allusion to the impending affliction
of Lord Stanley's family ; and these demonstrations, which
did not speedily subside, compelled the orator to desist from
whatever it was that he had been about to say.) Resuming
the subject of the bill, he entered into long statistical details
of the comparative population of English and Irish counties
and cities, and the proportions of electors in the two coun-
tries. If. out of the comparatively small constituencies of
Ireland, large numbers were now to be cut off as fictitious,
to what, he asked, would these constituencies be reduced?
He objected to this bill on principle—because it contained
no provision for enlarging the franchise, and because it dis-
franchised all Ireland at once. The most objectionable of
all its clauses was that of the annual revision. The measure
would be met with high indignation by the Irish people, now
rising, as he phrased it, in the might of a giant morality.
The house then divided, and defeated the cause of fraud,
of vlr. O'Connell, and of the ministers, by 250 against 231;
majority 16.
The house adjourned at a quarter past one.

HOUSE OF LORDS.—FRIDAY.
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY gave notice that he would
move on Friday, April 10th, for an address to her Majesty,
praying her not to assent to an act passed by the Legislature
of Upper Canada for the sale and distribution of the clergy
reserves.

Lord MELBOURNE moved an address to her Majesty, ex-
pressing their lordships' approbation of the sentiments ex-
pressed in her Majesty's message respecting John, Lord
Seaton, and assuring her Majesty of their readiness to concur
in such measures as might be necessary to carry it into effect.
His lordship gave a brief history of the services rendered by
Lord Seaton to his country. The Duke of WELLINGTON
bore testimony to the high worth of Lord Seaton, and was
happy to heir the noble viscount declare in such strong
terms his approbation of the conduct of his noble and gal-
lant friend. Address carried nem con.