The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-06-08 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-THURSDAY

The adjourned debate was resumed by Mr. COLQUIIODN,
who, in reply to Mr. Handley, charged that gentleman with
having deserted his former principles, foi he had at one time
sat for anomination borough and voted with the conservatives.
Mr. O'CONNELL reminded the hon. member that he also
had deviated from his early opinions, but he abandoned such
topics as irrelevant when a great question like that before the
house was under discussion. The hon. and learned gentle-
man then praised the Ministry for the manner in which they
had governed Ireland, and said that the recent elections were
no criterion of public feeling, for the result was to be entirely
attributed to the most notorious bribery. This must be al-
ways the case until the constituencies were enlarged, and un-
til the voters should be afforded the protection of the ballot.
Such an enlargement of the constituency, together with the
protection of the ballot, could never be hoped for while the
conservatives held power. How could the people of Ireland
hope for justice at the hands of Sir R. Peel, who, when Se-
cretary for Ireland, and as a Minister of the Crown, came
forward as the avowed eulogist of the orangemen, describing
them as men whose only fault was an exuberance of loyalty.
While the present Ministry retained office there was hope
for Ireland, but should the conservatives came into power,
that which was now endurance would then become despair.
Mr. LINDSEY denied that there had been bribery or cor-
ruption at the recent election for Sandwich, for he was re-
turned by the free unbought suffrages of the electors.
Mr. Sergeant JACKSON made some strong remarks on the
conduct pursued by the hon. member for Dublin, who,
though always attacking the landlords of Ireland for their
cruelty to their tenantry, had not hesitated to levy execu-
tions against his own tenantry in April, for rent due in March.
The hon. member would not dare to deny this, for he (Mr.
Jackson) had the power of proving the fact at the bar of the
house. With respect to the charge of bribery thrown out
against his side of the house, he knew that they were not
very squeamish upon the other side, for the Government was
at this moment exercising every means of securing seats for
their adherents, and were doing all they could to deprive him
of his seat for Bandon, in which object they would be signally
defeated, for the electors of that town were not to be bought
by all the wealth which the Ministry had at its disposal.
Mr. O'CONNELL said, in explanation of the charge made
against him as a landlord, that he let his lands from 4s. to
ss. in the pound less than any of the landlords in his neigh-
bourhood—he had more persons living in houses on his lands,
and paying no rent, than any landlord holding five times his
extent of land—he had never turned out a tenant for the pur-
pose of clearing his land, nor for any other reason than mis-
conduct, and even then he gave them a year's rent as fine.
With respect to levying a distress last April for rent due in
March, he had never heard of it before. and if it had been
done by his agent he must have heard of it. He had never
sold a distress for rent, nor ever should. He did not believe
the fact as stated, but should make inquiry, and if it turned
out that it had been done by his agent he would no longer
employ him.
_Sir D. Rocuz
_said he had land adjoining to that of Mr.

O'Connell, and had never heard of this ojcurrence. The
hon. baronet bore testimony to the indulgent character of
Mr. O'Connell as a landlord.

Mr. SLANEY appealed to Sir R. Peel to turn his attention,

if he should come into power, to the welfare of the poorer
classes of the community, and expressed a hope that the
right hon. baronet would, before the debate closed, state
what he really meant to do to improve their condition.
The Earl of DARLINGTON, in reference to the charges of

inconsistency made by Mr. Handley against Sir James
Graham and Lord Stanley, said that it was difficult to find
any great statesman who had been always consistent in his
opinions. He did not know that this doctrine of consist-
ency would be very desirable to be adhered to, but at all
events it was curious that the hon. member should have
singled out the two right hon. gentlemen already named,
when he had much nearer to him Lord John Russell and
Lord Palmerston, the former of whom had in 1821 written a
very admirable pamphlet in defence of the agricultural in-
terest against foreign competition. The hon. member for
Lincolnshire was himself inconsistent in opposing the go-
vernment on the sugar duties, because the proposed measure
would lead to the alteration of the corn laws, and yet after-
wards giving them his confidence, and feeling that he was
placed on his defence for this, he flung charges of inconsist-
ency against others in order to screen his own from his con-
stituents.

Sir C. Grey defended the course pursued by Mr. Handley,
and argued that there was no ground for agreeing to a vote of
a wantof confidence in the ministry.

Mr. C. BitucE *fended Sir James Graham from the
charge of inconsistency, and said the right hon. baronet was
as good a whig now as he ever had been ; for, in fact, he had
only quitted the other side of the house when he found, that
without a sacrifice of his principles he could no longer sup-
port the measures of his old friends. The difficulties of the
country, he maintained, were mainly attributable to the con-
duct of the government, which had drawn expensive wars
upon the country by their meddling interference in the con-
cerns of foreign nations.

Sir W. SOMERVILLE said that the present question, though
important to the whole empire, was one of life and death to
Ireland ; for he much feared that if the right hon. baronet
(Sir R. Peel) should come into power, the noble lord (Stanley)
would then bring forward his registration bill as a govern-
ment measure.
Mr. HAMILTON supported the motion of Sir R. Peel, and
dwelt upon the inconsistency of arguing that a repeal of the
corn laws would prove beneficial to both manufacturers and
labourers. It could only benefit the manufacturers by ena-
bling them to reduce the wages of the labourers; and if the
labourers were to have their wages reduced' in proportion to
the reduction of food, it was impossible that they could reap
the slightest benefit by the measure.
Mr. MUNTZ said that ministers did not possess his confi-
dence to the extent they ought to do ; but then he could
place no confidence whatever in gentlemen on the other side
of the house, and he did not see, therefore, why he should
vote for a motion which should bring into power the party
in whom he had the lesser degree of confidence.
Col. CONNOLLY said he had not the smallest confidence in
a ministry which seemed to be actuated by no other motive
than that of a love of place. They professed themselves
opposed to the repeal of the union, and yet they now came
forward with a measure of all others the most calculated to
lead to such a result.
When the hon. member sat down, the debate was ad-
journed until to-morrow.
On the further consideration of the report on the punish-
ment of death bill,
Mr. KELLY moved a clause, abolishing the punishment of
death for returning from transportation from St. Helena,
which clause was agreed to, and the report was received.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and
the house adjourned.