The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1849-06-19 00:00:00

HOUSE OF LORDS—TntinspAy.

-TES a -a Jt T'„

Lord CAMPBELL laid on the table a bill for the purpose
of removing any doubts as to the power of her Majesty,
in the exercise of her prerogative of mercy. to commute
the punishment for high treason in Ireland as well as in
England. In so doing he recapitulated the circumstances
attending the trial of O'Brien and his associates, which
had led to the introduction of the present measure, and in
so doing paid a well-deserved compliment to the integrity
and profound learning of the judges by whom these per-
sons had been tried.

Lord BROUGHAM approved the introduction of this de-
claratory act, remarking that the unhappy man in whose
favour it was passed had only rejected the proffered com-
mutation because he knew that he would not be taken at
his word.

Lord DEVON and Lord DENMAN also expressed their
high approbation of the manner in which the State trials
had been conducted by the Irish judges, and the bill was
read a first time, with the understanding that it should be
forwarded another stage next day.
Lord STANHOPE then presented some petitions corn.
plaining of the results of our free- trade policy, and asked
a question which drew from the Marquis of LANSDOWNE
a most explicit declaration that the Government had not
the remotest intention of proposing the repeal of a single
act of Parliament wiiich sanctioned the principle of free.
trade.

Lord STANHOPE, in continuation, proceeded to predict
the ruin of every interest in the country if a return was
not made to the ancient system of protection—a general
ruin which would produce a social revolution—a war of
poverty against property.
The Marquis of SALISBURY concurred in this view, and
bore testimony to the universality of distress.
The Bishop of OXFORD then moved the third reading
of his bill for the Protection of Women, and, in spite of
Lord Campbell's opposition, succeeded in carrying it upon
a division by a majority of four.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—Thunsnar.
In reply to questions from Mr. Hume and Mr. Gibson
Lord PALMERSTON said the Government would not in
any way qualify the denial it had given to England's hay-.
ing any participation, direct or indirect, with any of the
expeditions to Italy.
In reply to questions from Mr. Disraeli, Lord J. RUS-
SELL stated that he would, on or before the Ist of July,
state the bills which Government would proceed with dur-
ing the present session. In the meantime he would not
object to state some of the measures which would not be
pressed at the present moment. He would not proceed
with the Irish Franchise Bill, nor with the Elections and
Polling Places (Ireland) Dill, nor would they proceed

fi- ~..~

•

a,

. ,
‘
.‘‘ \ .C..ab \JA—'l—‘4,-
\
,

wit he Ecclesiastical tkmmission Bill. The Marriages
Regis ation, &c. tScotland) Bills would be' proceeded
with, and the Poor Relief (Ireland) Bill he would propose
to go on with on Monday next. and to continue as rapidly
as possible on subsequent evenings. The Bankruptcy '
Bill, which had come down from the Lords, he should
also proceed with, but would propose to send it after the
second reading to a committee up stairs. The noble lord
referred to other measures of minor consideration.
On the report ot supply on colonial services being
brought up, Mr. GLADSTONE called attention to the act
of the Canadian Legislature for giving compensation to
the sufferers by the rebellion in Canada, and said he had
refrained from submitting a substantial motion upon the
subject to the house, because he thought that an unfair
share of responsibility had been thrown upon Lord Elgin
with respect to that measure. He did not mean to ani-
madvert upon the conduct of that noble lord, but rather
to confine himself entirely to Imperial considerations.
There were three questions for consideration—first, Was,
or was not, the Rebellion Losses Bill intended to indem-
nify rebels; secondly, supposing such to have been the
intention, could it be held to be simply a local measure;
and thirdly, if it were an Imperial question, was the in-
demnification of rebels, as proposed by the bill, consist-
ent with the honour of the Crown ? He was prepared to
contend from the bill itself, as well as from other evidence,
that participation in the rebellion would be no disqualifi-
cation to the reception of indemnity for losses, and under
these circumstances he contended that Parliament had a
right to interfere even though the bill was in consonance
with the feelings of the colonists pnerally, where there
was good reason to believe that was not the case. He
was not, however, prepared to advise the noble lord to
disallow the bill, but would rather suggest a milder course,
if such a course could be admitted of by the bill. He
asked the Government to give a pledge that, under this
bill, rebels should not be compensated. By this he did
not mean merely those who were convicted of rebellion,
but those also who were known to have been implicated
in those treasonable transactions. He proposed, there-
fore, that those claiming compensation should furnish
reasonable evidence that they had taken no part in the
rebellion before they became entitled to the indemnity ;
and that if by this bill rebels could be compensated, it
should not be ratified until the Canadian Legislature
should have an opportunity of so far amending it as to
wtoludo from its operation those parties who had ap-
peared in arms against their sriveroicgn_
Lord Jonsr RUSSELL said that Lord Elgin had acted
in the exercise of his ordinary discretion, and not from
any instructions from home, and if that discretion
were, in the opinion of her Majesty's ministers, exert iced
for the interests of the Canadas and of the mother coun-
try, with a proper consideration for the honour of the
Crown, they would be base indeed if they abandoned him,
and declined to take the responsibility on their own
shoulders. The noble lord then proceeded to contend
that it was both unjust and impolitic to establish now a
species of inquisition into the conduct of men twelve
, years ago, and to call upon them when all evidence was
probably impossible to be procured. owing to deaths and
removals, to prove their innocence before their claims to
compensation could be entertained. It would be far bet-
ter to reject the bill in foto, than resort to such a
course. The act had not as yet been received in such a
shape as to enable the Government to advise her Majesty
to affirm it or the contrary; but Lord Elgin would be im-
mediately communicated with, to the effect that the Go-
vernment would leave the bill to its operation in Canada,
relying upon the instructions which the Governor would
issue to the Commissioners, in accordance with this de-
claration ot the spirit in which he had assented t i the
bill. He had no wish to disguise the fact that Govern-
ment would advise her Majesty, when the instructions
arrived, to give her sanction to the bill, feeling confident
that in supporting Lord Elgin they would be consulting
the honour of the Crown and the interests of Canada.

Mr. HERRIES believed the bill to be an incurably bad
one, which the authorities at home had no power to
modify, and which they should therefore disallow.
Whatever might be the declared objects of its promoters
in Canada, its scope c.nd intention were obviously the
indemnification of rebels. It was, therefore, a measure
compromising the honour of the Crown, and which also
struck at the very foundation of civil society. He was of
opinion that the responsibility of all that had recently
occurred in Cttnada was not attributable to Lord Elgin,
but to the Government at home. The noble lord ap-
peared to rely much upon the instructions which would
be issued by Lord Elgin to the commission ; but Lord
Elgin could not issue any instructions inconsistent with
the provisions of the bill itself, and his instructions,
therefore, could not exclude rebels from receiving indem-
nity. The right hon. gentleman concluded by moving,
as an amendment, an address to the Crown, praying that
the Royal assent to the bill might be withheld until some
assurance should be given that no person who had a share
in the rebellion should participate in the indemnity.
Mr. B. COCRRANE, in the course of his observations,
made an attack on Mr. Roebuck, as having been the ad-
vocate of rebels at the bar of the house.

Mr. ROEBUCK indignantly denied the charge. He had
certainly appeared at the bar of the house as an advocate
of the Assembly of Lower Canada against a bill then in
the course of passing through Parliament, and everything
he.had then contended for on the part of that assembly
had since been granted. The real cause of the evils of
Canada was, that the country had been for years governed
by a minority, aided by the Government at home. The
Government at home had grown wiser, and now that the
majority han attained its legitimate power and influence,
the minority were creating all that disturbance which-had
led to the recent outbreaks in Montreal.
An animated discussion ensued, in which Mr. Dis-
RAELT Mr. GLADSIONE, Mr. ROEBUCK, and other hon.
memo,

The house divided on the question of adjournment,
which was carried by a majority of 172 to 107.