The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1835-03-20 00:00:00

The Duke of BUCKINGHAM said if this question had been
placed on personal grounds, he should not have risen to address
their lordships; but the noble marquis hail put the question on
grounds of political principle, with respect to which he differed
trom the noble marquis tote calo. Such a doctrine as the noble
marquis had Nil down might he suited to a committee of public
safety, but was not fit to be introduced iu a British house of par-
liament. (Hear, hear.) He had always considered freedom of
speech to be the undeniable right of both houses of parliament.
He had seen the speaker, attended by the House of Commons,
presenting himself at their lordships' bar, and claiming freedom
of speech as their undoubted privilege; but now, fur the first
lime, he found that that privilege was to be made use of to pre-
vent his Majesty from exercising his just prerogative. (Hear.)
Was that a doctrine to be held by a constitutional peer in that
house? The publication of what was said in that house was a
breach of their lordships' privileges; and yet they now found
that a report of what was spoken there was maize the ground of
declaring the unfitness of the noble marquis to hold a particular
office. It was said that the noble marquis's political opinions
differed from the political opinions of others; but was that
a fair reason for excluding him from public office? ( hear,) or
holding him up as a man unfit to serve his Sovereign? (Hear.)
If his policy were wrong, or if his conduct were not worthy of
approbation, who were responsible for his proceedings? Why,
the government that appointed him; and if anything were
wrong, let that government be questioned on the subject. It
appeared, however, that the ministers were not to be held re-
sponsible, they were not to be questioned on this point of policy,
but the noble marquis was to be made the 'scape-goat--he was
to be sacrificed to the caprice of individuals. With respect to
the King's prerogative, he would say that this was the first time
he had ever heard of an appointment of the Crown being ques-
tioned until the office was actually taken. (The Marquis of
Lansdowne—‘• I did not introduce the subject."] It would have
been time enough to have objected when, by some act of the
noble marquis, the peace of Europe seemed likely to be dis-
turbed. Those who were in such a hurry to censure ought to
have waited till they had some fair ground of complaint. 'The
noble marquis bad,_ in these trying circumstances, done that
wt.ich became him. He bad done everything which an honourable
mind ought to do. This was an innevationon the constitution; and
he would ask where were they to stop? This proceeding, he cone
tended, was a direct late] ference. with the prerogative of the
Crown. If this were the first, where, he asked, would the last be?
Encouraged by this success, would not the present attempt be
followed up by others? (Hear, hear.) He warned noblelords
not to acquiesce in it. Noble lords opposite might be vet in the
situation of mini!ers themselves, and they might before long
repent of this attack on the prerogative of the crown. They
might hereafter be sorry for acquiescing in that of which they
now approved. 'these were times in which they had little to
trust to beyond standing firmly by the constitution of the cowl-
try. He called on their lordships therefore' to make their stand
somewhere, and they could not make a better stand than on a
question which affected the prerogative of the crown.
The conversation here closed.

Lord 'l' Ai (having asked a question relative to the is-
suing of rules and regulations by the poor law commissioners,
to which the Duke of Wellington answered that no such rules
and regulations had. been promulgated) gave notice, that he
would call their lordships' attention to the subject on Friday
next.

The Duke of BuctriNnitAm,-as we understood, inquired when
proper steps would be taken for carrying the poor law amend-
ment bill into full effect?

The Duke of WELLINGTON answered, that the commission-
ers were required to send the rules and regulations framed by
them to the Secretary of State, and also to lay them before par-
liament. Such rules and regulations had not, however, been
vet framed. Ile, for one, was very glad that they had not vet
sent forth those rules and regulations which the faw required,
because time would give them more experience on the subject.
The Duke of RUCK IN G H tai asked whether the poor law com-
missioners had made any new rules or regulations?
Lord BitouG nest answered, that it did not follow, because
the commissioners brad given certain orders, that they had framed
new rules. The orders alluded to were those general regula-
tions which were required to be transmitted to overseers by the
act. The rules and regulations to which reference had been
made were of a mere formal nature, and were required to be
sent to the Secretary of State, and to be laid before parliament
fourteen days aft er. they were framed.
On the motion of the Duke of Richmond, the oaths' abolition
bill went through a committee.
On the motion of the Lord Chancellor, the contempts in
equity (Ireland) bill, and the property of infants, Ike. (Deland)
bill, were read a second time. Adj.mtned.

HOUSE OF' COMMONS.-WEDNESDAT.
THE ISLINGTON MARKET BILL.

A great number of petitions were presented' in favour of this
bill, alter which it was read a second time and committed.
Mr. E. CAMPBELL presented a petition from Argyleshire, for
the proteCtion of the established church of Scotland.