The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1833-03-19 00:00:00

THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD.

for one, considered to be one of the most prominent evils that
now afflicted Ireland. ( Hear.)
Colonel TonnaNs said that many members supported the
clause on the ground that they reposed confidence in ministers.
Mr. C. FERGUSSON thought that they should not go ou with the
bill without having the remedial measures going hand in hand
with it. (Hear.) For his part he would prefer the revival of
the bill against the Catholic Association to the measure now
before the house. He thought the suggestion of the hon. and
learned member for Monaghan (Mr. Perrin) should be attended
to, and that the clause should be altered so as to give the Lord
Lieutenant of Ireland the power of dispersing the meetings
which it was the object of this bill to put down, but not the
power, as the bill at yresent gave, of creating it a misdemeanor
to attend those meetings.
Mr. RUTHVEN deprecated such precipitate interference with
the currency of Ireland as would have resulted from the,pro-
position made by the hon. member for South Durham—namely,
the rendering the Irish Bank Notes a legal tender. (Loud
cries of Question.)
Lord ALTHORP submitted to the hon. Member that he was
discussing a question not then before the house.
Mr. RUTHVEN contended that he was strictly in order. He
was merely pointing out the consequences which would result
from such a proposition. (Cries of oh ! oh ! and Question.) The
hon. member, after a few more observations, directed to show
that the very agitation of such a measure would cause a run on
the bank, instead of preventing it, sat down amidst loud and
repeated cries of " Question."
Mr. C. FERGUSSON inquired whether in the case of a meet-
ing being held in Dublin, and orders being issued by. the Lord
Lieutenant for its suppression, any persons attending such
meeting without knowing its illegality would be liable to
punishment.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that it was proposed to intro-
duce into the bill a provision rendering it necessary that a
public notice should be given of its prohibition, and it was only
I after such public notice that any person attending the meet-
ing would be liable to be tried for a sdeameanor.
Mr. PEASE said, that ever since he had taken his seat upon
that (the ministerial) side of the house, he had become amark
for every one to shoot at; but he should,i nevertheless, do his
public duty fearlessly. Though he had many objections to
different parts of the measure then before the house, he would,
notwithstanding, give his support to the first clause. It did
not, in his opinion, interfere with the right of petitioning. He
should give his vote for this clause in the most perfect confi-
dence that in so doing he was fulfilling his primary duty in
supporting the King and government.
Mr. ROEBUCK said, that according to the wording of the act,
no person was to be considered guilty for attending a prohi-
bited meeting until he refused to depart.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL observed 'that any person who,
after knowing a meeting to have been prohibited, should attend
it, would under the act be guilty of a misdemeanor, indepen-
dent of his refusal to disperse upon the requisition of the magis-
trates.

Mr. ROEBUCK said he objected to the whole clause, which he
was convinced was, in fact, levelled against the hon. member
for Dublin, and was intended to put him down. He did not,
however, think that the attempt would be successful.
Mr. COBBETT said he certainly should vote against the clause,
however amended or however altered, and for a manifest rea-
son—because he thought its object and direct tendency were
totally to deprive the people of Ireland of the right of petition-
ing. The object of its framers was, he was convinced, first to
narrow the right of petitioning, and finally to destroy it.
Mr. O'CONNELL asked the hon. member (Mr. Pease) whe-
ther he had never heard of passive resistance to tithes. 'chat
resistance was carried on in a very quiet way, and by men pro-
fessedly fond of their King and government. They might be
very loyal men, but they were determined to pay no tithe.
From the moment he (Mr. O'Connell) saw the hon. member
take his seat in the house he was certain he should see him be-
fore many weeks had expired in the middle, of the Treasury
bench.

Mr. STANLEY said the hon. member was not perhaps in the
house at the time when it was proposed to introduce a provision
in the bill requiring public notice to be given by the Lord-Lieu-
tenant of the illegality of the meeting.
Mr. O'CONNELL said that His Majesty's ministers came upon
the house rather suddenly with their alterationS. The bill had
been suffered to make its way through the other house of Par-
liament without any such amendment being thought of. The
hon. and learned member then proceeded to complain of the
oppressive nature of the clause. The Irish people might in-
deed, he continued, be permitted to meet—they might do so
upon sufferance ; they might lick the hand which was upraised
to strike them—yes ! they might meet, but then they would be
liable to be stabbed in the back without any notice whatever.
The object of this bill was really to put down agitation for the
repeal of the union; and if that was the object, they would
certainly put down all meetings ; but would they put down the
desire of repeal ? They would-fiud the repealers grow gtronger
every day. There was a party in Ireland, which he would not
call a faction. which was now in favour of repeal.; and where
there had been only one there would now be ten in favour of
that measure ("Question.")
Mr. STANLEY observed that the house might well be weary
of the debate. He should, say but a few words, in order to re-
call the attention of the committee to the proper topic. He
should not, however, follow the hon. and learned gentleman
into all his quibbles, and special pleadings (hear), and argu-
ments founded upon the supposition that two persons talking
together would be considered an illegal meeting. The words
of the clause were "any association, assembly, or body of per-
sons in Ireland, which lie or they shall deem to be dangerous to
the public peace or safety (hear), or inconsistent with the due
administration of the law (hear), and by the same, or any other
order, also to prohibit every or any adjourned, renewed, or
otherwise continued meeting of the same, or of any part thereof,
under any name, pretext, shift, or device whatsoever." If the
adjournment had not been provided for, the principal part of
the clause would have been a dead letter. As to charitable
meetings, if the hon. and learned member could not conduct
such meetings without inflaming people's minds,—and it was a
poor pretext to say that he assisted charity by political discus-
sions (hear.) If the measure were despotic, it was only so for
the purpose of overcoming and driving out a more intolerable
despotism; and he believed that the whole of the upper classes,
the great body of the middle classes, (ay, and many even of
those who had signed petitions against it,) and a vast number
of the lowest class, felt that their security and safety depended
upon the bill, and that, instead of calling it a measure of coer-
cion and despotism, they would hail it as a measure of protec-
tion. (Cheers.)
Mr. O'CONNELL said, it was exceedingly easy for the right
hon. gentleman to say what would be the feeling of the people
of Ireland with respect to the bill, but he knew Ireland some-
what better than the right hon. gentleman, and therefore begged
leave to express his belief that he would find his anticipations
perfectly groundless. He regretted to see assertion taken for
proof, and insinuation for argument, and mis-statements for
convincing reasons in favour of establishing despotism in Ire-
land. If this bill passed, the people of Ireland would not stop
at the repeal of the union. (Hear, hear.)
The committee then divided, and the numbers were :
For the clause
Against it

Majority .

The second clause was then moved.
Mr. O'CONNELL 'objected, at considerable length, to the
clause which gave magistrates a summary jurisdiction power
of entering any place by force where a prohibited assembly
might be held. No men were less worthy of being trusted with
such extraordinary powers than the Irish magistrates.
Mr. STANLEY said that he was convinced that ministers
would have no objection to expunge the summary jurisdiction
part of the clause, and to leave the persons charged with offences
to the ordinary jury tribunal. (Hear, hear.)
On the third clause being read,
Mr. PERRIN proposed an amendment, to the effect of doing
away with the right of traverse in prox. His object, he said,
was to make the administration of the law as prompt and effi-
cient as possible; the rather, as it was his firm determination
to resist the adoption of courts-martial by
.every means in his
power,—he meant in his professional career in Ireland. ( Hear.)
Lord ALTHORP did not see the necessity of the amendment,
as the clause provided that the trials of prisoners should be
" and without the right of traverse in prox., pro-
ceeded with.

The original clause was then agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN reported progress, and obtained leave to sit
again on Monday next.

REVISING BARRISTERS.

On the motion for the house resolving into a committee of
supply being made,
Mr. S. RICE stated that in consequence of the omission of
certain words in the Reform Act, the Treasury had been left
without the power of paying the expenses of the revising bar-
risters, part of which arose fiom money actually paid out of
their own pockets. The accounts sent in by the revising bar-
risters had been carefully audited, and the whole of their claims
for fees and expenses, which some of the gentlemen who were
opposed to the Reform Bill predicted would be £120,000,
amounted only to about one-fourth of that sum.
The house having resolved into a committee of supply,
Mr. RICE moved that £30,500 be granted to his Majesty to
pay the allowances and expenses of the banisters employed iu
1832 in revising the lists of vbters.