The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1846-06-16 00:00:00

imptrial Varlianunt.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-MONDAY

The Earl of LINCOLN, in a speech of nearly three hours'
duration. on moving the second reading of the Protection
of Life (Ireland) Bill, endeavoured to vindicate the con-
duct of government in reference to the measure. He urged
the necessity for such a law, and declared that the causes
for its delay were inevitable.

Lord G. BENTINCK observed, that it would be in the
recollection of the house that shortly before the Easter re-
cess he had given notice that, whilst he and his friends
were prepared to support the measure, provided the go-
vernment, by their conduct in pressing it with all due
haste through the house, proved their sincerity, they were
not prepared, on the other hand, if ministers allowed mat-
ters of less importance to prevent its progress, to give
them assistance in carrying so unconstitutional a bill
through Parliament. Now this bill had come down to
the house on the 13th of March-- it was not read a first
time till the first of May—and no step, till now, had since
been taken to forward it a single stage. Consistently with
the course which he had announced before Easter, he now
declared that the castes fcederis had arrived on which his
friends could no longer give their support to her Majesty's
government. They had, however, graver reasons than
those for opposing the government. They refused to trust
it with any unconstitutional powers. The ignorance or
the double-dealing which ministers had displayed on other
questions, prevented his friends from trusting them at all.
Were they who falsely told the country that famine would
be raging in Ireland at this very moment, to be trusted in
any of their other statements ? It was mockery and in-
sult both to England and Ireland for ministers to bran-
dish before their eyes a measure which they never in-
tended to carry into effect ; and feeling it to be a mockery
and insult, he would oppose this measure to the utter-
most, and would do his best t 3 kick it and the ministry
out together. lie confessed he should have preferred a
direct amendment of a want of confidence in ministers to
the amendment now proposed. Sir R. Peel used to in-
form the house that he would not be a minister on suffer-
ance, but he appealed to the house whether Sir It. Peel
was now anything better than such a minister, supported
as he was by none but his 40 paid janissaries, and the 70
other members who, in supporting him, blazoned their own
shame? He then uttered a severe invective against Sir
R. Peel for having separated himself in 1827 from the go-
vernment of an illustrious relative of his, Mr. Canning, on
the ground that he could not support a minister who sup-
ported Catholic emancipation, when he (Sir R. Peel) af-
terwards stated in his place in Parliament that in 1825 he
had declared to Lord Liverpool that that question could
not be safely resisted much longer. Was not Sir R. Peel
guilty of most dishonest conduct in resisting Catholic
emancipation for four years after the period in which he
had come to such a conclusion ? The country would not
twice forgive in the same man the same offence. It was
time, now, that atonement should be made to the betrayed
honour of Parliament, and the betrayed constituencies of
the empire. It was time that Europe and the world
should know that treachery had been committed by the
ministers in power, and that they did not represent the
honour of England. The agricultural interests might be
betrayed and ruined ; but let not the world think that
England was a participator in the guilt of those who now
sat on the treasury benches. The time was now come,
when those who loved the treason which had been re-
cently committed, though they hated the traitor, should
join with those who sat on the Protection benches, in
showing that they did not approve the recent conduct of
ministers. _

Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT rose with great warmth to vin-
dicate the government from the charges which Lord G.
Bentinck, with his usual license, had considered himself
entitled to cast on her Majesty's government. The noble
lord had accused the government of not being in earnest
with this bill, because it was now engaged, at the com-
mencement of June, in discussing the second reading of
it. Who had caused that delay except the noble lord, who
was now among the first to complain of it ? The noble
lord was once among the foremost to call for the passing
of this measure. Where was now all the indignation and
horror which he had formerly expressed at the frequency
of outrage and assassination of Ireland ? Formerly, the
noble lord had told the house, that if it delayed, even for
a single day, to pass that bill, the blood of every man mur-
dered in Ireland would be on the head of ministers and of
every member who supported them. On whose head was
that blood to be now ? When the noble lord had answered
that question he would tell him that the government would
.persevere in this measure in spite of that factious combi-
nation which he had just made with the party opposite,
'whose motives in opposing this bill he (Mr. S. Herbert)
-respected, and did not venture to blame. Was the noble
lord aware of the rumours which were now about town,
that some of the noble lords and gentlemen below the
gangway had made an offer to Lord J. Russell to assist
him in defeating this bill and throwing out the ministry,
and that Lord J. Russell, with the manliness which be-
longed to his character, had treated that offer with that
which it would not be parliamentary to call contempt?
This declaration elicited a loud and long call of " Name,
name," from the Protection benches, but
Mr. S. HERBERT did not respond to the call, and pro-
ceeded at length to vindicate the general principles of the
bill.

In reply to Mr. Stafford O'Brien,
Lord .1. RussEr.r. declared that r o proposition to aid in
throwing out this bill bad been made to him by any noble
lord or gentleman on the Protection benches. He then
justified his own course in voting against the second read-
ing, after supporting the first reading of the bill. Lord
G. Bentinck had come to this conclusion on grounds sa-
tisfactory to himself, and he (Lord J. Russ3ll) had done
the same; but those grounds were public grounds, and
there had been no private understanding between them.
Mr. S. HERBERT observed that, after the declarition of
the noble lord, he owed it to justice to state that he was
convinced of the falseness of the rumours to which he had
adverted, and therefore begged leave to withdraw them.
The debate was then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-WEDNESDAY

Mr. HAwcs moved that the house should go into com-
mittee on the subject of the Danish Claims, in order to
carry out the resolution in favour of the claimants sanc-
tioned by a majority a short time ago.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER met the motion
with the usual arguments, and moved as an amendment
that the house should resolve itself into committee on the
claims that day six months.
After some discussion the house divided, when the
amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was car-
ried by 85 to 58, the majority being 27.
Mr. F. MAU LE moved the second reading of the Places
of Worship, &c., Sites (Scotland) Bill. The right hon.
gentleman instanced the refusals of Lord Macdonald,
Sir James Riddel, Lord Moray, Lord Forbes, the Duke
of Buccleuch, and other Scotch proprietors to grant sites
for the erection of free-church places of worship, as
grounds for this measure, by which it is proposed to
compel the granting of sites in a way similar to the com-
pulsion used by railway companies. Mr. Maule, in the
course of his speech, stated that the Free Church had
already six hundred places of worship erected, had forty
in the course of erection, and had funds to the amount of
a million sterling.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM moved, as an amendment, that
the bill be read a second time that day six months. He
deplored the secession that had taken place in Scotland,
and he attributed the refusal of sites by the Duke of
Buccleuch and other proprietors to the language, con-
veying implacable enmity to the Established Church of
Scotland, used by the seceders, and also to the denuncia-
tions unjustifiably made against the proprietors. If the
principle of this bill were adopted towards Scotland, it
could not be refused to the Dissenters in England and
Ireland, whether Christians or not.

Sir R. H. TrioLis rose to speak in defence of religious
toleration. He contended that rights of conscience
should be extended to landed proprietors as well as to
religious congregations. What right, he asked, had his
right hon. friend (Mr. Fox Manic) to say that any
individual should he compelled, by force of law, to ad-
vance the interest of a church which he did not approve
of—by granting sites on his land for the erection of their
buildings? If the principles were once admitted in re-
gard to the Free Church of Scotland it must be extended
to every Dissenting body in the United Kingdom. What
bad been the course adopted by the Free Church? Did
they build churches in remote parts of Scotland, where
there was a want of places of worship? No. In every
instance they had erected their new churches in juxta-
position with those they had left; and the question the
house was called upon to decide was, would they allow
people to extort under pretext of the law sites for the
building of churches where they were not required, for
the mere purpose of opposition to that establishment
from which they had seceded ? lie thought that gentle-
men should be allowed to manage their properties in what-
ever manner they considered best. He admitted fully
that property had its duties as well as its rights ; but he
also contended for what he had before stated, that there
were rights of conscience belonging to landed proprietors
as well as to congregations, and they should not be com-
pelled by any enactments to encourage those sects of
which he did not approve, as he asserted it would be an
act of tyranny to compel them to do so. Under such
circumstances he would support the amendment of the
right hon. baronet (Sir J. Graham).
The debate was then adjourned.
HOUSE OF LORDS.—THURSDAY.
_

- - -
The Earl of RIPON moved the order of the day for go-
ing into committee on the corn bill.
Earl STANHOPE moved that the bill be committed that
day six months. He scouted the idea of a famine in Ire-
land. In 1843 he (Lord Stanhope) had expressed an
opinion that Sir Robert Peel's experiments were merely
preparatory to the removal altogether of protection. How
could their lordships reconcile it with their public duty to
pass a bill which might inflict a serious injury upon
millions without any real necessity, and of the probable
Outs of which the minister and his party professed to
know nothing ? What, therefore,. became of the argu-
ment of cheapness, on which so much stress had been laid ?
Theloss which the reduction would involve to the com-
munity would exceed £5,000,000. The small occupiers
of land could not hold their farms after the measure had
taken eect. Many of his noble friends had prefer-
red to .support the bill because they believed it to be
inevitable. This was a very futile excuse. It was not
to be believed that large masses of the people would
quietlysubmit to be pauperised at the will of the minister.
At the period of the concession of the Reform Bill, the
Duke of Wellington had asked how the Government was
to be carried on ? How had it been carried on? By
basely and pusillanimously crouching to the party which
appeared to be VIP stronger, and by trampling on that
which was believed to be the weaker. They (the house)
bad lately seen a party., which it had taken ten years to
form, scattered to the winds of heavenin as many weeks,
whilst, on the other hand, in the course of a few weeks,
and without any previous preparation, they found 240
honest, enlightened, and independent members of prim-
relent hOllO4l together by public priue:ple, who had opposed