The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1833-04-05 00:00:00

THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD.

Emperial i,3arlianunt.
.11013-SE OF LORDS.

MONDAY, AreiL 1.
-The Marquess of WESTMINSTER presented a petition from
the parish of St. Bride, Fleet-street, against the house and
'window tax; and another petition from the same parish, for
the removal of the abuses in the church establishment in
Wales.
'Lord SUFFlELD.presented petitions from Oldham and several
other places, praying for the immediate abolition of slavery.
After a few words from Lord ELLENBOROUGH and Earl
GREY, they were laid upon the table.
The Earl of ltosEsEity presented a petition from. Glasgow,
praying for some alteration in the mode of bestowing church
patronage in Scotland.
Lord WHARNcLIFFe, in presenting a petition for the better
.observance of the Sabbnili, said that he could not give his
assert qi the measure which had been introduced upon this sub-
ject in -another Pla(:e, and which it was quite impossible ever
to make palatable to the people of this country. (Immense
cries of " Hear.")
The Bishop of LONDON presented petitions from the parishes
of St. Bride, and of St. John, Hampstead, for the better
uhs,ervance of the Sabbath. In presenting these petitions he
said, that he knew nothing of the measure which had been
introduced elsewhere, except what he had seen in the news-
papers.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH recommended the Bishop of London,
or some other right rev. prelate, to introduce a rational measure
upon this subject; for the measure which had been introduced
iota the other house would, he was certain, disappoint all the
-Objects which.the rev. bench had at heart at present. The only
means of accomplishing their object was by introducing im-
mediately a more rational measure. (Hear, hear.)
Earl GREY presented a petition from Stayley-bridge, praying
that the marriages of Dissenters may be celebrated according
to their own principles of faith, and not according to the forms
of a church of which they were not members.
The Marquess of LANSDOWNE presented a petition from
Selkirk in favour of the Factories Bill.
DISTURBANCES (IRELAND) BILL.
Earl GREY moved the order of the day for taking into con-
sideration the amendments of the Commons to this bill.
A few verbal amendments were agreed to without discussion.
-*On the amendment which takes political offences out of the
jurisdictiOn of the military tribunals being read,
R Lord ELLENBOoUGH said that the original enactment was
proposed and agreed to by their lordships on the ground that,
in consequence of the system of intimidation practised upon
,jurors in Ireland, justice could not be obtained if the political
(silences to which the clause referred were tried according to
the course of the common law. If the noble earl was right in
thinking, when he brought in the bill, that these offences ought
to go before a court-martial, because justice could not be
obtained in the course of the common law, he must be wrong
now in giving his assent to the amendment which had come up
from the Commons, unless he was prepared to say that a
material improvement had taken place in the moral condition
of Ireland. If the noble earl stated that the condition of Ire-
rand was greatly improved, and that justice might now be
4.spected from common juries, he (Lord Ellenborough) wows'
most joyfully accede to the amendment; but unless such a
statement was made, lie should feel himself obliged, with great
reluctance undoubtedly, to express his dissent to the amend-
Vint which the Commons had irrationally come to. (Hear.)
The Earl of ELDON thought it a perfectly true saving that
" necessity justifies what necessity compels." /lad the minis-
ters applied that saying properly, if, after they had come down
to that house and proposed that the trial by jury should be sus-
pended, and certain offenders subjected to courts-martial, it
turned out there was no necessity for such measures? (Hear.)
The enemies of the reform act had been represented throughout
the country as the enemies of the liberties and the dearest rights
sit Englishmen, but he could inform the noble earl opposite that
the sentiments of the people had experienced some changes on
this point. The people said, never mind what the House of
Lords did with respect to this bill, for it was sure of being ma-
terially altered in the House of Commons. That was certainly
a new way of putting an end to the House of Lords. But, he
asked, was the original enactment, to which the Commons had
made an amendment, required by necessity? Before, there-
fore, he could give his issent to the amendments of the Com-
mons, he must be assuted that a great improvement had taken
place in Ireland : for hi did not wish to stand before the coun-
try as a man who, upon lightgrottmbs, would deprive the people
of their constitutional privirigi*s
Earl GREY conceived that tae Ihll, altered as it had been since
it left their lordships' house, would still be effectual for the pa-
cification of Ireland. He should indeed have been as well
pleased had some alterations which had taken place in the mea-
cure been withheld, but as it had cnitte back to them altered
and. amended, their duty as legislatc4i.-as to consider whether
At was still effectual. It could scar(ali he considered a reproach
to show a disposition to examine themeasure with eveiy care,
and if, upon consideration, the alterations were found to be use-
ful and beneficial, to adopt them. He thought that, under such
circumstances, they would only be showing a due degree of de-
prence to the opinion of that house of parliament, and be at
the same time discharging their duty to the public, by accept-
ing and approving the amendments. That was the true and
only question for them to consider. Now, with respect to the
clause under discussion, it r( aily appeared to him to contain
the same provision in effect as when it left their lordships'
house, the only difference being the exception with respect to
proclaimed districts. This exception did not, in his opinion,
diminish the efficiency of the enactment. It had been said that
the preamble was not in accordance with the provision, but it
should be borne in mind that the whole bill proceeded on the
supposition, that the laws at present in operation in Ireland
were not sufficient for the repression of disorder, and therefore
new laws were called for; and so fully was he convinced of the
efficiency of the new enactments, that, with the.bill in his hand,
he would not hesitate to answer for the pacification of Ireland.
The clause as amended was then put and agreed to.
Earl Guts, then moved the clause which exempts from sum-
mary conviction all persons who refuse to disperse from a pub-
lic meeting within a quarter of an hour alter notice.
- Lord ELLENBOROUGH- thought that no sufficient reason had
been shown for the alteration in this clause. From all he had
heard of the state of Ireland during former periods, when the
insurrection Act was in operation, he was confident that no-
thing had been found so efficient for the pacification of the coun-
try as the process of summary convictioq.
After some observations from Earl GREY, the clause was
agreed to.
The proviso which renders it not lawful for the Lord-Lieu-
•tenant to apply the act to proclaiming any county or district
merely because tithes shall not have been paid in such county
or district came next under discussion.
. The Duke of WELLINGTON strongly objected to the intro-
duction of this proviso, as its direct tendency was to deny jus-
tice to the clergy. Why did not the framers of the bill begin
their preamble with "Whereas it is expedient that no payment
of tithe shall take place in Ireland? " It would have been bet-
.ter to have done so at once, than thus to wink and connive at
the injustice to which the Irish clergy were to be subjected by
the bill. The noble duke then referred to another clause of the
bill (the 21st), which though pretended to be founded on the
27th of George 111., was vet in direct violation of the spirit of
that act, and instead of doing justice to the clergy, went to de-
prive them of their rights. He objected to the first amendment
because it gave a sanction for the spoliation of the church of
Ireland; and to the second, because it took away from the
. Lord-Lieutenant the pOwer of sending any offence which con-
nected itself in any shape with tithe to be tried by courts-
martial. Their lordships were in the habit of hearing a great
deal said about the distress of the people of Ireland. Now, if
there were distress in that country, it was attributable to the
insecurity of property there, which prevented the rich man
from .engaging ift-those enterprises which might produce an in-
crease of capital to himself, but mere certain to produce an in-
crease of employment to the poor labourer.
The Loan CHANCELLOR said if he could bring himself-to en-
tertain the apprehensions of the noble duke, and ser imagine
that the changes made by the other house in this bill prevented
its operation, and rendered it less capable than it was in its
original condition to afford protection to the loyal subject, which
was one of its main objects, be should agree with the noble lord,
not only in lamenting the changes which had been made in it,
but also in withholding his assent from them. The noble lord
here recited the different penal enactments of the bill, and from
• that recital inferred, that since its entrance into the House of
Commons it had increased in vigour, in efficacy, and in neces-
sary severity. (Hear.)
The Earl of HalthowaY was afraid that the mention of
" tithes" in this clause would induce the belief that that spe-
cies of property was to be deprived of the protection afforaed
to all other kinds of property, and he would, therefore, ,for the
purpose of rendering the clause free from this exclusive and
partial character, move that to the provision that no district be
soociaimed merely for the " nonpayment of tithe," the words
" rent or mace" be added. He belived that the addition of
• 4hesewords would take the sting out of the clause, and that it
would also have the effect of saving time, by rendering a con-
fbrence with the Commons unnecessary.
Lord MELBOURNE put it to the common sense of the noble
turd, whether it was likely that delay would be avoided by such
a device as that he proposed? (Hear.) The amendment was

calculated to produce the same impression among the
.people
with respect to rent and taxes as the noble lord opposite had
predicted would be created with respect to tithes.
The LORD CHANCELLOR thought that the proposed amend-
'pent, so far from being calculated to save time, would create
more delay than a conference. He was confident that the in-
troduction of the proposed words would be most fruitful of de-
bate and opposition elsewhere. (Hear.)
After a a few words from Lord Ellenboroughs the house
divided, and the numbers appeared :
Content
Not content B5,

Majority against Lord Harrowby'-s amendment.- 40
The rest of the amendments of the Commons were then read
and agreed to, and the house adjourned at half-past 11 o'clock.
MONDAY.

Petitions, praying for the better observance of the Sabbath,
were presented by the Bishops of Hereford, Durham, Bangor,
and Rochester, and the Earl of Roden, who also presented a
petition from Connor, in Ireland, praying for au a►teration. of
the system of education in Ireland, and another from several
parishes in Ireland, praying for a convocation of the clergy to
consider of the proposed church reform in that country.
The Earl of Wicto.ow would take that opportunity to state
that the bill enabling the clergy of Ireland to enforce the collec-
tion of their tithes, which had been
.passed for a year, was now
expired. Many of the clergy were in a state of the utmost des-
titution. He therefore hoped that it was the intention of go-
vernment to bring forward some immediate measures for their
relief. _ _

Viscount MELBOURNE replied in a tone of voice which ren-
dered him almost inaudible in the gallery. We understood him
to say that the whole question connected with this subject would
shortly be brought under the consideration of Parliamtnt, and
to assure the noble lord that the topics to which he had advert-
ed had not escaped, but seriously engaged, the attention of his
Majesty's government.
The Earl of RODEN was sorry that ministers were so dealto
the situation of the clergy of Ireland as not to have introduced
some measures for their relief already. He could assure their
lordships that, to his knowledge, many of them were now living
upon charity.
Lord AUCKLAND presented a number of petitions from differ-
ent places, praying tor the immediate abolition of negro slayery.
Lord KING presented a similar petition from Wallinghird,
Berkshire ; a petition from -, praying that some lee,&istatiy_e
measures be enacted making provision for the poor of Ireland,
and that the landholders of Ireland may be compelled to con-
tribute thereto ; also a petition front Yeovil, Somersetshire,Thr
the abolition of the taxes on knowledge; also petitions from Kil-
lala, and other places in Ireland, praying for the abolition of
tithes. _ _,„.

Lord KING having presented these petitions, proceeded''to
express the great regret which he felt, that when the petition
respecting the abuses in the Welsh church was presented last
night, a rev. prelate (the BishOp of St. Asaph) had not been pre-
I Sent; for on a former evening he had used expressions whicth
had done great wrong and injury to the author of a book which
he had quoted, and which he had denounced as containing a
number of gross falsehoods. After the rev. prelate had made
that statement to their lordships, there appeared a contradietiOn
of it in the newspapers. It was not, under such circumstancies;
too much to expect that the rev. prelate would have come down
to their lordships and owned that he made an unfounded state-
ment, especially as he made his own erroneous assertion the
basis of the strong comment E.c uno disco 07MleS. When a per-
son of the rev, prelate's elevated situation came forward to de-
stroy the reputation of an author, he should confine himself
strictly to repeating the exact words which that author used.
The Bishop of ST. ASAPH regretted extremely that he had
been prevented by indisposition from attending in his place yes-
terday evening; and added, that if the noble marquess had had
the courtesy to inform him that he was going to present a peti-
tion connected with so humble an individual as himself, he
would, notwithstanding his indisposition, have made a point of
attending in his place in that house. He thanked the noble
baron for having given him an opportunity upon this occasion
of answering, not only what he (LorctKing).had just saiclplbut
also the assertion that he had on a former night made an. uft-
founded statement. He had not quoted at all from the pam-
phlet to which the noble baron had referred—he had read from
a paper (which he believed to be good authority, as it came from
a highly respectable clergyman in his diocese) a statement to
this effect—that there had appeared in a certain patriphlet, in
one passage, that Christ Church, Oxford, received f. 4,700 a-
year, and in another that it received £.1,500 a-year for tithes
from various parishes in Wales. Now, it appeared that the
fact was, that the whole value of the tithes of the parishes .in
question was only £2,00Q a-year, and that of this sum only
£5OO a-year was paid to Christ Church, Oxford. He was sorry
to hear the noble marquess on a former occasion cast a sneer
upon a most respectable Clergyman in his diocess, the licv.
Cleaver. A. better.man did not exist, and he only wished the
noble marquess to imitate the conduct and follow the example
of that clergyman, who gave away among the poor three parts
of the income which he derived from his livinv. Regarding
this gentleman and his brother, Mr Johnes Inufbeen guilty of
many. misrepresentations. He had also given a list of all
the places limn which he (the Bishop of St. Asaph) derived his
income. The description was so minute that a stranger must
suppose it true, for lie summed up all the items by saying,
"'total amount of the revenues of the bishop, £9,20 a-year."
So minute were the items, that any person reading them must
suppose that Mr. Johues had had access to the books of-his
receiver. He could only say, that he wished very much that
his income was such as Mr. Johnes had described it to be.
Their lordships would see that Mr. Johnes statement was a
gross misrepresentation, when they had before them the report
of the ecclesiastical commissioners. Mr. Johnes' had pub-
lished another letter in the papers of that morning, in winch
he said " I will not believe that the right rev. prelate would
charge me with wilful la/seliod on light grounds." He asked
their lordships whether they were to be called to account in
consequence of paragraphs in newspapers ? Ile could not re-
tract what he had on a former evening said; on the contrary,
he felt it to be his duty to persist in asserting that the book
written by Mr. Johnes contained very gross misrepresentations,
and statements that were untrue.

The 'Marquess of WESTNIII4STER said that the statements of
which the right rev. prelate complained were corrected by Mr.
Johnes in toe second coition, and they ought not therefore to
be designated falschood4. he was surprised to hear the right
rev. prelate denounce the letter written by Mr. Johnes to a
morning paper as a breach of their lordships' privileges. The
letter was written by Mr. Johnes for the purpose of vindicating
himself upon a point with respect to winch he had been mis-
represented; and it was not by ten thousand degrees so great
a breach of privilege as was every day committed by the per-
sons who attendea in the gallery and reported the proceedings
of that house:

After a few words from the Bishop of St. AsAril, in explana-
tion, the conversation on this subject ended.
DISTURBANCES (IRELAND) BILL.
The Loan CHANCELLOR acquainted the house that his Ma-
jesty had been pleased to issue a commission empowerinc, cer-
tain lords to give the Royal assent to the several acts therein
named; and he moved that their lordships should 'ajourn pro
tempore, in order to allow the commission to be executed.
The motion. having been carried, the LORD CHACLLLOR, the
Duke of IticiisiciND, and the Marquess of LANSDOWN, took
their seats before the throne as Lords Commissioners, when the
Royal assent was given in the usual form to the Disturbances
(Ireland) Bill, and two private bills.

The hi;use i aviug restimed—
Lord LYNDlirlisT requested the noble and learned lord
(Wynford) to pospoue his bill relative to common law courts,
which was fixed for consideration that night. The provisions
of the bill were very important, and having just returned from
the country, he had not bad time properly to examine them.
After a few words from Lord WYNFoRD and Lord PLUN-
KETT, the bill was postponed until after the recess.
JCR[LS (IRELAND) BILL.
Lord PLUNKETT moved the second reading of this bill. He
said that he had on a former occasion explained the .general
outline of the measure, and he was not aware that any very
great objections were entained with respect to it in any quarter.
Lord CARBERY said that he was strongly opposed to the bill;
and lie thought that the noble and learned lord was bound to
point out the defects of the present system before he proposed
such au entire change in the mode Of administering justice in
Ireland. The £lO freeholders, and the £l5 leaseholders, who
by this bill were to form the class of ersons from whom the
juries were to be selected, would be found quite incapable of
discharging the duties imposed on them. Many of them did
not understand a word of the English language; and, knowing
well their general character, he should be sorry to trust the
lives and property of the King's subjects to their judgments.
The Earl of V ICKLow thought that the present jury system
ought to be continued, because in practice it had proved most
efficient. Their lordships were called upon to agree to the
proposed alteration because it was desirable to assimilate the
laws of England and Ireland. Now he thought it would be
much better for the noble lords opposite to exercise their in-
genuity and talents in endeavouring to assimilate the condition,
the habits, and pursuits of the people of the two countries.
He would undertake to say, that so far from the present system
not working wells-there existed no reason for changing it. He
was opposed to the provision which authorized sheriffs to select
juries from £lO freeholders, because he considered that class
of persons not capable of properly discharging the duties of

jurors. He did not regard a meney qualification as a proper
test of the ability of a juror, and though refraining to oppose the
second reading of the bill, he would, nevertheless,_ when the
bill reached a committee, move an amendment for the parliosg
of making it apparent that a property qualification ought not
to be the only qualification for a juror.
Lord WYNFORD said that he so entirely agreed in the obser-
vations of the noble lord who had just sat down, that he had
come to the conclusion of opposing the second reading of the
bilL If there was any pretence for the present measure he had.
' certainly done wrong in voting for that 'bill which had now be-
come the law of the land,—he meant the Irish Disturbances
Bill. He had also voted for a bill for changing the venue in
Ireland, on the ground that juries in Ireland could not be trust-
ed. This was au additional reason with him for not voting for
the bill before the house, particularly at the present time.—
That portion of the bill which went to improve the mode of
4triking special juries, was entitled to his hearty approbation.
Sir 11. Peel's Special Jury Bill was very objectionable, as much
so, indeed, as his common jury measure was above all praise.
tie remembered the time when a London special jury was able
to teach even the judges commercial law: now, owing to Sir R.
Peel's act, they were too often as ignorant of it as the very crier.
Feeling these objections to the principle of the learned lord's
bill, he would move as an amendment, that it be read a second
time that day six months.
The Marquess of CLAN RICARDE was surprised at the objections
urged by the learned lord to the principle of the bill, that it was
neither more nor less than a step towards assimilating the legal
institutions of England and Ireland. If the system has workd
Well in England, why not extend its advantages to Ireland ?
In Ireland the people as a mass had no confidence in the law;
they, in fact, knew its administrauts but as so many legalized
tyrants. The law to them was but a machinery of oppression,
instead of protection ; hence their approving sympathies were
readily extended to its violators or victims : who, instead of, as
in this happier country, being regarded-With condemnation and
abhorrence, were actually sacred. in the eyes of their fellow vil-
lagers. It was absurd to attribute the deplorable working of this
mischievous delusion to the " sayings and doings" of Mr. O'Con-
nell and his men. All that the agitators did was to take artful
advantage of the unsettled state of the public mind in Ireland,
and stimulate it for their own sordid purpose. It was, therefore,
because he conceived the present bill. calculated to induce con-
fidence in the jury tribunals in Ireland, and thence respect for
the laws, that he would give it his best support. To say that it
was democratic in principle was no objection, unless it was
clearly shown that it would call into existence, as jurors, per-
sons whom the Irish would less confide in than the pre3ent class
of jurors, and that could not be shown, for the contrary was
the fact.

Lord ELLENBOROUGH agreed with his learned friend (Lord
Wynford) that the bill was not only uncalled for and ill-timed,
but quite inconsistent with the bill which they had passed for
doing away altogether with trial by jury in Ireland. In a moral
country there could be no greater blessing than the system of
trial by jury ; in an immoral, no greater curse.
The Earl of RODEN thought the measure a most dangerous
one, and especially so at the present moment. If there were no
other reasons for its condemnation than this, it was sufficient,
—namely, that the 12 judges were unanimously opposed to the
jurors'-book, which was the soul of the measure.
Lord PLUNKETT thought that through the whole debate too
much stress had been laid on the name of Mr. O'Connell. Ile
saw no reason for this. He (Lord Plunkett) had not intro-
duced the measure on account of Mr. O'Connell's concurrence,
nor would he have refrained from doing so on account of any
opposition that .gentleman might have displayed towards it.
But the main objection to the bill was, it seemed, that there
was something in it which might lead to the inference that
property was to be the sine qua non qualification for common
jurors. This would certainly, if true, be a strong objection.
But he believed the answer to such au inference would be found
in the fact that the lists made out in the first instance by the
barony collectors were to be returned to the justices of the peace
for revision, with power to add or to strike off any names they
choose. The list was then to be placed in the hands of the
sheriff, who was not to be hound down by its contents, but might
use his discretion with regard to them. With respect to the re-
gulations respecting special juries, he could assure the noble
and learned lord, who entertained such homage and veneration
for the opinions of the judges, that that particular part of the
bill was drawn up in exact conformity with their suggestions.
He would only further state his conviction that the measure he
had proposed would, if carried into execution, ensure to the
people of Ireland the impartial administration of justice.
Lord WyNFORD said a few words in explanation.
The bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be com-
mitted to-morrow.

The Duke of RICHMOND presented a petition for the better
observance of the Sabbath, but said, at the same time, that the
petition had no reference whatever to a bill at present before
the other house of Parliament, (Hear, hear.)
The hodse adjourned at a quarter past 9 o'clock.
WEDNESDAY.
On the Earl of SHAFTESI3URT taking his seat on the Wool-
sack at live o'clock,
Mr. SPRING Rica, and other members of the House of Com-
mons,brought up the London and Birmingham Railway Bill,
the Marine Mutiny Bill, and a Bill for draining certain lands in
Kent and Sussex; and also informed the house that they had
agreed to Sciane'sMuseum Bill sent down to them.
The Bills were read a first time.

The Earl of ROSEBERY presented a petition from Edinburgh,
complaining of the monopoly of the Apothecaries' Company in
London.

Lord WYNFORD said that upon the whole, in his opinion, the
Apothecaries' Act had been beneficial to the country.
The Duke of ARGYLL presented petititions from Mull, pray-
ing for the better observance of•the Sabbath
Lord SUFFIELD presented petitions, praying for the imme-
diate abolition of slavery, from Ringwood, .Hants, Saltash,
Kirkwall, Picturn, and other places.