The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-02-24 00:00:00

The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and th

house adjourned

HOUSE OF LORDS.-TUESDAY

In reply to a question from the Marquis of CLANRICARDE,
Lord WARNCLIFFE said that it was not the intention of
the architect of the new Houses of Parliament to finish any
one of them before the other. He was proceeding with both
houses pari passze.
Several noble lords complained that the house intended
for their accommodation should not be expedited. They
had given up their house to the House of Commons, and
having very bad accommodation at present, while that which
the House of Commons enjoyed was very good, they felt that
active steps should be taken to finish off their new house as
speedily as possible. Under this feeling
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE moved the appointment of
a committee to inquire into the progress made in the erection
of the new Houses of Parliament.

The motion was agreed to, and the committee appointed.
The Bishop of CHESTER presented a vast number of pe-
titions from various places i❑ Wales against the union of the
sees of Bangor and St. Asaph.
Adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-TUESDAY

Mr. T. DUNCOMBE moved "That petitions having been
presented to this house complaining of the conduct of Lord
Chief Baron Abinger when presiding as judge upon the ex-
cution of the late special commission executed in the counties
of Chester and Lancaster, this house do summon witnesses
to the bar for the purpose of ascertaining the language used
by the said Lord Chief Baron Abinger in charging the grand
juries, and in summing up the cases to the petty juries, who
were impanelled under such special commission, and also in
passing sentences upon prisoners convicted under the same
commission." He charged the nobly lord with having acted
in an unconstitutional, malignant, and oppressive manner
towards the prisoners whom he tried, and quoted the opinions
of the Morning Herald and other papers upon the course
pursued by the noble lord on those trials. Some of the
jurymen at Liverpool had, he said, expressed themselves dis-
gusted at the language used by Lord Abinger, for that
language would imply by inference that it was treason to ad-
vocate the ballot, annual parliaments, or universal suffrage,
a doctrine repudiated by the Attorney-General at the chartist
trials at Newport. The conduct and language of Lord
Abinger in trying and sentencing the prisoners were to the
last degree indecorous, and the subsequent treatment of the
prisoners was equally oppressive and unjust. If the govern-
ment intended to crush any inquiry, lie hoped they would at
all events let the public know that amongst the members of
the government there was not one who felt any sympathy
with the language made use of by the Lord Chief Baron.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he should ask the house
to meet the motion of the hon. member by a direct negative.
The language of Lord Abinger was not directed against the
right of discussing the charter, but against that system of
intimidation and insurrection which, directed as its move-
ments were by a committee of public safety, which, in the
exercise of its power, gave licences for the execution of any
work that might be deemed of absolute necessity, was calcu-
lated to destroy all the relations of society. Lord Abinger
had not gone the unconstitutional length of denouncing every
attempt to effect by argument an alteration in the existing
state of things; he had only pointed out the illegality and
criminality of such tumultuous assemblages as had taken
place, got up, as they were, not for the purpose of delibera-
tion, but for the disturbance of t!ie public peace, and com-
mented properly on the dangerous language resorted to at
these meetings. The sentences passed by Lord Abinger, and
which were said to be severe, were the result ot° the united
deliberations of the three judges in the commission. The
hon. and learned gentleman concluded by eulogising the
character of Lord Abinger, whom he was anxious to shiel:l3
in his old age, after a life of honourable service, from the
mortification which such an enquiry could not fail to brizi
with it.

Mr. Ross, in supporting the motion, said he did not thiiiir
the defence of the Attorney-General, concluding as it did
with the argumentunt ad misericordiarn, at all satisfactorT..
Mr. THESIGER condemned the motion as an interference
with the independence of the judges. He entered into a
lengthened defence of Lord Abinger, who had beer, also
misrepresented in the case of Nicholas Suisse, as well as in
the present instance, for he had never said in charging the
jury that that person was "an invaluable servant." He had
only said that he must have been so considered and described
by his master.

Mr. Sergeant MURPHY said it should have been the care
of Lord Abinger to have calmed the minds of the grand jury,
and to have soothed the excitement natural for them to be
influenced by, and which must have interfered with the jus-
tice of their decisions. This be had not done. On the con-
trary, his speech was calculated to increase that excitement.
If such a speech were proper under the circumstances, how
was it that the charge delivered by Chief Justice Tindal was
of a totally opposite character ? In this country we had al-
ways a horror of political judges, and therefore it was that he
deprecated the conduct of Lord Abinger in bringing his high
talents to bear for the purpose of stimulating grand juries
already too much excited.

Mr. J. S. WORTLEY said that if the whole of the charge
had been read by his hon. and learned friend he would never
have called it a stimulating charge. The whole of the outcry
against Lord Abinger arose from a misconception which a
careful perusal by a candid mind of that charge would re-
move. The charges of Chief Justice Tindal were certainly
admirable—they were excellent ; but that learned judge did
not always strictly confine himself to the case before him, for
in one instance he had stated the constitutional law to the
grand jury, and laid it down as to how far a soldier still re-
tained his character as a civilian, that they might judge of the
legality of what had been done in the suppression of a riot.'
WALLACE said he had not trusted to the newspaper
reports, for he had purchased the noble lord's own shilling's
worth, and from that he would say that Lord Abinger had
travelled far and wide from his duty.
Mr. SCARLETT said he believed Lord Abinger's fault was
really that he differed in opinion from the Chartists and their
friends. It would not become him to trespass on the time of
the House, but he must say that he did not think his noble
relative had been fairly treated by hon. members on the op-
position side of the house. To whatever party in the country
Lord Abinger had given his confidence at any period of his
life, he had always been firmly attached to the constitution
of the country. The hon. and learned gentleman concluded
his speech by a reference to the daily press, to which might
be applied the words of a celebrated historian in reference to
the a. e in which he lived—that it was iniquitous without
punishment and without remedy.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL did not think that the independence
of the judges could be compromised by a motion like the pre-
sent, but he was nevertheless of opinion that nothing but the
most important considerations ought to induce the house to
give its acquiescence to such a motion. The fault of the
charges of Lord Abinger was that they entered into political
matter in conjunction with legal explanations, which were
thus calculated to confuse the grand jury. Indeed the uni-
versal satisfaction expressed at the charges of Chief Justice
Tindal was in itself a proof that there must have been some-
thing objectionable in the charges of Lord Abinger, or they
would not have excited such general animadversion. He
had introduced his political knowledge where his legal know-
ledge only was wanting ; and perhaps from over zeal for the
vindication of the law, he had introduced politics into his
charges unwisely and intemperately. He should, however,
vote against the motion of the hon. member for Finsbury.
Sir J. GRAHAM concurred both in the practical conclusion
of the noble lord, and also in the general principles he laid
down. In his opinion such a motion as the present should
not be agreed to unless they were convinced that badness of
heart had led to the perversion of judgment. The right hon.
gentleman then proceeded to define the duties of a judge, and
said he had no doubt but that Lord Abinger had honestly
performed his duties, and had done nothing which could call
t'cr the reprehension of the house.
Mr. S. CRAWFORD supported the motion, and expressed
his opinion that the sentences passed by Lord Abinger were
unnecessarily severe.
Mr. WATSON said he felt it his duty to vote for the in-
quiry, on the simple ground that a grave charge was made
against Lord Abinger, and the house was therefore bound to
hear the evidence. There were many things contained in
the noble lord's own pamphlet which were deserving of re-
probation.
Mr. CARDwELL believed he was the only member of that
house who happened to be present when Lord Abinger de-
livered his charge, and he therefore was entitled to make an

observation. (Hear, hear.) The present was a motion for
inquiry, and he would venture to prophecy that it would not
be granted ; and he hoped neither the hon. member for
Finsbury nor the hon. and learned member who had last
addressed the house would imagine for a moment that any
supposed identification with that noble lord in political
opinion would tempt him (Mr. Cardwell) to rise up and bear
false testimony. He hoped he should not give either biassed
or exaggerated testimony of what he had witnessed on that
occasion, and he hoped and trusted he had sufficient regard
for the honour of that profession, of which he was an un-
worthy member, not to be peculiarly sensitive regarding the
honour and character of one of the ornaments of that pro-
fession. (Hear, hear.) He recollected one expression which
had made the great gravamen of the charge against Lord
Abinger—he meant the occasion on which th noble lord had
told the prisoners at the bar, that in his opinion the govern-
ment had exhibited too much leniency, and that he should
have passed, had he been there, a much more severe sentence.
If the house divested the case of its political and party bear-
ings, and tried Lord Abinger's caution and observations to
the prisoners and to the jury by the test which might be
fairly applied—namely, that of any other crime against so-
ciety, it would at once be seen that his language was ,exactly
that which best befitted the circumstances under which the
persons upon whom he was passing sentence were situated.
He had heard the noble lord's manner on that occasion
described as superinhuman ; and would observe, that it was
a difficult task to describe correctly, or with any propriety,
the manner in which any particular charge or other discourse
might have been delivered, and which might have excited
admiration in those who heard it. But he would say that
the acumen. the judgment, and the correctness of legal
knowledge which distinguished the noble lord's conduct to
the prisoners, whilst it was his duty to give them every
facility for proving their innocence, and the just and forcible
manner in which, when they had been pronounced guilty of
the crimes laid to their charge, Lord Abinger expressed his
abhorrence of their conduct, and pointed out its dangerous
tendency, were such as to command his highest respect; and
lie was convinced, that had his honourable and learned friend
heard the noble lord utter those sentiments, he would have
thought as he did, and have voted as he would do on the
present occasion.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE replied, and said lie had heard nothing
to induce him not to take the sense of the house upon the
question he had brought before them. The hon. gentleman
amused himself and the house at the expense of Sir James
Graham, whose former attacks on Sir James Scarlett, when
he called him a recreant whig, he contrasted with the praise
he had lavished on him that night.
The house then divided, and the motion was negatived by
a majority of 228 to 73.
On the motion of Lord ELIOT leave was given to bring in
a bill to empower justices of the peace in Ireland to act in
certain cases relating to places to the rates of which they
were chargeable.

Leave was also riven to bring in a bill to amend the bill
relating to pawnbroling in Ireland.

--.(15a..-••-

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-WEDNESDAY

Mr. S. CRAWFORD gave notice that, on the first night of
supply, he should move that the voting of the supplies should
be postponed until the estimates of expenditure should be
considered with a view to their reduction.
.0n the motion of Mr. LIDDELL, the house went into com-
euttee on the Personation of Voters Bill.
After some conversation,
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said, he did not think the offence of
personating voters prevailed in England to such an extent as
to call for an alteration of the law, and if the bill passed at all,
it ought to be made applicable to the whole United Kingdom.
It was the intention of the Government to bring in a Regis-
tration Bill for England and Ireland, but he could not

FRIDAY MORNING, FEBRUARY

24, 1843

On Monday evening a question was put to the
Home Secretary, by Mr. Ferrand, the reply to which
is, we rather think, significant of something more
than the mere words outwardly imply. • The enquiry
of Mr. Ferrand was, " whether the government had
made any investigation into the causes of the late out-
breaks in the manufacturing districts, or whether they
intended to make such investigation." The reply was
as follows :—" On a former occasion a gentleman had
been sent down by government for the purpose of col-
lecting and marshalling the evidence upon the subject
to which the hon. gentleman's question referred. That
evidence had, in part, been brought before a compe-
tent tribunal; parties had been convicted upon it, and
some were undergoing the punishment of the law.
Another portion of that evidence was still to be investi-
gated. But true bills had been found upon it, and the
parties would be tried upon it on the 4th of April. • He
was of opinion that all the facts of the case would be
brought before that tribunal; and that the question
would then be really brought out who were the parties
responsible for the dangerous disturbances which had
taken place."

Of course, Sir James Graham referred to the trials
of Sotitham, O'Connor, and others, which, it may be
remembered, were traversed, and are to come on at
the en suing Spring Assizes at Lancaster. If such be
the ca se, we firmly believe, with him, that all the facts,
as to the origin and the causes of those " dangerous
distw •bances" will come out—that much mare tyill' be
disclosed than will be convenient and pleasing to,tiome
peopi e who are at this moment hugging themselves in
fand ed security, and sufficient to convince the world,
if it .even do not convince the legislature, of the dan-
geron s character and incendiary working of a certain
body which it is quite unnecessary for us to mention.
Up to ) this hour, the recent disturbances in the mann-
factu ring districts are boldly set down to the account
of elle Chartists alone. It will be in tke memory of
mot, t of our readers, that the only case in which there
war.; any probability of a complete investigation into
the whole question—the case of Hutchinson--was
quashed by that party being prevailed upon to plead
guilty. The evidence, therefore, in the hands of go-
vernment has only in part been brought before a legal
tribunal. There is " another portion" still to be in-
vestigated—the connection of Chartism with the dis-
turbances in question; and we are much misinformed
if that investigation does not " bring out" the con-
nexion with them of another kind of agitation, and a
somewhat different kind of agitators, to those to be
placed at the bar of justice. Perhaps we may be
treated with a little information as to the movements
and deliberations, during the turnout, of those parti-
cular friends of the Anti-Corn-law League—the " dis-

senting ministers" !

The Manchester Guardian, we observe, has stepped
forward as the apologist of Mr. Richard Cobden, and
treated the world with a laboured essay upon the pro-
per interpretation to be put upon the language recently
directed by that personage towards Sir Robert Peel.
Mr. Cobden, he informs us, only meant by the "indi-
vidual responsibility" of Sir Robert Peel, his respon-
sibility as premier. Why, so the man toldins himself.
But why, we ask, at such a time especially, whilst one
misguided man is already waiting his doom for a
murderous attack levelled at Sir Robert—at the man,
and not the mere abstract idea of the Prime Minister—
labour to impress upon the national mind that it was
his hand which alone kept immersed in poverty and
wretchedness an entire people ? Of course it was "as
a minister" that Sir Robert was to be held "individu-
ally responsible ;" and it would be as a minister only
that an assassin would dream of directing his weapon
against him. Unfortunately, you cannot shoot the
minister without depriving of life at the same time the
man himself.

Really, we must suggest to the Guardian, that this
kind of shuffle is very paltry. It matters not at all
whether the "individual responsibility" spoken of by
the Stockport M.P. was intended to imply personal
responsibility or not, except so far as regards the ques-
tion whether the man who used the expression is a
deliberate inciter to bloodshed, or only a madman or a
fool. In themselves, there is nothing very startling in
the terms used. All the world knew, long before they
were uttered, that Sir Robert Peel and every other
prime minister of this country is individually respon-
sible for the consequences of their policy. But when
viewed as an adjunct to a fierce agitation, in which the
passions of a suffering people are studiously sought to
be wrought upon to frenzy,—when we have already
before our eyes the dreadful calamity by which the
doctrine of personal responsibility was so nearly exem-
plified,—then, indeed, there is more than folly—more
than mere senseless repetition of an admitted truth;
there is crime in the lightest sign made to point such
passions to an object upon which to wreak themselves.
Such, we maintain, was the tendency of Mr. Cobden's
speech ; and as such we believe that it is viewed by
every impartial mind in the community.
_ _

The Guardian thinks differently, however, and so, it
seems, think the leaguers of Liverpool, Stockport, and
Manchester ; for we see that addresses are to be sent
up from these towns, in which Mr. Richard Cobden is
condoled with as something very like a martyr! Yes,
this furious itinerant is to be complimented upon this
new proof of his zeal for free trade; and we are
assured by the Guardian, that the disgust which the
proof in question has drawn down upon him from
other quarters has attracted towards him amongst the
League party only "increased sympathy and encourage-
ment "! !

The Liverpool Times of Tuesday last commences%
report of a case of appeal, against an order for the pay-
ment of parish rates, with the following quasi-apolo-
getic reason for its insertion. "On these occasions,"