The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-06-02 00:00:00

13 arliairuntarr Idrorttliingo•

HOUSE OF COMMONS—Mot4DAY.
In reply to questions from Irish members, in reference to
the use made of her Majesty's name by the Lord Chan for
of Ireland, on the subject of the repeal of the union, and n
that of the dismissal of Lord Ffrench and Mr. O'Connell,
Sir J. GRAHAM said that her Majesty's ministners, who
were the responsible advisers of the crown, had give instruc-
tions to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland to exert all his ?tb-
cial authority for the purpose of discouraging the agitation,
and her Majesty's name had been used under the same
Instructions.
Lord STANLEY moved the bringing up of the report of the
resolutions on the importation of Canadian corn That in re-
Mr.. M. GIBSON moved as an amendment—" Tha
ducing the duty on the importation of Canada wheat and
edient
wheat flour into the United Kingdom, it is not exp
that such reduction should be made contingent on the unrgn
sition or maintenance of a duty on the importation of forei

corn into Canada.
Dr. BOWRING se
The or

conded the amendment.
6inat motion was agreed to by a majority of 195

Leave was then given to bring in the bill.
The Lords' amendments to the Registration of Vo
to, tea
cors Bill
were then considered, and, some being disagreed m-
mittee was appointed to draw up reasons for dissenting.
On the motion for the second reading of the Arms (Ire-
land) Bill,
Lord EmoT stated that the bill was for the purgose of
continuing acts now in existence, but which were about to
expire. He hoped that gentlemen would not be so far blinded
by party spirit as to oppose a bill which was believed to be
necessary, and had been adopted by parliament in times less
feverish than the present. The noble lord referred to several
documents to prove the necessity of re-enacting the bill, and
reminded the house that although there were undoubtedly
other modes of assassination, there were none so secret as
that of fire-arms, or so likely to evade detection. The prin-
ciple of the bill had been recognised during the last 50 years,
by five successive governments. The only deviation in the
present measure from the bill of the late government was to
substitute for the affidavit now required a recommendation
by two respectable persons that the applicant was a fit person
to possess arms, and to place the Roman Catholic in this
respect on the same footing as the Protestant ;
to have the
arms of all persons, rich or poor, branded and registered, and
their owners licensed ; and to allow to the court a discretion,
not possessed at present, as to transporting or imprisoning
persons in whose possession were found unlawful tire-arras,
or pikes, daggers, or other destructive implements, evidently
intended for unlawful purposes ; to allow one h
j the name of
ustice of the
peace power to grant a search warrant, in
whic
the officer to whom its execution was intrusted was to be in-
serted, and to prevent the sale of gunpowder to persons not
licensed to possess arms. It would be open Lo any member
to amend the details of the bill in committee ; but be thought
those members would incur a very heavy responsibility who
opposed it altogether, and for his
shriownnk part, however unpo-
lr it might hP ' -gild not
is
he believed '

rom his duty with

essential to the

a measure whi,c

peace and security of Ireland.
Mr. S. CRAWFORD admitted the moderation with which
thetha noble lord had introduced the measure, but contended
they. t itl was altogether unnecessary. The question was, whe-
reland was to be governed by justice or coercion, and
although there might be precedents for this measure, yet that
renderedyisio it by no means less arbitrary or vexatious. Its pro-
severns were unconstitutionally stringent, and its penalties
ely penal. The measure had been framed upon a very
thesuperficiala knowledge of the state of Ireland. The cause of
situation of landlords and tenants. The latter, unable to ob-
justice from the law, were obliged to create a law for
themselves. If they improved their condition and gave them
protection, outrages which never could be put down
tbyeanarmy would instantly cease. The Irish poor law was
. only measure they had received in redemption of the
pledge of 1e34, and that measure pleased nobody. He was
ePieroesaed to the bill on principle, and therefore moved that it
be
Loadna second time that day six months.
CLEhi KNTS cordially seconded the amendment, but
that the
felt much more pleasure in doing so if it had been
e serjeant-at-arms should kick the bill out of the house.
Tmha measure had, he admitted, been brought forward in a
benefit to Ireland were suffered to lie neglected on the table,
was an aggravation of Irish grievances to press forward a
measure like the present. Why should such measures be
passed for Ireland more than for England ? Had there not
beenoutrages in Englaud ? Had there been no attacks upon
individuals—no attempts upon the life of her 'Majesty ?In
anEngland they called the perpetrators Of such outrages mad;"
d the theory was, be presumed, that murders were com
mitted in England by madmen, and in Ireland by Roman
for Ireland,
if they were to legislate for Piccadilly as they did
Ireland, giving arms to one class of people only, they
would find that all Piccadilly would be as discontented as
Ireland.
ill were necessary
Mr. Sieve said if he thought such a b
he would give it hi; reluctant but strenuous support, but he
believed it was utterly inefficient for any legitimate object.
'1 referred to the state of the county of Tipperary., which he
bad at one time the honour to represent, and said that the
outrages there were owing to the inefficient administration of
the law. Large bribes were given to informers, but the honest
witnesses were left wholly unprotected• The solicitor for the
crown who resided in Dublin, came down with the judges,
efficiency,prepared his case necessarily with a speed incompatible with
and from want of knowledge of the witnesses was
battled by the superior knowledge of the local solicitor, who
bad
to
defend the prisoners. He also attributed much evil
to the jury system—the challenges allowed to the crown
amounting in effect to nearly packing a jury. He objected
to the Arms Bill on several grounds, but more especially
because it created a distinction between Enland and Ireland.
It was a mockery, under such a system of to say
that Ireland was an integral part of the legislation,ml they
were teaching Ireland that it was necessary to have different
legislation for the two countries, they were perhaps also in-
structing her that with different legislation they ought also
have different lawgivers. The right hon. gentleman then
referred to the opposition of Henry Brogham—not
hLord
Brongham—to the Arms Bill of 1819, and asked the use
to imagine how his eloquence would have scorched the miatnh
who would have dared to propose that every blacksm
should be licensed, that every weapon should be branded.
and that every man in whose house a knife might be found
at the end of a staff should be transported. It wns a "n -
mon observation on the ministerial side of the house to say
that the repeaters were in the wrong, but be would ask theie!
i the were themselves conspicuously in then ight ? Lard.n
Stanley had undertaken to legislate for Irelan and bad i -
troduced a registration bill for Ireland which had done than
for the furtherance of the cause of repeal in Ireland
tthan
go-
any other circumstance that he knew of. The present
sorvernment wished it to be believed that they were anxiou l _
the preservation of the morality of the people of Irelandelci eit
yet by their tiscal regulations they gave a stimulus to ill
.1.
distillation, which was the parent of almost eve
ry crime in
Ireland. He referred to the speech of her Majesty. ciTh
the
alcrsehission, in which she recognised the apprecci ti
people had displayed of the justice wi
been treated, and expressed her confidence in their
loyalty
whichxthey had
and contrasted it with the present state of that country uend.e_;_
a conservative administration. He also contrasted
.i,
and
ferent conduct pursued towards Ireland and Canada,
thei
fervently prayed that the former might be treated_w . .
same justice that had been so wisely meted out to Canede•
Mr. SMITH said that a similar measure to the one before
the house had been introduced into the House of Commons,
by Lord Morpeth, in 1838, measure the
of the Cabinet of that day, and against that
n
with the unanimous ncurrence
right hon. gentleman had never opened his lips. I.
.1181.0-19
man_
arms bill was again introduced, and not a single Iris! e
ber raised a voice against it. If there
the severity of the was any objection to
enal clauses of the bill that objectionh
should not be urged in the resent stage of the b
lended ut
should be reserved until it wasp committed. He con
that in the eyes of those who agitated Ireland, the meaning
of the words " Justice to Ireland" was that the church
should be despoiled of its possessions,
suffrage and fixity of tenure should be conceded, the
tlatter
and that universal
meaning nothing less than the transfer of landed proper y in
Ireland from the landlords to the occupeing
these might
be added the confiscation of the property of ab-
tenants. To
sentees, and nothing else but all these concessions would be
considered as justice to Ireland.
Lord J.
fenders, said that the hon. and learned gentle-
man had defended the bill, not upon its merits, not upnodntttaiet
necessity for its enactment but merely upon titherou
.1.1
a similar measure had been in
by Precedlng
government. Even presuming that the two bills bad been
the same, yet it was to be be remembered that under the
former government measures were pursued to conciliafe the
people, and to cause them to rely neon d d not
tion of the law, although the ministry of the day i.
the just adminietr
feel themselves justified in abandoning the existing
objectspre
cautionary laws until they felt confides that theirrih
had been effected. They enlisted the syrup
people, and having done so, they might gradually have
.go
pathies of the. e
got
rid of every law which had even the appearance of coerecisnnt.
Those measures had not been persevered in by, the pr
geed .
government—the sympathies of the people were disreg..
in the appointments to the judgeship and to the mag.isterial
bench, and also in the displacement of P°
for pular magistrates
attending meetings, which the Lord Chancellor of.lree
land had declared to be le I. .Not knowing what iniechief
might result from the rejection of this bill, helot not
I
take upon himself the responsibility of opposing second
reading ; but though he thought the union ought to be main-
tained for the benefit of both England and Ireland, yet he
had no hesitation in saying that as long as the parties
agitating for that repeal conducted themselves according
.to
them by in-
w, it was not right to excite and irritate
law, ad
judicious interference. debate was
On the motion of Mr. BLEWIrT the journed
moved for by
until this day. return
Another Irish debate sprung from a
Mr. S. O'BeigN, in which complaints were made by
guile
of the Irish members that all the chiefs of departments in
Ireland were either Englishmen or Scotchmen ; to which Sir
R. PEEL replied, that for the most part they were in office
when the present government came into
then power.
The other orders of the day were disposed of, and
the house adjourned.
---.......--.

HOUSE OF LORDS.---TUISSDA.V.
The Earl of ABERDEEN gave notice that be
would, on
Thursday, move the first reading of a bill for the admission
of ministers in the Church of Scotland.
The Marquis of CLANCARDE read the letter recently
written by the direction oft he Lord Chancellor of Ireland
dismissing Lord Ffrench from the comission of the pence,
on the ground that the minister of theyown had declared in
parliament that the Queen and her government were deter-
mined to make the union inviolate, and asked upon what
ground the Irish government coald pretend to shape its con-
duct according to a speech in Parliament rather than accord-
ing to law. He also wished to know if any communication
had been made to the Irish government in an official shape
that any speech or message from the throne had been deli-
vered respecting the repeal of the union.
The Duke of WELLINGTON said that the Irish government
had been instructed that it was the determination of her Ma-
jesty's advisers to maintain the the inviolate. No other
instructions had been given.
The Marquis of CLANRICA ROIL said that the step taken by
the Lord Chancellor was contrary to the constitution, and
he considered his letter to be most improper and unfortunate.
The Duke of WELLINGTON referred to the anxiety occa-
sioned hp the agitation in Ireland, and said that government
had adopted measures to enable the Lord Lieutenant of that
country to preserve the peace, and to adopt all requisite mea-
sures to preserve the union inviolate. Her Majesty had de-
clared her intention tom aintain the union, and yet magis-
trates'holding her commission were presiding over repeal
meetings. It was the bounden duty of the Lord Chancellor
when it waswell
to give every check to these repeal meetings,
known to be the intention of the government to maintain the
Inviolability of the union.
After a few observations from the Earl cf GLENGALL,
Lord CAMPBELL denied that the repeal meetinga were ne-
cessarily illegal, and condemned the letter of the Lord Chan-
cellor

arks from the Earl of CHARLNVILLE and

After some rem..
the Earl of WICKLOW,
The LORD CHANCELLOR defended the Lord Chancellor
of Ireland, and said had he acted otherwise he
would have
neztected the duty which he owed to his country and to his

Soveresgn
Lord CI
demned th.

SHAM and the Marquis of LkssoowNx con-

FFE said that a

yet the assemblage of
,ugh the
200,10) persons must create terror, and were not therefore
peace had
to be tolerated. As to the dismissal of Lord French, he "3

Lord WH ARN(

roken at these meeting

thfry

`p
:=7

;
'/Z