The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-03-31 00:00:00

t SIIOUiII

DOUSE OF COMMON

lONLL

public business proceeded with was the committee
sum of X,110,U00 was moved for civil

Mr. W complained of the expense of embassies,
which, as compared with that incurred by the United States
for the same purpose, Was enormous. - He thought it was
disgraceful to the nobility of this country that they would not
consent to represent their Sovereign in a foreign state without
being so very largely remunerated.
Sir G. CLERK instanced the embassy of the Earl of Wilton
to the King of Saxony when conveying to his Majesty the
order of the Garter, as being a case of disinterestedness such
as the hon. member wished for. lie received no recompense,
and it was but reasonable that the expenses of the journey
should be defrayed.
Lord PALMERSTON charged the Government which pre-
ceded that of Lord Melbourne with having left this question
unsettled, and

Sir R. PEEL retorted the charge upon the whigs, not only
with respect to this but to their questions also. The right
hon. baronet intimated to the house that the Government
was now endeavouring to settle the dispute, and would, as
soon as practicable, communicate all requisite information
upon the subject to the house.
Sir R. PEEL said that the vote before the house was not
an estimate, but an account of sums expended under a dis-
cretionary power given to the Government, which they had
exercised so prudently that they had expended £15,000 less
than the sum allowed them.
Captain BERNAL objected to the item of expense under
the head of conveyance of the Bishop of Jerusalem to the
coast of Syria, -which was larger than the expense of convey.
ing Lord Ashburton to and from America.
After some discussion the original vote was affirmed by a
majority of 112 to 37.
In reply to a question from Mr. EWART,
The Earl of Lincoln said that no steps had been taken to
throw Richmond Park open to the public more than- it had
hitherto been. It was open to foot
,passengers, the great
mass of whom went down there in steamers, but carriage
parties were still obliged to obtain the permission of tbe;ran-
ger to drive in the park. The only royal-parks which were
not fully open to-the public wero Richmond and Kew Arks,
and these were kept up at a very trilling expense.
Mr. AGt.toNav complained that the public should be at
all excluded, when the parks were not pretended to be kept
private for the use of her Majesty. It could in fact be kept
only for the exclusi we benefit of the deputy ranger.
Mr.' HAWES said he was aware that applications had been
made...for permission to ride in the parks, and that Lord Sid-
mouth had granted that permission, He knew that he had
done so in a great many instances.
In reply to a question from Mr. WILLIAMS,
The Earl of LINCOLN said he expected the new houses of
Parliament would be so far completed that the House of Lords
would be accommodated in two years.
On the vote for £17,350 for salaries and expenses of the
officers of both Houses of Parliament.
Mr. HUME moved that the vote should be reduced by the
sum of £23,000 on the ground that the House of Commons
had a right to know the scale upon which salaries were given
to the officers of the House of Lords.
The house divided, and the original motion was carried by
a majority of 135 to 47.
Upon the vote for the expenses of the Ecclesiastical Com-
mission,
Mr. Hume objected, and said that those expenses should
be paid out of the property of the Church.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that the property of theChnrch was
not increased by this commission. Parliament merely under-
took to regulate it.
NF'. HUME persevered in his objection, but on a division
the yote was carried by a majority of 140 to 33. •
A debate arose on the vote of 56,500 for the expenses of
the poor law commission, Captain Psciter.r. contended for
the integrity of the Gilbert unions, and Mr. FEILRAND con-
demned' the assistant poor law commissioners, insisting that
it was absolute swindling that they should be taking the pub-
lic money without attending to their duties, as they ought to
do. He denounced the poor law as cruel, tyrannous, and
calculated to excite the poorer classes to insurrection.
Sir C. NAPIER. said he felt convinced that monomania was
on the increase, and whenever the hon. gentleman touched
upon Keighley union he instantly went off stark staring mad
—(much laughter). He moved that the chairman should re-
port progress and ask leave to sit again.
The motion was agreed to, and the House resumed.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the
house adjourned.

HOUSE OF LORDS.—TUESDAY.
The Mutiny Bill and the Marine Mutiny Bill were seve-
rally read a third time and passed.
Lord CAMPBELL read the resolutions which it was his in-
tention to move on Friday, in reference to the Church of
Scotland, which will be found in our report of the debate.
They were ordered to be printed, and circulated amongst the
peers before Friday.

Some bills on the table were forwarded a stage, and their
lordships adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.--TUESDAY

In answer to a question from Dr. BOWRING,
Mr. GLADSTONE admitted the necessity of adopting some
measures to prevent the overloading of steam-vessels on the
Thames. There was at present a committee sitting upon a
collateral subject, and he would direct the attention of that
committee to the matter.

Sir J. GRAHAM announced his intention of postponing the
whole of the Factory Dill until after Easter.
In reply to a question from Lord R. GROSVENOR,
Dr. NicnoLL intimated that the saving under the Eccle-
siaatical Courts Bill would be greater than had at first been
supposed, and entered into some statements in support of
his assertion.
In reply to a question from Sir G. GREY
Sir R. PEEL said that the Queen and chiefs of Otaheite,
in surrendering themselves to the protection of France, had
stipulated for the protection of the missionaries, to which the
French admiral had acceded.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE moved, in pursuance of notice, for a
select committee to inquire into the allegations contained in
various petitions complaining of the conduct of the magis-
tracy during the disturbances which prevailed during last
August in the north' of England. He could not bring him=
self to believe that he was addressing an impartial tribunal,
for he knew that the benches of that house were covered with
justices of the peace. He had, however, an-important duty
to perform, and he would go through that duty to the best of
his ability. The hon. gentleman gave a sketch of the occur•
rences antecedent to the outbreak, and then detailed the facts
set forth by each of the petitioners, imputing to the ma-
gistrates by whom they had been committed the grossest ig-
norance of law, combined with great cruelty arid oppression.
In some instances bail had been refused altogether, while in
another six bail in the sum of £lOO each were required, the
magistrate declaring that he would not take any persons as
bail who were of the same political principles as the prisoner.•
In one case an unoffending old man was shot in his own yard,
in a part of the town where there was no riot, and only three
soldiers and no other parties within view. Ile was deli-
berately aimed at by one of the soldiers, and had since then
been unable to support his family. The hon. gentleman said
that the people would look with the utmost anxiety to the
decision of the house that night, and believing that he had
made out a strong case, he hoped the committee of inquiry
would be granted.
General JOHNSON seconded the motion.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL contended that it would be
perfectly useless to grant the inquiry, for the house had no
means whatever of affording redress. With respect to the
refusal of bail, if the cases could be proved as represented by
the hon. member, the courts of law were open and would
award heavy damages. They were the proper tribunals to
afford redress, and to those courts the petitioners should
have applied if they felt themselves aggrieved. It was to be
deeply deplored that the necessity should have arisen for
calling out the military, but he could 'not believe the state-
ment as to shooting the man in his own yard at Halifax. If,
hoviever, he were to admit it to be true, it was still a case for
a jury, and the offending party was amenable, even to the
extent of his life, to the law. The hon. and learned gentle-
man then dwelt upon the means which had been resorted to
for the purpose of exciting the people, until at length the
country was brought to th verge of a civil war ; and deeply
regretted that this motion should have been made while the
parties who had brought the north of England into that con-
dition were yet to be submitted to the judgment of the Court
of Queen's Bench for their violation of the law. ,It was
assumed by the chartists that if they committed no actual
violence, they were not violating the law, but although the
mildest form of prosecution had been adopted towards them,
lie had no hesitation in saying that parties thus engaged in
stopping employment by threats and intimidation, for the
purpose of changing the law of the land, ire guilty of high
treason. In one instance, a bill of high treason had been
found, but, the Government was unwilling to pursue it.
There could be no question but that a very general combina-
tion prevailed throughout the north, and a great deal of the
severity resorted to by the magistrates might be attributed
to the fact that they supposed they were dealing with the
crime of high treason. In conclusion, he expressed his con-
fident opinion that if' it were possible to bring any charge
whatever against the Government, it could only be that they
had been too lenient in the prosecution of the offenders
during the recent disturbances.
Lord F. EGERTON remarked upon the circumstance (un-
precedented in foimer times of riot and disturbance), that
the people in-Laiaeashliss-shOwed everreitapersittort to rerAln
from outrage and bloodshed ; and which, therefore, would
uregret if the military force had been unnecessarily
resorted deeptedto. In-the riot which took place at Preston, how-
ever, there was no alternative, for a small force, together
with the magistrates, were placed in the most imminent
danger
heefore fire-arms were resorted to.
m r..pAKINGTON defended the magistrates of Dudley from
made against them by some of the petitioners.
charge
eht the motion before the house a very bad return
to thec hh
magistracy who had acted with so much promptitude
atilhneecidtecision in restoring the peace of the country, when it
was so alarmingly endangered.
Mr. FIBLDEN said these disturbances never would have
taken place had it not been for the passing of the new poor
law. While these disturbances were going forward, he was
called upon, but he asked the workmen what they wanted?
They replied that they wanted twelve hours' wages fdr ten
hours' work. He thought the request reasonable, and at
once conceded IL He told the magistrates that if his work-
men would not protect him, he did riot require the protec-
tion of the magistrates or the military. He was not annoyed
during all the scenes which subsequently took place around'
him. He should support the motion of Mr. Du.ico,rnbe.
Mr. CLIVE and Mr. W. PATTEN defended the conduct of
the magistrates, who had generally conducted themselves with
the greatest forbearance and discretion, under • the perilous
circumstances in which the north of England was placed at

the tnne.
Mr. G. W. Woon defended the conduct of the Manches-
ter district magistrates not only as to the bail, but also as to
the treatment of the prisoners, which was as lenient as the
crowded state of the prison would admit. Ile would vote
in favour of Mr. Duncombe's motion, in order to shoW that
he was not afraid of inquiry, although he by no means
thought that the hon. member had made out a case for in-,

quirt'—(a laugh.)
Cot. ROLLESTON, as chairman of the quarter sessions at
Nottingham, replied to the charges made against those ma-
gistrates by Mr. Duncombe.
Capt. By.RxELEy. said, from what he bad heard, he believed
the magistrates had not exceeded their duty, but still he had
heard no- answer to his hon. friend's motion thi an inquiry,
and should therefore support it. •
Mr. BUOTHERTON said he had listened most attentively
to the debate, and he must say that he could not support
tbe„motion. In his opinion the conduct of the magistrates
of Manchester was most praiseworthy, and he believed they
had done everything which could be done under the circum-

stances.
Lord Ivcc~'►'RE said • that although the magistrates fell