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

imptrial parltanunt.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—MoNoAY.
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 bad 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
baste through the house, proved their sincerity, they were
not prepared, on the other band, 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 easily 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. Tbey 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, be would oppose this measure to the utter-
most, and would do his best to kick it and the ministry
out together. He 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 be would not be a minister on suffer-
ance, but he appealed to the house whether Sir R. Peel
was now anything better than such a minister, supported
as be 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
bad 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
emarcipatio❑ for four years after the period in which he
bad 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
bonour of Parliament, and the betrayed constituencies of
the empire. It was time that Europe and the world
should know that treachery had been commuted by the
ministers in power, and that they did not represent the
bonour of England. The agricultural interests might be
betrayed and ruined ; but let not the wcrld 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 ',hose 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
bim 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,
jaam.t," 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 J. RUSSELL declared that i o proposition to aid in
throwing out this bill had 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 declaration 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 W EDNESDAY.
Mr. HAWES 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 83 to 58, the majority being 27.
Mr. F. Maui E 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. IL Noels 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 Maule) to say that any
individual should be 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
had 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 pretest 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 ? He 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 be asserted it would be an
act of tyranriy 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
effects 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 bad been laid ?
The loss which the reduction would involve to the cum-
=unity would exceed £5,000,000. The small occupiers
of land could not hold their farms after the measure had
taken effect. 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
quietly submit 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 the 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 heaven in 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 parlia-
ment bound together by public principle; who had opposed

the measure. His lordship concluded by moving that the
word " now" give place to " this day six months."
The 'Earl of RADNOR defended Sir Robert Peel, and
expressed his satisfaction with the measure. If it proved
injurious to the agriculturalists, it would at all events,
prove beneficial to the manufacturer.
The Earl of Wicrmow expressed his surprise that no
one had attempted to explain the probable effect of the
bill in Ireland. Sir Robert Peel had been asked whether
he proposed to make any reduction of the rent charges or
tithes, and his answer was that he did not, as there could
be no diminution of prices. It would be absurd to ex-
pect benefit, if there were to be no diminution of prices.
lie intended to propose in committee that there should be
a -fixed duty of ss.
The debate was adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS:-THURSDAY

The Earl of LINCOLN moved for leave to bring in three
bills to alter the law of landlord and tenant in Ireland.
These bills were, he said, of a cognate character, and
their object was to improve the cultivation of the soil,
to ensure to the tenant compensation for the expendi-
ture of capital, and to improve the relations of landlord
and tenant. The first of these measures provided for
voluntary and compulsory agreements with respect to
the investment of capital in improvements. In refe-
rence to voluntary improvements, if the landlord, when
applied to, gave his assent, they might be immediately
proceeded with ; otherwise the matter was at an end.
In relation to compulsory improvements—and under this
head he proposed that building and thorough draining
should .come—notice must be given to the landlord in a
prescribed form, and in case of disagreement, arbitrators
would be appointed ; and if they could not agree, an
umpire would be appointed by the assistant barrister
of the county, who would also have power to appoint
an arbitrator if the landlord refused. In order to obviate
the difficulty of serving notice, in consequence of the
number of landlords connected with the same land in
Ireland, the provisions of the bill would, in this respect,
include only those landlords who had an interest in thirty-
one years, or three lives. The mode in which compensa-
tion would be arranged was, that where the tenant quitted
the land in seven years he would te entitled to all the
amount expended in improvement ; if in fourteen years,
to three-fourths of the amount; if in twenty-one years, to
one-half ; and if within twenty-eight years, to one-fourth
of the amount ; but if the tenant was kept in possession,
his tenancy expiring before twenty-eight years, he should
not be entitled to any compensation. The second bill
introduced by the noble lord related to distress and eject-
ment. Its provisions, he stated, would abolish the
power to distrain upon growing crops ; it would lessen
the costs of law proceedings. and would give to the
tenants the power to stop proceedings, on payment of
the demand, at any time before he was actually dispos-
sessed. The bill would also give to the landlord power
to eject a superior tenant without serving notices on his
sub-tenants, and to retain the latter in the position in
which they had been. The third bill related to leases ;
and in order to encourage the granting of leases, a form
was attached to the bill, according to which a lease
might be drawn by the parties without the aid of a legal
gentleman. The measure would also give a diminished
stamp duty of 2s. 6d. on all leases of lands not exceeding
£5O a-year rent. The noble lord concluded by stating
that the amount of compulsory compensation to which
the tenant would be entitled was limited to three years'
rental. These measures, he trusted, would meet with the
approbation of the house.
Leave was given to bring in the bills.