The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-08-01 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-WEDNESDAY,

Mr. Ginsos wished to ask the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer whether the government had considered the pro-
priety of extending to persons advancing money on the
security of malt or other exciseable articles the privilege
now enjoyed by bowl fide purchasers ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that go-
vernment had not. _ _ _ _

........_
The recond reading of the Export of Machinery Bill
was fixed for Thursday next.

. . .
Mr. BXNNERMAN Wished to ask whether the professors
who had joined the Free Church in Scotland had been
removed from their professorships?
Sir J. GRAHAM said that many had voluntarily sur-
rendered their appointments, but the appointments in
different universities were held under different tenures.
In some the parties were nut required to hold office, as
in the Greek professorship in Glasgow, which was held
by an Episcopalian.
The Coroners Bill was then re-committed, and some
alteration having been agreed to, the house resumed, and
the report was ordered to be received on Thursday.
Mr. F. MAULE moved for a return of the names of the
different corps of yeomanry cavalry which have been or
are to be established on permanent pay under the esti-
mate of the present year.
Sir J. GRAHAM said he had not the slightest objection
to the production of the papers moved for, but at the same
time he must bear testimony to the good conduct and gal-
lant and loyal behaviour of those corps when called upon
during the late disturbances.
After some further conversation, the return was or-
dered, and the house adjourned.

HOUSE OF LORDS.-THURSDAY.

The LORD CHANCELLOR presented a bill for extending
to Scotland and Ireland the power of the Lord High
Chancellor to grant commissions to enable persons to
take and receive affidavits, &c.
The Libel and Defamation Bill was read a third time ;
and, on the motion that it do pass,
Lord BROUGHAM, in the absence of Lord Denman,
proposed certain words to render the sixth clause more
stringent in the case of persons threatening to publish
any matter or thing with intent to extort money ; and,
after some discussion, the question was ordered to stand
ovcr till Monday, in nrd'r to give Lord Denman and
other noble lords an opportunity of considering it more
HOUSE OF COMMONS.—THURSDAY.

The Marriages (Ireland) Bill was read a third time and
passed.
Lord J. Ru SSELL gave notice that he would on Friday
take the opportunity of Sir R. Peel's moving the adjourn-
ment of the house to Monday of making some observa-
tions on the present state of public affairs.
On Lord ELIOT'S moving the order of the day for
bringing up the report of the Arms (Ireland) Bill,
Lord CLEMENTS proposed as an amendment the second
reading of the Limitation of Actions (Ireland) Bill; but
the motion, not being seconded, fell to the ground.
Mr. S. CRAWFORD then moved as a resolution, "That
the unrestricted power of having, carrying, and using
arms, for all legal purposes, is a right enjoyed by Eng-
lishmen and Scotchmen, and is one of the essential safe-
guards of freedom. That to limit or withhold this privi-
lege as regards Irishmen creates an unjust, impolitic, and
insulting distinction, and is a violation of that equality of
rights which can be the only safe and just basis of impe-
rial legislation. That, therefore, it is the duty of this
house to reject any measure which would impose or con-
tinue such restriction." The hon. gentleman contended
that the Irish people were not fairly represented in that
house, and therefore it was that they held that they were
entitled to repudiate all enactments passed by a legislature
constituted as the House of Commons-is.
Lord ELIOT said that, as the house had affirmed the
principle of the bill, it was not requisite to open the ques-
tion again.
The house divided—For the resolution, 44 ; against it,
99 ; majority 45.
Lord J. RUSSELL thought the best course for the Go-
vernment would be to continue the present act in
force for one year, and not to introduce the new bill. lie
opposed the provision in the new measure which gave the
power to magistrates, and constables acting on their war-
rants, to enter any person's house either by day or by night.
A noble lord (Lord Joceyln) and other members, when
discussing the branding clauses, had expressed a wish
that, if it were necessary to pass laws to preserve the
public peace, those laws should be enforced upon them-
-4 selves as well as the poorest person ; but these clauses
I were not likely to be enforced against the rich. Why not

.~

confine the operation of these stringent clauses, by which
houses might be broke open at any hour, to places only
where the public peace absolutely required such a stretch
of power ? He would remind hon. members that when
that country was in a distracted state in 1819, the legisla-
ture had enacted a power to enter houses to search for
arms, but they confined it to those districts and counties
which were proclaimed, giving to his Majesty in council
the power of extending it to any other districts that might
seem fitting. Now in adapting a similar law to Ireland,
he did not see why a power should not be vested in the
Lord Lieutenant and council to proclaim certain districts
as being in a disturbed state, and then to apply the provi-
sions of the act to those districts. The noble lord con-
cluded by asking leave to introduce a clause to prevent the
entry of houses, &c., unless representations should have
been previously made on oath to the justices at quarter
sessions, and that application should have been made by
them to the Lord Lieutenant, by whom the county or
district should have been proclaimed according to the pro-
visions of the act.

Lord ELIOT complained of the inconsistency of the
noble lord in proposing by his clause to renew the provi-
sions of a law under which a right of search of a much
more stringent character existed. It appeared to him that
it was impossible for the Lord Lieutenant to proclaim a
county as being in a disturbed state, unless the presence
of an armed body of men was ascertained ; because merely
agrarian disturbances and outrages would not form a suf-
ficient ground for such a step. The noble lord had refer-
red to the bill of 1819, which had been enacted in that
country ; but it had been introduced under entirely differ-
ent circumstances. On that occasion there were large
bodies of armed men acting in open resistance to the law,
which was, he was happy to say, not the case at present in
Ireland. He beleived the right of search would give the
loyal and peaceable inhabitants a feeling of security they
would not otherwise possess ; and on these grounds he
must oppose the clause.

After some disscussion the clause was rejected by a ma-
jority of 44.

. .
The remaining clauses of the bill were disposed of, after
some debate and two or three divisions, and the bill was
ordered to be read a third time on Friday.
The Poor Law Amendment (Ireland) Bill went through
committee.