The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1835-08-14 00:00:00

could be no faith placed in the list of any overseer in ny part
of the kingdoin.__

Sir SAMUaL WHALLEY thought the house ought not to re-
ceive the petition. The rate-books by the law were placed in
the hands of the select vestry of Marylebone, the overseer had
no access to them, and it was not in his power to complete the
lists of voters without first submitting them to the select vestry.
The select vestry had made out the lists for the last three years,
and during that time there had been no suspicion that names
were either inserted or omitted improperly. It was true that
42 persons, acting not as a vestry, but in their individual ca-
pacity, had claimed to be inserted in the register for a property
belonging to the parish, from which they, as members of the
vestry, thought they derived the right of voting. That claim
had still to be decided upon by the revising barrister.
The Marquis of CHANDOS said that -ell the petitioners ques-
tioned was the right of those names)n,he on the list of voters
at all.

Mr. C. Ross said that the charge in the petition was this :
that after the overseer had closed the lists, and sent them to be
printed, the vestry took possession of the lists, and that, at a
tone when no more names could be sent in to the overseer, 42
claimants were put upon that list.
After some further conve►satiun the petition was laid upon
the table.

PORTUGAL.
Mr. G. ROBINSON gave notice, that on an early day he should
ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs some questions
respecting the notice which the Portuguese had given the Brit-
ish government of its intention to discontinue the treaty be-
tween the two countries.

ROBBERY OF TtiE COUNTRY BY THE UN STAMPED PRESS
Mr. ROEBUCK presented two petitions, the first from a man
named Lovete, and the-second from two persons of the names
of Cleave and Hethering. They complained that the officers
of the government had seized the presses. types, and other ma-
terials used in printing, foknd in the premises of Lovete, under
the notion that they belonged to Hetherington. The articles
in question did not belong to these parties but to a person upon
whom the crown had no right to make a seizure. Ministers had
oh this occasion acted en a bad law which that bad minister,
Pitt, had contrived in spite of the opposition of the whigs in his
day to get passed in the year 1799, for the purpose of suppress-
ing the Corresponding Society. By that law, if any printing-
press in London were not registered at the office of the clerk of
the peace, it was lawful for the officers of the government to
seize the press. Lovete had not registered his press, and the
government wishing to reach Cleave and Hetherington, had
seized the press. The law had been permitted to sleep in obli-
vion for many years. After ping at length into the particu
lars and merits of the case, Mr. Roebuck implored ministers
not to throw any damp by. their measures upon the spirit of the
people who were now rising in their favour, iby which spirit
alone they could be supported. 'When the people were ready
to support them, surely ministers would notlcast them off and
say " We will deny you the meana.of Obtaining- what you want
—cheap knowledge for yourselves and your children." The
petition having been brought up and read,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER would first treat this
matter as one of finance. As a matter of revenue, it was his
duty to see that this law, like any other of the same kind, was
not evaded in any way that he could prevent. He was bound
to do so, not only with a view to the interests of the revenue,
but in justice to those who obeyed the law, and paid the stamp-
duty, and who would be exposed to unfair competition, if such
as did not pay the duty were pefmitted to contend with them.
The fair trader had a right to claim and obtain from the govern-
ment the best protection which the law could give. (Hear,
hear.) He had then a double duty to perform in respect to this
matter; first, as regarded the public in taking came that no
fraud was permitted upon the revenue; and secondly, on the
point of principle and justice, in as far as he was bound to see
that the individuals who obeyed the laws should not be under-
sold, and thereby defrauded by persons who broke the law.
The hon. member for Bath hadstated, that in this case the go-
had displayed an unwonted degree of activity—they had been
active to a degree which they had never before shown. The
hon. gentleman's accusation was in some degree a compliment
to the present government; be, however, disclaimed any such
compliment, and utterly denied that any greater activity had
been displayed upon this occasion than had been formerly dis-
played in similar cases. No instance had been brought under
the notice of the treasury during the four years he had the ho-
nour of being connected with that department, in which the ut-
most activity was not shown on their part to vindicate the law.
This, however, was not simply a vindication of the law, but it
was an enforcement of the payment of the ordinary rights of
the crown, and it was the duty of the treasury to recover the pe-
nalties from such persons as defrauded the revenue by publish-
ing unstamped newspapers, as it was their duty to punish per-
sons guilty of a breach of the excise or custom-house laws. The
hon. member had alluded to one of the acts which bore upon
the question, and said that it had been passed in unfortunate
times arid by an unfortunate minister, and he therefore argued
that it should be differently construed from an act passed under
more favourable circumstances. He (the Chancellor of the
Exchequer) could not admit the propriety of any such distinc-
tion (hear, hear!) How could those who had the administra-
tion of the law say that such and such a law was passed in such
and such times, and under such and such a minister, and should
therefore be differently interpreted from the same act if passed
by different persons? (hear, heart). It was enough for him
that the law was the statute law of this country, and be was on
that account bound to enforce it. It might be a wise or it might
be an unwise law—that had nothing to do with the question ;
but as long as it continued to be law, nothing could be more
impolitic or dangerous than that the government should be per-
mitted to give it any interpretation different from its plain
meaning, or that they should not be hound to administer it as
the statute law of the land (hear, hear!). The petition was
laid upon the table.