The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1833-02-12 00:00:00

SESSIONAL ORDERS.

Lord ALTHORP, in proposing the sessional orders for the
present year, adverted to the great inconvenience which had
neeb found to arise out of the practice hitherto observed in. the
presentation of petitions to the abuse. To remedy this, he sug-
gested that members who had petitions to present should place
their names on the Speaker's paper, de the in diem, and that
they should be heard iu regular rotation ; •that, for this purpose,
the Speaker should take the chair each day at twelve o'ciock,
.and sit till three, for receiving petitions and despatching private
:business; that, at three o'clock, he should adjourn the house,
and that, whatever debate on a petition might happen to be at
that time before the house, should be adjourned till the next
day; that the house should re-assemble at the o'clock, when
the:orders or notices—the regular' business of the house—should
be immediately proceeded with. He said he Should also pro-
pose that a member, on presenting a petition, should haYe the
right of speaking twice, and no more ;—first, on the motion
that the petition be :laid on the.table_; and again, if he deemed
it necessary- that the petition should be printed, on moving that
question. The noble lord then moved—
" That this house do meet every day (except Saturday) at 12
.e'elock at noon, for private business and for receiving petitions,
and do continue to sit until 3 o'clock, unless sooner adjourned.

"'That at 3 o'clock precisely Mr. Speaker do adjourn the
house, and leave the chair without putting any question for
adjournment.
" That the business then before the house be taken up on the
next day, and have precedence in respect of other business of
,the same kind.
"That the house be adjourned only till 5 o'clock, and that
it do then meet and proceed. With the business set down 'in the
Order-book.

"That if a house is not formed before 1 o'clock for the sit-
ting between 12 and 3 o'clock, Mr. Speaker do then take the
flair; and if 40 members be not present, do adjourn the house
till 5 o'clock; and in like manner if the house is not formed at
fl o'clock for sitting in the evening, Mr. Speaker do then take

the chair; and if 40 members are not present, do adjourn the
house till 12 o'clock next day.
" That committees do sit from 9 o'clock till 12, and from 3
till 5.

" That no committee do sit during the sitting of the house
without the special leave of the house."
Sir ROBERT PEEL said the plan now proposed required, in
his mind, much consideration, and he hoped the noble lord
would postpone it for three weeks or a month, to give new
Members the benefit of so much experience as that period
Would probably afford; to guide them in forming a judgment
of the probabie number of petitions which were likely to come
before the house, and of the expediency of such au arrange-
ment as that now suggested, or some other that might be more
suitable.

-Mr. O'CONNELL said, that as to the number of petitions
likely to be presented this session, he could say for himself;
that he had enough to occupy a fortnight or three weeks. It
would be well to consider whether, during three days in the
week, they might not meet at 10 o'clock; and, lest there might
be a difficulty in ►nakipg a house, they should frame a law or
order, declaring that the day after the failure of collecting 40
members the house should be called over, and every member
who could not give a sufficient excuse fdr his absence should be
taken into custody. On these three days two hours might be
set apart for petitions, and from 12 o'clock to 8 might be de-
voted to public business. lie would suggest that on the alter-
nate days the house should not sit at all, but the different com-
mittees should proceed with business. An immense expense
with reference to private business would thus be saved, because
the attendance of witnesses and of legal persons would be very
much shortened. They would, by this plan, have three full
working days (not nights) in the week, and they would also
have three additional days for committees.

Lord ALTHORP was willing, after what had fallen from the
right hon. barolit, to postpone the debate, not for three weeks,
but till this day fortnight.
The debate was then postponed accordingly.
- Lord A LTHORP next moved the following resolution :—" That
when the contents of a petition have been opened, and the prayer
stated by the member who may have the chargé of such petition,
Mr.' Speaker do desire such member to bring the same to the
table, -and do then direct the clerk to read it, without allowing
any other member to speak, or putting any question upon such
petition, before the same shall have been read, unless it should
appear to Mr. Speaker, or to any member, that the matter of
such petition was in breach of the priiilege of the house, or
that, according to the rules and orders of the house, such peti-
tion ought not to be received, in which cases the question,
'That the:petition be. brought up' be put and agreed to, before
such petition be brought up."
'Which, after a few obServations from Mr. WARBURTON, Mr.
WYNN, and 31r. RoniNsoN, was put and agreed to.
The 'usual resolutions respecting election committees, peti-
tions, &c. were afterwards put and agreed to.

BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS.

Lord 'J. RUSSELL moved the following •resolution, which had
been adopted by the house four years'ago :—" That all persons
who question any future return of members to serve in Parlia-
ment upon any allegation of bribery or corruption, and who
shall in their petition specifically allege any payment of money
or other reward to have been made by any theraber, or on his
account, or with his privity, since the time of such return, in
pursuance of, or in furtherance nf, such bribery and corruption,
may question the same at any time within 28 days from the
time of such payment; or if this house be not sitting ,at the ex-
piration of the said 28 days, then within 14 days after the day
when the house shall next meet."

Mr. WASON expressed his opinion that this resolution did not
go far enough to be effectual.; and he moved• an amendment,
making parties guilty of bribe!), liable to the penalties at any
time after the return of the writ.

Mr. WARI3LIETON thought it would be improper to pass any
resolution which might expose candidates to the danger of being
compromised by the acts of other poisons.
-11M1.-O'CoNNELL said there should be no protection afforded to
bribery. According to his views, bribery by unsuccessful can-
didates should be made equally amenable to the laws. (Hear.)
He only postponed a motion on the matter until such time as
he could see how it could be best shaped.
Sir F. BURDETT entered into the views of the hon. member
for Ipswich, but recommended him to withdraw his amendment
until a more seasonable juncture for discussing it, and wished
him to add to it some proposition for extinguishing a farther
source of corruption—that of intimidation: (Cheers.) Ile
thought it also but just that, as voters were subject to an oath
in disavowal of bribery, the members should submit to the same.
(Cheers.)
Lord ALTIIORP said that for his part he would not object to
the operation of the. Bribery Act being extended to five years
were it necessary.
Mr. BALDWIN held, that the only effectual cure for theseevils
was the ballot. Ile likewise wished to see an extensions of the
right of suffrage.
Mr. WASON withdrew his amendment, and the noble lord's
resolution was put and carried.
The SPEAKER afterwards proceeded to put some of the cus-
tomary sessional orders, amongst which were the following:—
That no private bill be received. after Friday, the 22d inst.;
that no private bill be read a first time aftei Monday, the
March; that no private bill be reported after 'Monday, the 12th
May.

TUE SLAVERY QUESTION.
Mr. POWELL BUXTON said he had given notice of a motion
on the subject of slavery. He had only done so in consequence
of his uncertainty as to the intentions of his Majesty's ministers.
.He would theietore ask the noble lord what those intentions
were?

Lord -ALTHOS P said he was happy to inform the hon. gent.
that his Majesty's government had before therii a measure
which they *Mild Shortly bring forward, and which he (Lord
Althorp) trusted would prove both safe and satisfactory.
(Cheers.)
The order of the day having been read for resuming the
ADJOURNED DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS,
Mr..E. L. BLLWEI: was called for, and thereupon rose and
said,.there were some parts of the proposed address he approved;
others; with which he was dissatisfied. He sympathized in the
complaint of the hon. member for Dublin, and he thought, with
the hon. member for Knaresborough, (Mr. Richards) that the
condition of the labouring classes, and the introduction of poor
laws into Ireland, were topics which ought not to be passed over.
But at the same time he anticipated much good from the revision
of the Bank charter, from the reform of the church, 'and from
other.projecis ilhideii to. in the address. So far he was satisfied,
and would give it his support; but When he turned his eyes to
Ireland, he felt that satisfaction counterbalanced by regret. The
right hon. secretary from the hustings of Lancaster had pro-
claimed to the English people that the good they had obtained
was to be final, and the same voice bade Ireland submit to her
'grievances. What says the speech ? Mark the distinction :
that in England " the public peace has been preserved—that in
Ireland the spirit of insubordination and violence has arisen to
a 'fearful height." But why was there this difference? Why
was there good order in England, where, two years ago, half
the agricultural population were in arms? Because in England
they governed by conciliation and firmness.. And why is there
insubordination in Ireland? Because in Ireland they governed
by menaces and.weakness. And how were they going to remedy
this insithiirdination ? By a repetition of the same causes—by
a continuance of the same menaces and the same -weakness.
When the right hon. gentleman, the secretary for Ireland, at-
tempted to turn aside the effect of the member for Dublin's illus-
trations froni hiStory, by asking whether he meant to saddle the
offences of Henry \ 111. upon the present government, he per-
verted the obvious meaning of that hon. member;. what he meant
was_this—to.prove that this policy of extraordinary powers and
additional coercion was nothing new—to prove that it had been
tried for centuries, and found wanting—to prove that it had,
acrainstits feasibility, the experience of 700 years. Why is it
that these extraordinary powers have not been practicable • and
why is'it that, with so much violence, the laws have such little
strength ? Let the right hon. secretary ask the hon. member
for Leeds. He would tell him, as he told some member in the
last Parliament, why we could not .put down the Birmingham
Union, and why we could not put down the people themselves.
"'Because (he said) you cannot govern a gaßant nation by the
laws of the quarter sessions; because 'it is in vain, if you have
law on your side, if you have the people against you; because
there is Only one power that makes the law strong, ad that is,
the consent—the public opinion, of the people for whom the law
is Made." The right hon: secretary confessed that he had already
'laws sufficient to put down insurrectionary-meetings of every de-
scription. What more did he require? fie required a law that
would make those laws suffice. And did not the right hon. gent.
'know thatno law of itself would make law suffice ?—that to make
law effectual there was but one mode; and that was, to make the
people, and not the police, co-operate cheerfully to carry it into
effect? That was a principle that all statemen, from the oldest
times, had laid down. It was on that principle that a noble lord
in his Majesty's government said, that in order to put down sedi-
tion you must do what?—Put down the grievance. Why was
that principle'applicable to England and not also applicable to
Ireland? It was on that principle, too, that the hon. member for
Leeds, whom he had already quoted, made use of those words on
the third reading of the English Reform Bill—"that discontent
which the great body of the people think they have reason to
entertain cannot be put down by penal restrictions. Measures
of coercion and severity have failed former governments—they
failed Cromwell—they failed James 11. against the bishops,

and Pitt against Larne Tooke—they failed Lord Castlereagh
—and they will fail every government which shall attempt
to smother the voice of the people of England without re-
dressing their grievances." For England read Ireland ! Was
not what was applicable to one people applicable to. another ?
Where there are extraordinary grievances, the only extraor-
dinary power you should ask for is that of immediate redress.
On two points they were all agreed, and therefore he should not
dwell on them,-Ist, that there were great grievances in Ireland;
2nd, that the state of that country, was most alarming. For
this last evil—the state of the'country, what were the remedies?
The right hon. secretary told them to enforce the law by bayonets,
—the members for Ireland, with one voice told them to adapt
the law to the interest of the people. It was with this last
opinion that lie concurred, on the grounds of common sense,—
on the plainest principles of right legislation,—out of respect
to the consistency of the right hon. gentleman himself;—for in
the last Parliament, on the question of reform, what was the
cry of the Tories? Force. And by what cry did the Whigs
answer them ? Redress. Could he believe his ears, had he not
heard the right hon. secretary, never usually at a loss for words
or thoughts of his own, plagiarize from some former speech ?
From whom ? Why no less a person than the right hon. hart.
the member for Tamworth. Did not the following sentence re-
mind them of Toryism in its last cry :—" To legislate for griev-
ances in this state of things, is not to call on them to legislate,
but to crouch in submission ? How often have those very
benches thrown back that very argument by the unanswerable
reply, that the only disgrace in legislating in the midst of dis-
turbance was in the delay
.that allowed the disturbance to begin
There was one part of the address which he disliked upon con-
stitutional grounds—that part which pledged that house to sup-
port without discussion, without inquiry, indissolubly to support
the legislative union. He was against a repeal of the union;
it would be worse for Ireland than England. It should be a last
resort, it is the resort of necessity, not reason; but he was also
against the principle of pledging a deliberative assembly to re-
ject a great and solemn question without any previous delibera-
tion. If we were to be an united empire, we must not haie
separate interests—we must not have reform for England and
constabulary forces for Ireland. Did they not all feel how ge-
nerously the Irish members helped them in their reform?—
Should they repay them in the first reformed Parliament by a
donation of musketry, or a repeal of the trial by jury? He, for
one, would not consent to that requital. He would not vote un-
qualified approbation to the address, nor could he support the
vote of unqualified disapprobation of the hon. member for Ire-
land. He trusted there was a middle course left, and that his
right 'hon. friend the member for Lambeth would, as he believed
he intended, move an amendment suited to the difficulties of the
case—an amendment which should imply at least that if redress
was not to precede, it was yet to
saccompany, this grant of ex-
traordinary power. He should thus be enabled to give his vote
—not in the spirit of hostility to the English government, but in
the spirit of suspicion against the Irish government—a pledge
of his sympathy with oppression wherever it existed, and a proof
of his attachment to the union itself—a union only to be ce-
mented by convincing Ireland that we will adopt towards her
the same legislative principles we have just carried into effect
for ourselves.

Mr. STANLEY said, that he was anxious to take the first op-
portunity which had b'een offered him of explaining an opinion
which had been erroneonisly attributed to him. He never had
stated, and never could state, that the reform bill was to be the
" be-all and the end-all"•of all reform in the laws of the coun-
try. On the contrary, on the only occasion on which he made
use of any expression which could by ingenuity or perversion
be construed nito.such an absurdity, he stated that he conceived
the reform bill to•be the machinery by which other necessary
reforms were to be carried into effect: that he considered the
reform bill as ministers had considered &when they introduced
it, as being the machinery by which those reforms were to be
worked.

Here some observations of Mr. O'Connell's interrupted the
right hon. gent., and was resented by loud cries of "hear," and
"order," from all parts of the house. Mr. O'Connell rose to
explain, but the cries of "order" were renewed, and Mr. Stan-
ley proceeded.
Mr. STANLEY said—" I thank the house for giving me time
to remember that it is unnecessary to take any notice of the
lion. member." (Cheers.) The hon. gentleman then proceeded
to say, that upon the occasion referred to he stated, as minis-
ters had stated in that house, that with respect to the constitu-
tion of the House of Commons the reform bill was a complete
and final measure; but. that it was a measure by which he hoped
that an honest government, supported by the cordial concur-
rence of the people, would etiect such honest reforms and
amendments of the- law as the country might think desirable
and necessary for the welfare of the state. In that sense, and
that only, did he and could he have ever said that he hoped or
believed that the reform bill would be a final measure.

Mr. O'CONNELL begged to be allowed to say one word in ex-
planation. He declared most distinctly that ne had no inten-
t►on or idea that what he had said in answer to a question put
to him would have reached the ears of the right hon. gentleman.
He was replying to a question, (rather too loudly, it seemed,)
but he declared most solemnly that he had not the least inten-
tion of interrupting the right hon. gent. (Hear.)
Mr. TE:siNYSON said he was glad to hear the right. hon. gen-
tleman's explanation of the sense in which he had used the
term " final measure," and he was sure it would prove highly
satisfactory to the country vt large. There were other amend•.
meuts which. he, in common with the great body of the people,
regarded as necessarily consequent upon the Reform -Bill, the
vote by ballot, and the shortening of the duration of parliaments,
for instance, which he concluded, from the explanation they
had just heard, his Majesty's government did 110 U-clean to resist.
Mr. STANLEY said his meaning was again mistaken. •

Mr. TEN:vvsoN:—" In that case, the right hon. gentleman's
language is difficult of construction." He was glad that Minis-
ters meant to take the refoiin of the Church into their own
hands. He wished, however, he could have perceived by the
speech any intention to revise the articles of the Church of.
England. Although he was himself a Churchman—a member
of the Establishment—a sincere friend to it—anxious for its sup-
port, and, therefore, most anxious for its reformation as the
surest means of securing that support, he did not heiitate to say
that the religion of a State ought to be the religion of the ma-
jority. In this country, he believed, the established religion
was just the religion of the majority, and no more. Undoubt-
edly it would be well, if, by extending judiciously and wisely
the pale of the church, they could obtain a larger community.
The articles of the church were a mass of contradictions, and
they were in fact considered so by many ministers belonging to
the establishment. Would it not be prudent, then, to consider
the possibility of extending the pale of those articles of our re-
ligion; that by so doing, communities now excluded might be
induced to enter within it? He gave ministers credit for good
intentions with regard to Ireland; but he contended that the
house ought to agree to no address unaccompanied by a distinct,
declaration Oat they would immediately enter into a strict in-
vestigation'nf the causes of Irish grievances, with a view to the
application of prompt and effectual remedies; and that although
they would preserve the right of receiving petitions and discus-
sing.the question of 'Repeal of the Union, still that they
would resist all'lawless attempts to separate the two countries,
or invade' the peace • and welfare of his Majesty's -dominions.
Mr. Tennyson concluded by moving an amendment, the sub-
stance of which is embodied in the preceding sentence.

Mr. MACAULEY said that. his hon. friend, the member for
Lincoln, so ingenious in the construction of an argument, and
so successful in making a point, was sometimes not always
aware of the effect of the words which he used. His hon.
friend told the house that the government proposed coercion,
while the hon. and learned member for Dublin recommended
redress. When called. upon to choose between both, the hon.
.member for Lincoln .declared that he could not Imitate; but he
was sure that, upon reflection, his hon. friend would see that
he-and the learned member for Dublin did not attach the same
meaning to the words that the one was the to,use, and the
other had but too readily adopted. The hon. and learned mem-
ber for Dublin meant repeal of the Unior —to that his hon.
friend was adverse. When they were told that the affairs of
Ireland ought to be investigated, after the fullest inquiry, and
after the gravest debate, he could not help punting the question,
whose fault was it that they had no full anc. fo:mal debate upon
the subject? Ile demand&l to know why it was that the ques-
tion had not been fully agitated? Had not his Majesty's
government given the Challenge, and was it not fully in the
recollection of the house, that the lion. end learned member for
Dublin had addressed them for two or three hours—he forgot
how long, for no one could consider the time long while that
gentleman continued speaking; but had be not spoken for
hours, without opening the question of the Union in a manner
that could be grappled with, or indeed fairly encountered at
all? This he coda not help thinking the more remarkable,
when he remembered that that honourable and learned mem-
ber had already placed fourteen notices on the book, and that
not one of them related to the subject of the legislative union
between Great . Britain and Ireland. He had no difficulty,
then, in saying, that the honourable and learned member had
permitted judgment to go. against him by default. Honour-
able members at that side of the house (the ministerial) had
called • upon the honourable and learned member to pro-
ceed, but he had declined the invitation—he shrunk—
he skulked front the opportunity of giving effect in
that house to the doctrines which he had promulgated
elsewhere with so much vehemence, and accompanied
with so much of personal invective and objurgation.—
He would, himself, undertake to prove, whenever the clues-