The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-05-06 00:00:00

*mptriat parliament.

HOUSE OF LORDS.—MONDAY.
Lord DENMAN said it was his intention to have proceeded
wan the second reading of the Baptists' Affirmation bill,
baz he had been asked why he confined the measure to the
Baptists, when its principle was equally applicable to every
otEeer sect of christians. This objection was so just, that he
fell he could give no valid answer to it, and for the present,
therefore, he would withdraw the bill, for the purpose of in-
troducing one which would include in its operation all chris-
tians having a conscientious objection to the taking of an

oath.
Toe bill was accordingly withdrawn.
Lnrd BROUGHAM then moved that a message be sent to
the House of Commons, requesting copies of the reports and
of the evidence taken before the elections committees which,
adjudicated on the petitions from Ipswich, Sudbury, and
Great Marlow. It is probable that their lordships would be
called upon to legislate in consequence of those reports, and
it was therefore advisable that their attention should be
turned to the subject as early as possible. The noble lord
then condemned the present mode of trying election peti-
tions, which proved by the results that the decisions invaria-
bly went in accordance with the political feelings of the ma-
fority. He next adverted to a plan, suggested. by the Duke
of Wellington, who had asked him to throw it into the shape
of a bill, and which if adopted would, be thought, have given
an admirable tribunal for trying those petitions. The plan
was this :—a tribunal should be formed, at the head of
which should be one of the judges of the land, having no
seat in either house of parliament. He would preside over
the court, which would be a sort of jury composed of seven
members of the House of Commons and five of the House
of Lords ; and their verdict in any subsequent proceedings
for the disfranchisement of any borough for bribery should
be taken as conclusive of the facts. The noble and learned
lord entered at great length into the advantages of his plan,
as compared with the present system, and concluded by
moving that the message should be sent.
A. conversation arose as to whether the House of Com-
mons would be likely to send an answer to a message which
they might deem an interference with their privileges. It
was suggested by the Lord Chancellor that it would be better
not to risk the experiment, and Lord Canterbury, while
warmly supporting the views taken by Lord Brougham,
thought it would be unadvisable to risk sending the message
to the House of Commons, more particularly as it would not
tend to advance the object which his noble and learned friend
wished to see carried out.
The Earl of Wrcictow hoped that the noble and learned
lord would again bring the motion forward, should any bill
come before them from the House of Commons for the dis-
franchisement of any borough.
Lord BRO UGH AM then withdrew his motion, and the house
adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—MONDAY.
Mr. T. DUNCOHHE presented the " national petition,"
which was brought into the body of the house before the
Speaker took the chair. It was an enormous affair, and was
obliged to be removed piecemeal by several of the messen-
;era, who were even in that way a considerable time in tak-
ing it away. The bon. member gave notice that he would
on the following evening call the attention of the house to the
matters contained in it.
The house then resolved itself into a committee of the
whole house upon the Income Tax Bill.
The committee began with clause three, and made rapid
prpgress in the course of the evening.
Mr. Hintz moved that the dividends on stock accruing
in April should be exempted from the tax, as otherwise the
fundholders would have to pay the income tax one quarter
before it was collected from the rest of the community,
The CHANCELLOR of the EYCHEQUEIL said if they were
not to commence to tax the dividends until July, the result
would be that they would be obliged to collect the tax from
the fnndholder three months after the expiration of the tax
as applied to other classes.
Upon a division, Mr. Hume's motion was negatived by a
majority of 159 to 84.
Mr. F. BARING moved a resolution to the effect that the
income tax should not be levied on the dividends derived
from the pnblic funds by foreigners residing abroad.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER opposed the mo-
tion, and said he thought it perfectly right that a foreigner
deriving hia income from this country should be liable to the
tax. _ __ _ .

Mr. LABOTTCHERE supported the motion of Mr. Baring.
Sir R. PEEL could not see why foreigners should be ex-
empted from this tax, or why they should profit by the im-
provement of the funds in consequence of this tax being re-
sorted to, and yet be exempted from contributing his share
of the very impost by which stability was given to his invest-
ment. _ _ _ _ • _ _ .

Mr. HUMS contended that it was a breach of faith to tax
the funds at all, but if the tax was to be laid on he could not
see why a distinction should be made between fo.ieigners and
Englishmen, and he could not, therefore, support the motion
of Mr. Baring.
Mr. J. A. SMITH supported the motion, on the ground
that we should do nothing which would have the effect of
interrupting the constant flow of sprital into this country.
Mr. M ASTZRMAN thought the fa reigner ought in justice
to be taxed as well as any other holder of the public funds.
After a few observations from Mr. HAwEs.
Mr. F. BARING replied, and the committee divided, when
biz motion was negatived by a majority of 203 to 40.
The house having got as far as the 88th clause of the bill,

er orders of the day were then disposed of, and the

adjourned

HOUSE OF LORDS.—TUESDAY.
BROUGHAM presented a petition from the provisional
of the National Complete Suffrage Union, praying
ersal suffrage, annual parliaments, vote by ballot, and
qualification should be required for members elected
the House of Commons. As the petition was signed
),000 people, he hoped their lordships would not think
asking too much when he proposed it should be read

petition was accordingly read at the table.
The report to the Queen's Prison Bill was brought up by
e Earl of SHATrzssuRY, after which their lordships ad-
;riled until Friday.

HOUSE OF COMMONS,—TUIESDAY.
In reply to a question from Mr. Humu, as to whether
Captain Elliot was appointed as British consul at Texas,
Sir R. PEEL replied, that he was appointed as consul at
Teals, but that be was detained in London in order to give
some explanations respecting the transactions at Hong-Kong.
His salary would not commence until he departed for Texas.

Mr. T. DUNCOMBE then called the attention of the house
to the national petition, and expressed the thanks of the
people for the respectful manner in which it had been re-
ceived. The hon. member put forward various precedents
to ,how that the petitioners might be heard at the bar of the
house in support of the allegations contained in their peti-
tion ; and then gave a sketch of the progress of parliamentary
reform, which might be considered identical with the chartism
of the present day, for in each case the principle was the
same. It was not to be denied that the Reform Bill was a
failure, and that the present House of Commons was even
more disposed than the unreformed house to support class
legi.lation. He feared that a large majority of the house
would not assent to the allegations contained in the petition.
Fur his own part, he did not agree to all of them, but still
be was of opinion that the petitioners ought to be heard by
counsel at the bar of the house. _ .

Mr. LEADER seconded the motion with much gratification,
and contended for the sincerity of the petitioners in the ob-
jects which they were endeavouring to carry out.
Dr. BORRING said, that this petition was the most nu-
merously signed that had ever been presented to the house,
and he believed that all its allegations might be sustained by
evidence.

Mr. FIELDICH hoped that the olive branch would be held
out to the people, and that they might be heard by counsel
at the bar of the house.
Sir J. EASTROPI said, he had, on a former night, opposed
the motion of Mr. S. Crawford, because he thought it pledged
the house to what was termed " chartism." This, however,
was 9 different motion; and though he differed from many
of the allegations of the petition, still he dared not say to
3,000,000 of his fellow-subjects that they ought not to be
heard at the bar of the house in support of their allegations.
Sir J. GRAHAM admitted the distress under which the
petitioners were struggling, but believing that the avowed
political objects of the petitioners would lead to disastrous
consequences, he felt bound to resist the motion, more par-
ticularly because, if carried, it could only lead to delusion.
Mr. MACAULEY was strongly opposed to the charter, and
therefore strongly opposed to the prayer of the petition. He
cordially agreed with some of the principles contained in the
charter, such as vote by ballot, and the abolition of a property
qualification for Members of Parliament; but he was opposed
to universal suffrage, because he believed that its adoption
would shake the security of property. There were contained
in roe petition opinions which, if carried out, would not only
lead to the extinction of the national debt but would involve
a sweeping confiscation of property. If the petitioners ob-
tained, by means of what they asked for, little less than ab-
so!ote power, they would proceed, by means of universal
suffrage, to universal spoliation, until the projects of ameliora-
tion elided in total ruin. and perhaps the erection of a military
d"soutisio on the wreck of our liberal institutions.
Mr. ROEBUCK would not judge of the working classes of
till. country by the trashy document before the house, nor by
the eondtict of ;be demagogue who drew it up ; but he would
ju'lge of them by their patience under suffering, and by the
ek,a;airison which his travels in all parts of the world enabled
biro to draw between the people of England and those of
u.her countres. He should vote for the motion of the hon.
aimber for Finsbury, because he supported the charter, and
because he believed it it were granted the representatives of
the people would be chosen from the wealthy, the educated,
and th‘.e influential classes of the community. He could not
egY, Macauley the estimate he formed of the people of
~,f1111; for his own part he bad a better opinion of them.
lead to thT'eot think that entrusting them with power would
burgh. rapine anticipated by the hon. member for Edin-
burgh,

-
Cord F. EGR.
said he thought TN opposed the prayer of the petition, and
fairness by Mr. Iter.e Mae auley had not been used with perfect
Mr. HAwxs saidhcit.
difficulty as to his vOtir. Roebuck had relieved him from all
question was to be
considered
for he had said that the vote on this
charter, and to eau a
nrtseidered as a vote for or against the
be was opposed to y
surd,le could not give his support, for
as was prayed for by
the petitioners.
extension of the suf-
frageetitioners. He was not op-
posed to a gradual extension ol'
sent state of the education of the suffrage, but in the pre-
extension, such as that sought for, he believed a sudden
t would lead to mischievous

.HUME denied that the people
Baer, would be likely to turn it, England, if entrusted
they were .3'
evolution
,e no' er for Edinburgh, to purrnmit, as supposed b
ig the prayer of the petitioner:et of spoliation y the
trespassingwhich
r forleearance, and inciting the r
!d to apprehend. they
speech of Mr.
WAKLEY heard with great regret tpheeee!
and little thought that such a s
ed from a metropolitan member. The"dev"hi have
pie of England given by the hon. member for of
frightful. Where were our army -,,'`1,T,;,,,-
r .3', absolutely
,ken from ? Were they cowardly, treacherous, -,-1
was base ? He denied that the question was "aye"
"in favour of the charter. He was himself in favour-e"
~,l pat !laments, and could not therefore vote for the
rt,..7- ; but the question before the house was simply
. rt.; would or would not hear 3,000,00 of their fel-
it ,ts at the bar of the house to point out the gr

C 'O, whleh they laboured.
his a
I, ...d J. RUSSELL felt bound to cressbhaotrtrlelencseamibertitnhlee
14.4 re.pect for the petitioners and.
He did not believe
^.eiriri,,s emitained in their petition.
fflr a oionieut that
by aceed-
of by the peti-
the grievances complained
ti ...ers would he in the slightest degree. remedied. be the
itt ~, the priyer of their petition, while it would
p.711a1 -or a .teneral panic, and cause an immediate transfer
40 0110taf from this to other countries, and thus
Thinking
the dts-re.s so forcibly set forth in the petition.
de
a` h- iid' that the question before, the house was that . .
au..rib:d by Mr. Roebuck, " aye" or " n 0,,, for or against
411- barter, he should give his v,te against the motion in
si.e 1,-,1 member for Finsbury.
',ir li PEEL said that, even if the question was not as to
t i•• a hey of tra,ting the charter, still he should oppose the
in J!io,i fir head g the petitioners by their counsel or agents
at the bar in support of these allegations. He thought it
more honest to tell the petitioners at once that they could
nw be heard at the bar, rather than, by hearing them. to
i,v,lten hopes which must inevitably end in delusion. The
oe-iit.ni .as an impeachtnent of the whole constitution of the
a •,in'.ry ; sod was lie to be called upon to suspend all the
.., • , ~,-s ',l. the country to enter upon an inquiry like this,
which must terminate in nothing? It was far more honest
to tell them at once that their prayer could not be listened

to than to bear them first and then tell them that their argu-
ments had made no impression upon his mind. To adopt
the principle of universal suffrage would be to establish a
democracy on the ruins of the mixed monarchy under which
this country had, for 150 years, enjoyed more substantial
happiness than had ever fallen to the lot of any other nation.
Mr. MUNTZ said he voted for the motion simply because
it was one of inquiry, and he could not make up his mind to
refuse inquiry when he heard of the state of suffering in
which such an enormous number of his fellow-subjects were
struggling. _ _ .

Mr. OSWALD said he would be no party to the delusion
of hearing the petitioners at the bar of the house, when he
knew such a proceeding could lead to no beneficial results

Mr.VILLI-ERS suppYorted_the motion of Mr. Duncombe

Lord CLEMENTS opposed the motion.
Mr. O'CONNELL supported the motion, because he was
an advocate for universal suffrage ; but he could not in any
way identify himself with the petition.
_ _

kr. DUNCOMBE replied, after which the motion was nega-
tived by a majority of 287 to 49.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and
the house adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—WEDNESDAY.
When the order of the day was moved for the second
reading of the Church Patronage (Scotland) bill,
Sir J. GRAHAM said, that, owing to the division which had
heretofore prevailed in Scotland upon this question, govern-
ment had felt that it would be useless to bring forward any
measure with a hope that it would lead to reconcilement of
the differences which prevailed. Now, however, matters
wore a different aspect, and, from the communications which
had taken place between the government and influential par-
ties in Scotland, he had reason to hope that some healing
measure might be now advantageously adopted. Under
these circumstances he would ask the hon. member who had
charge of the bill, to postpone its second reading, in order
that government might have time to consider of the proper
course to be pursued ; and if in a reasonable time govern-
ment should not be prepared with a measure, the hon. mem-
ber would, of course, be at liberty to proceed with his own.
Mr. CAMPBELL said that, under these circumstances, he
should postpone the second reading of his bill for six weeks.
Mr. F. MAULE was opposed to the postponement, believ-
ing that the measure which the government intended to in-
troduce would be the same as had formerly been brought
before the other house of parliament by Lord Aberdeen,
upon which the opinion of the people and of the church of
Scotland had been already unequivocally expressed. He
should therefore move that the bill be then read a second
time.
Mr. PLUMPTRE supported the postponement.
After some discussion, in which Mr. Campbell, Mr. Coch-
rane, Mr. P. M. Stewart, and Mr. Wallace took part,
Sir R. PEEL said that it was a most unprecedented thing
to move the second reading of a bill after the hon. member
whose bill it was announced his intention of postponing it,
and in the present instance it was the more strange on the
part of Mr. Fox M rule to attempt to force on legislation
upon the subject, when it was recollected that he had been
for five years in office without attempting to do anything
whatever to put an end to the dissensions which prevailed.
After some further discussion the house divided, and the
postponement of the bill was carried by a majority of 131
to 48.
The Public-house bill was re-committed pro forma, with
a view to introduce some amendments, after which it was
ordered to be read a third time on Wednesday week.
After some other bills had been disposed of, the house
adjourned.