The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-07-22 00:00:00

cularly what he bad said relative to the abolition of impri-
sonment for debt, which he professed, if a bill on the subject
should be brought in by Lord Cottenham, he would devote
his attention to, and give to it a full, fair, and, as he (Lord
Brougham) understood him, a favourable consideration.
He regretted, however, that the County Courts Bill was not,
in his opinion, as efficient as one he bad suggested to their
lordships some nine or ten years ago.

Lord- WYNFORD thought the country was deeply indebted
to the Lord Chancellor for these bills, which were very great
•

improvements in the present state of the law.
Lord CAMPBELL said that there were many most valuable
improvements in these hills ; yet, as a whole, he could not
approve of them. The Bankruptcy Bill he objected to, be-
cause, if agreed to, it would most certainly stand in the way
of further improvement. He could not see why an insol-
ent should be imprisoned, or why he should have his sub-
to his debts, while the bankrupt, who
larger extent, not only escaped im-
rnment, but went forth a new man, without any liabili-
hanging over him. This was unjust, and the distinction
)(lid no longer be maintained.

as indebted to a mu

The LORD CHANCELLOR replied, after which the three
bills were severally read a second time.
Some bills on the table were forwarded a stage, and their
lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—MoNDAy.

Mr. ROEBUCK, in reply to a question from an boa. mem-
er, said that the report of the committee on election com-
promises would be ready towards the latter end of the week.
Mr. IlAwgs asked for a declaration of the intentions of
the government respecting the motion relative to church
extension for the 28th instant.
Sir R. PEEL said he could not resist a motion for the con-
leration of such a subject, reserving to himself the right
idress which might be moved in the coin-
,ay that government was deeply impressed
of some such proceeding in many popu-
ring the approaching recess he would take
into consideration, and, without pledging himself
to any particular course, would intimate in the next session
of parliament the result of that consideration.
Sir R. INGLIS said that he would not press his motion,
but would leave the matter until next session in the hands
of the government.

ging of thi
1. He mu:

Lord ELIOT, in reply to a question from an hon. member,
said that the report of the census commissioners for Ireland
would be ready in ten days or a fortnight.
On the motion for the house to resolve itself into a com-

mittee of supply,
Mr. SIIEIL, in pursuance of the notice he had given,
moved for the correspondence which had taken place rela-
tive to the restoration of Mr. St. George to the magistracy,
from which he had been dismissed by the late government.
The right hon. gentleman took the opportunity thus afforded
'm of canvassing the whole of the conduct of the present
contending that the pledge given through
Sir R. Peel and Lord Eliot, that party considerations should
be disregarded in the administration of the affairs of Ireland,
had been broken, not only by the conduct of the Irish exe-
cutive itself, but by the very nature of its appointments.
The pledge had been broken also by the conduct of its sup-
porters, as evinced at the last Dublin election, and still more
•'-‘e conduct of the legal agents of the Irish government
ig juries, by challenging most respectable Catholics,
secure Protestant jurors and favourable verdicts,
-erticularly illustrated in the case of the prose-
cution or ulie p—prietor of the Belfast Vindicator.
Lord ELIOT said he was pleased that an opportunity had
at last been afforded him of vindicating the conduct of the
Irish government. He was prepared to show that both to
the letter and the spirit the Irish government had acted up
to the pledge he had given. The noble lord then contended
that the Irish government was justified in the course it pur-
sued respecting the Dublin election, and defended the con-
duct of the Crown Solicitor in Ireland, in reference to the
trials to which Mr. Sheil had drawn the attention of the
house. He explained the circumstances under which the
restoration of Mr. St. George to the magistracy took place
(which we have more than once reported as explained in the
House of Lords), and concluded by declaring that it was in-
expedient to produce the correspondence moved for.
Sir W. SOMERVILLE said, that giving all credit to the
statement of Lord Eliot, he must say that it was most unfor-
tunate that there should have been such a preponderance of
Protestants on the trials referred to. That it was a mon-
strous thing that articles published in a London paper dare
not be printed in Dublin, lest the paper should be prosecuted.
Mr. D. JACKSON denied that in the trials refered to any
jurors had been set aside because they were Roman Catho-
lics. He defended the legal appointments made by the Irish
government ; and contended that the article in the Belfast
Vindicator was calculated to disturb the peace of the coun-
try, and ought therefore to have been prosecuted.
Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL contended that the Irish govern-
ment were trying, by their prosecutions for libel, to stifle
the liberty of the press in Ireland.
Lord JOCELYN said, he had canvassed the city of Dublin,
at the last election, for Mr. Gregory, and he bad done so
without asking the sanction of, and he believed without the
wish of, the Lord Lieutenant ; but in the course of that can-
vass he neither held out a promise of reward, nor did he in-
timate that any man would lose his appointment, or would
suffer "in his business if he refused to support his hon. rela-
tive. The late government, under similar circumstances,
bad pursued a course precisely the reverse.
nr. C. BULLER said this noble lord, even though canvass-
ing in his private capacity, was still bringing to bear the in-
fluence of the grand master of the orange lodges of Ireland,
an aid that should not have been called in by a government
which professed to be impartial. He must say, with respect
to the defence of Lord Eliot, that it appeared to him that he
bad pursued a course subversive of all impartiality and of all
justice in the administration of the law. He condemned the
charge of the judge, on the trial of the libel, as being that of
a partisan, and said that the government itself was not honest
in the prosecution, or it would have so brought it as to pre-
vent any proof of the truth of the publication. It appeared
that in Ireland even trials for murder were not fairly con-
ducted. He believed, however, that the Irish government
had done itself no good by this prosecution for libel.
Sir J. GRAHAM relied upon the singleness of heart and
honesty of purpose of his noble friend Lord Eliot, as to the
pith which the affairs of Ireland would be con-
. As to the appointments made by the present go-
.nment, he must say that he never understood that poli-
tical partianship was to disqualify a person from a seat on
the judicial bench. The late government, in their Irish ap-
pointments, had made this the groundwork of their promo-
tions to the bench. The great question before the house,
however, was the administration of justice, and on this
head it would be admitted that trial by jury in Ireland was
attended with serious difficulties, and it was therefore of
great importance that the character of the government for
impartiality should be maintained. For the sake of justice,
if the right of challenge was exercised to such an extent as
was possessed by the accused, it was absolutely necessary
that the Crown should exercise a corresponding right.
Everything depended on the mode in which the right was
exercised, and in the cases referred to it had been exercised
in conformity with rules laid down before the present govern-
ment acceded to office. - Withy respect to the prosecutions for

Irish government

packi

as was more p

ropartialit

—in the case of the Newry Examiner there was no
trial, for the accused party pleaded guilty ; and as to the
other prosecution, he said, that any gentleman who read it
must be of opinion that it was not fair discussion. Its
crime was in its falshood, which, from the form of trial,
.1, but might be inferred from one party
.7, and from the conviction of the other. For
sate of the maintenance of law and order in Ireland it
necessary that these prosecutions should be instituted.
L6ril PALmERSTON said, that the present government lay
ds
" a difficulty in ruling Ireland, which was, he believed,
3u.perable, for, however anxious to do right, and to act
I.l.l!_o_tbey, found it impossible to do so, because they were
minority endeavouring in a great nation to govern the ma-
inttneto
was natural that government should, in making
ien%
_ts, look amongst their own supporters to make
a selection ; but still, be must say, that the ap-
,ments of mt.. Let.. and
,st unfortunate. _ Loy r. Sergeant Jackson were
to e did not think the mode in which the
arieS referred
accounted to hadtt been got together had been satisfac-
torily't and contended that some method should
beetle aken respecting the
of Ireland that • summoning of juries to satisfy the
istrp
ation of the law. 3"tiee might be expected in the admi-

was not at issue

. GREGORY said that if the influence of the castle in
.our of hi 3 return could have been established, the petition
against his return would not have been so readily abandoned
as it had been. He believed there4iever was an election for
intimidation and less of
Dublin in which there was less
undue influence exercised to ensures success.
Sir ROBERT PEEL said that the
(si,i.iz,. respeeting
very little to do with his motion foPreralleeof Mr. Shiel had
Mr.
sPeel) had the
St. George,
restoration of Mr. St. George. He the
, though his letter to
honour of a personal acquaintance with
the
eresent go_
more estimable no-an he did not know, and
Marquis
Lord Normanby was not to be justified.
-' was applied to for his restoration by
carde, an opponent of the present Government,
.nand
r some explanations eventually acceded to.
circumstances, he could not think that the right hon
er*
iemen would seek to have his motion confirmed by pre:
og it to a division. The right hon- baronet then proceeded
o justify the appointments in Ireland, beginning with the
Lord-Lieutenant, Lord Elliot, and the Lord Chancellor of
Ireland, and enumerating others, and put them forward as a
proof of the spirit with which he proposed to govern that
country,. With respect to one of these appointments, that
of Mr. Lefroy, he must say that his legal character was so
high, that 15 years ago he was offered a seat on the bench by
the Marquis of Wellesley, which offer was the third he had
refused. It savoured, therefore, of great intolerance to say
,e was unfitted for the bench because he had opposed
colic emancipation in 1829. His being found fault with
this account by Lord Palmerston was most singular, con-
,id elrling that he was a party to offering a Chief Justiceship
to . r. O'Connell, who was, at least, as much a partisan as
Mr, Lefroy. The right hon. baronet then spoke in the
',xis of Mr. Sergeant Jackson, and defended his

highest t

-an-lent to the vacant judgeship.
er some observations from Col. VERNER, the house
d, and Mr. Sheil's motion was defeated by a majority

n- some discussion on the propriety of adjourning, the
went into committee of supply, and a vote was agreed
the militia estimates, after which the house resumed.
other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the
adjourned.

HOUSE OF LORDS.—TUESDAY.
Lord COTTENHAM gave notice that he should, early in the
next session of parliament, move for leave to bring in a bill
to abolish imprisonment fur debt, and to provide for a cessio
bonorum, without having recourse to personal arrest.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE moved the committee on the Irish
Drainage Bill, 3 opposed by the Earl of Glengall,
• -

p ' . i .'"e
-404
- 2.
,
.: =

'Rd>,
;11.1'i