The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-07-29 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-MONDAY

Sir R. PEEL said it was the intention of Government to
propose a supplementary grant of £lO,OOO, in addition to the
grant of £30,000, for the purposes of education.
Sir J. GRAHAM announced that Government were not at
present prepared to bring forward any measure as a substitute
for transportation. . . .

On the motion for the house resolving itself into a com-
mittee of supply,
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE moved for copies of the indictment,
&c., against John Mason and others, who had been tried and
convicted at the late Alidsummer ssizes for the county of
Stafford, for promulgating in lectures the doctrines of
chartisrn.

Sir J. GFAIIAM defended the proceedings of the prosecu-
tion, and opposed the motion, for he was by no means dis-
posed to convert the House of Commons into a court of re-
view of trial by jury.
A. discussion ensued, in the course of which Sir James
Graham's proposition that the House of Commons should
not be converted into a court of review, was impugned by
some hon. members, and supported by, others. Ultimately
the house divided, and Mr. Duncombe s motion was nega-
tived by a majority of 116 to 32.

On the question that the Speaker do leave the chair,
Mr. S. CRAWFORD called the attention of the house to the
distress prevailing in Ireland. He thought the corn laws had
inflicted much injury on Ireland, and as an Irish proprietor
he would say that he was willing to contribute his share to
any burden for the relief of distress so great that the poor
might perish of starvation during the recess, unless Parlia-
ment adopted some measure for their relief before the proro-
gation,

Lord ELIOT admitted the undisputed sincerity of Mr.
Crawford, who, as an Irish proprietor, had done a great deal
for the humbler classes of his fellow-countrymen. The
present distress, however, was of that usual and unfortu-
nately annual nature, arising from the condition of a potato-
consuming population, and to remedy which the government
had adopted measures of relief. In other respects Ireland
was steadily progressing in improvement, and the people
were actuated by a spirit of enterprise hitherto unknown.
Mr. O'CONNELL recommended that the motion should be
withdrawn. as at the present late period of the session no
praetical result could be expected from the motion. The
present distress was very great, arising from general want of
employment, but he was aware the government was taking
steps to alleviate the evil.
After some further discussion, Mr. S. CRAWFORD with-
drew his motion.

After some observations from Mr. HUME respecting the
distressed condition of his own constituents, the house re-
solved itself into a committee of supply, and the Irish esti-
mates were proceeded with.
Several votes in supply were agreed to, after which the
house resumed.

The Bankrupt Law Amendment Bill was brought down
from the Lords, read a first time, and ordered for second
reading on Wednesday.
The report on the Bonded Corn Bill was brought up, and
the bill was ordered to be read a third time this day.

The other orders of the day were then disposed Of, and the
house adjourned.

HOUSE OF LORDS-TUESDAY

The Duke of WELLINGTON moved the second reading of
the poor law amendment continuance bill, which bill, he said,
he had originally supported as a corrective of the great evils
of the former system, and the principle of which he should
still support, though he thought all through that many of its
details were objectionable, and ought to have been avoided.
One of these was the building of those enormous work-
houses, which had been denominated bastiles, but they had
been rendered necessary in consequence of another act of
parliament.
Earl STANHOPE said, that this bill proposed to continue
for five years powers vested in commissioners, which powers,
in the better days of British history, would not have been
tolerated for a single day. It was a bill calculated to draw
down upon the government even a greater share of odium
than that which had fallen upon their predecessors in office.
The noble earl quoted various authorities against the bill as
being unconstitutional, and amongst them that of the late
Lord Eldon, who said the poor law bill was the most infa-
mous act which had been ever passed by a Christian legisla-
ture. The bill was to be continued nominally for five years,
but no one could doubt but that the intention was that it
should be perpetual, and perpetual it would be if public opi-
nion was not concentrated against it. The workhouses, if
not actually bastiles, were prisons in respect of the seclusion
they enforced, and worse than prisons in the dietary of their
inmates. By the extension of out-door relief the framers of
the law admitted that it was impossible—that they dared not
carry out the workhouse test to its full extent; and as to the
law having been the means of raising the moral character of
the labouring classes, he need only appeal to public docu-
ments to disprove the assertion. Misery, cruelty, and
crime had been the result of the poor law bill. They might
repeal it, but they could never restore to life those who had
been murdered in the workhouses by a system quite as abo-
minable as the law itself had been described to be by Lord
Eldon. In France Charles X. had been hurled from his
throne because of ordinances which, though certainly against
the constitution, had not at the time produced any evil re-
sults; and was :it to be supposed that the triumvirate at
Somerset House would be suffered to retain their tyrannical
authority much longer? The noble earl concluded by
moving that the bill be read a second time that day six
months.

Lord BROUGHANf said, as an original promoter, and still
as a supporter of the bill from the experience of its working,
he did not think it necessary again to enterinto the question,
inasmuch as the noble earl had now adduced the same argu-
ments he had repeatedly and very ably urged on former
occasions, and to which he (Lord Brougham) had on these
occasions stated the arguments which might be urged in
reply. He could not avoid condemning the declamatory
appeals to the passions of the people indulged in by the
noble earl, and more particularly the prophecies of rebellion,
prophecies which were but too apt to produce the result to
which they pointed, and he thought in his calmer moments
the noble earl would lament that he had used language of
such a description.
The amendment of Lord Stanhope was then negatived
without a division, and the bill was read a second time, and
ordered to be committed on Thursday.
The County Courts Bill was read a third time and passed.
The Customs Acts Amendment Bill went through com-
mittee.

Some other bills on the table were forwarded a stage, and
their lordships adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-TUESDAY

Sir R. PEEL, in reply to a question from Sir F. Burdett,
seid that the Government intended to carry out the declared
intention of the late Government to have monuments
erected to the memory of Sir Sidney Smith, Lord Exmouth,
and Lord de Saumarez.

Mr. BROTIIERTON regretted to see such encouragement
given to promote and glorify the acts of war in opposition to
those of peace.

Mr. HAWES said that whenever the proposition should be
brought forward he would move as an amendment, that
monuments be erected to the memory of Watt and others,
who were men of science.

On the third reading of the Colonial Passengers' bill,
Mr. HAWES contended that under the present measure
there was a chance of reviving the slave trade under another
name, and that without any such measure the West Indies
were progressing by their own energy and exertions, and
required no such adventitious aid. The hon. member con-
cluded by moving the omission of the clause relating to the
transportation of labourers into these colonies.
Mr. BANKES contended for the necessity of the immigra-
tion of East India labourers, and said there could be no
doubt but they would meet with sufficient protection.
Mr. V. Smarr supported, though not without some
hesitation, the experiment proposed by the bill.
After some discussion, Mr. MANGLES contended that the
immigration of hill coolies would be equally beneficial to the
colonies and to the immigrants themselves.
Mr. HOGG had no objection to East India labourers going
where they pleased to obtain employment, provided their
emigration was voluntary ; but he believed the great majority
of them were trepanned, knowing nothing of where they
were going to, or the nature of the labour they would have
to undergo. What he would like to see would be the adop-
tion of some regulations by which, before they left their vil-
lages, they might be enabled to judge of the nature of the
engagement they were about to enter into. He hoped the
house would he cautious of passing the measure, and asked
how we could hope that foreign nations would fall into our
views with respect to the abolition of the slave trade when
they saw us passing a measure so very like the slave trade in
its operation, if not so in its principle.
coolies
dSTANLEY stated the way in which the export of bill
from India first originated and the measures which
it had been found necessary to take in order to remedy some
very flagrant iibauses which arose out of their export to the
respect to the
prove beneficial t
Mauritius.
to tect whom
.13defended the course he had pursued with
1, which he contended was calculated to
SiSir R. INGEI% o the colonies as well as to the labourers,
but he felt that it
pportePdrev
Ty sufficient arrangements were provided.
they would all wish °toula
wegretted to be obliged to oppose the hill,
open the door to a system which
After some further ent the introduction of.
discussion
third reading of the bill.
Mr.
some supported
oiniatwheeshwoauss e
negatived
by anad thema-
The .
amendment proposed by
The bill was then read a third
jority of 118 to' 4.
time and passed.
The Assessed Taxes bill was read a third time and passed.
Some other business was disposed of, and the house ad-
journed.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.--WanNEs ~,
Mr. ROEBUCK stated the nature of the resoluntiti report
s
were
t
which
he meant to propose to-morrow, arising out of
of the election compromises committee. That they
the effect thatif the house were to pass over the circumo
_
stances disclosed before the committee, without punishin-
the parties guilty, the house would be thereby brought int'o
contempt—that the practices there revealed were a violation

of the rights of the people, and of the privileges of the houses
and that no writs should be issued for the tainted borough ;
until time should be given for legislative proceedings respect-

ing them

On the order of the day being moved for the committee
on Bribery at Elections Bill,
Mr. MACKINNON moved that the bill be re-committed that
day six months, but after a few words from Sir R. Peel, he
withdrew his motion, and the house went into committee on
the bill.

In the course of the discussion of the clause respecting

treating,

Sir R. PEEL coqdemned the practice as being more de-
grading than even bribery itself, and which gave the rich
candidate a decided advantage over his poorer rival. It was
a practice which the house should endeavour to grapple with
and put down as a most pernicious in its effects.

A discussion also arose on the clause giving power to ex-
amine members themselves and their agents, whether profes-
sional or otherwise, as to bribery or treating. It was con-
tended, that confidential professional agents could not be ex-
amined according to the existing rules of evidence, and the
agent employed to defend a petition might come within this
rule, but that the agent employed to conduct the election
could not be considered in the same light. Ultimately, an
amendment moved by the Attorney-General was agreed to,
the effect of which was, that they might be examined, sub-
ject to the ordinary rules of evidence.

The house at one time became so thin that an hon. mem-
ber moved that it should be counted. It was counted ac-
cordingly, but there were 40 members in the house.
Sir R. INGLIS said they had now been several hours in
the committee without making any progress, and at so late a
period of the session it was hopeless it could be carried into
a law, and he, therefore, suggested that the bill should be
postponed until next session.
Sir R. PEEL said the bill was of too much importance to
be postponed. He thought it was important; not only gene-
rally that it should be proceeded with, but it was important
also in reference to certain events which might occur during

the recess.
The discussion then proceeded

On the proposition of clause 5, which provides that on a
petition being presented alleging bribery, the same should be
prosecuted at the public expense ; but that if such petition
should he declared frivolous and vexatious, the party pre-
senting it should be liable to the costs ;
Mr. DARBY opposed the clause, as calculated to give rise
to an endless presentation of petitions.
After some discussion, the committee divided on the clause,
which was carried by A majority of G 2 to 15.
Considerable discudsion arose on the clauses establishing a
mixed commission of members of both houses to take evi-
dence as to bribery; it being contended by Mr. Escott and
Mr. Mackinnon that the House of Commons was, by agree-
ing to the clause, surrendering one of its most valuable pri-
vileges, that of being the judge in matters relating to its
own members. On the other hand, it was explained by Mr.
Aglionby that the object of the mixed commission was to
save the time and expense now incurred in the House of
Lords, by rendering it necessary for them to hear over again
the very same evidence previously adduced before the House
of Commons. Both houses would, by the proposed plan,
be bound as to the facts of any case of disfranchisement
coming before parliament by the evidence taken before the
commission ; and thus, when the bill went from the House
of Commons to the House of Lords, their lordships might
at once proceed to legislate.
The clause was opposed by Mr. O'CoNNELL and Mr.
ROEBUCK, the latter gentleman urging the postponement of
the establishment of the commission on the ground that the
proceedings in all cases arising out of contested elections
should be tried by a court far above and beyond the reach
of party-spirit, which this mixed commission would not be.
Sir R. INGLIs concurred in all that bad fallen from Mr.
Roebuck, and was of opinion that those cases should be
transferred to an external tribunal.

Sir R. PEEL did not think there was any surrender of the
privileges of the house in the appointment of this commis-
sion, and he did not, therefore, see any objection to the
principle upon which it was to be established. It generally
happened under the present system that the greater part of a
session was occupied by a Disfranchisement Bill in the Com-
mons, where evidence was not taken upon oath, and the bill
was, probably, sent to the Lords in the month of June.
That was too late a period of the session for the other house
to hear evidence, and the bill, for that session, was usually
lost ; and before the ensuing session the opinions of parties
in the borough who had prosecuted the bill had, perhaps,
undergone a change, and then the bribery escaped punish-
ment altogether. This would not be the case if the House
of Lords had all the materials of legislation before them when
the bill was sent up from the Commons.
Mr. BERN AL opposed the clauses, and suggested their
postponement, as it was impossible that provisions of such
magnitude and importance could be carried this session.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE recommended Mr. C. Buller to hand
the bill over to Sir R. Peel, for he certainly appeared to un-
derstand it better than any hon. member in the house, and
was dealing with it in a spirit of the utmost fairness. He
supported the clauses as they stood.
After some further discussion,
Mr. C. BULLER said he was undecided as to the course
he should pursue in respect to these clauses, and should
therefore like to see the house express a decided opinion
upon the subject.
Sir R. PEEL said that the session was so far advanced that
it might perhaps be better, as there was so much difference
of opinion upon their expediency, to abandon the clauses
relating to the mixed commission for the present session,
and proceed with the remainder of the bill.
Mr. C. BULLER assented, and all the clauses from 14 to
25, both inclusive, were struck out.
On the 26th clause, compelling parties to answer all ques-
tions put to them, even though they might criminate them-
selves.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL opposed the clause, on the
ground that it broke down all the established principles of
criminal law in this country. He was aware. that the next
clause contained a prospective indemnity, but here his ob-
jection was equally strong, for he conceived it to be most
imprudent to hold out a prospective indemnity before the
commission of the crime.

Mr. O'CONNELL said that an enactment had passed the
House of Commons last year precisely similar in its nature,
though it was mangled by a noble lord in the other house of
Parliament, who had cut the bill altogether down to two
clauses. He looked upon the bill as completely worthless
without the clause, though with it its efficiency would be
very great for the object in view.
After a discussion ofsome length, in which Lord PALMER-
STON, Sir W. FOLLETT, and other hon. members took part,
the committee divided, and the clause was negatived by a
majority of 80 to 39.
The 27th and 28th clauses were after some discussion,
about to be withdrawn by Mr. C. BULLER, but Mr. S.
CRAWFORD insisted upon a division, which accordingly took
place, and the clauses were negatived by a majority of 70 to
28.

The remaining clauses being disposed of, the house resu-
med, and the bill, as amended, was ordered to be printed,
and that the report should be re-considered on Friday.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the
house adjourned.