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

firtptrial Varitaiurnt.

HOUSE OF LORDS.-MONDAY

.., tits intention to have proceeded
ing of the Baptists' Affirmation bill,
~n he confined the measure to the
en its principle was equally applicable to every
christians. This objection was so just, that he
give no valid answer to it, and for the present,
would withdraw the bill, for the purpose of in-
e which would include in its operation all anis-
! a conscientious objection to the taking of an

I was accordingly withdrawn

I, iv BROUGHAM then moved that a message be sent to
the Hou-e of Commons, requesting copies of the reports and
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
'fed upon to legislate in consequence of those reports, and
therefore advisable that their attention should be
Jrned to the subject as early as possible. The noble lord
-11 condemned the present mode of trying election peti-
,, which proved by the results that the decisions invaria-
nt in accordance with the political feelings of the ma-
e next adverted to a plan, suggested by the Duke
wbo had asked him to throw it into the shape
if adopted would, be thought, have given
mirable tribunal for trying those petitions. The plan
his :—a tribunal should be formed, at the head of
should be one of the judges__ of the land, having no

d which

e court, which

n either house of parliament: He would preside over
_ .7ould 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
Lard entered

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 WICKLOW 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 BROUGHAM then withdrew his motion, and the house
adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS--MONDAY.
Mr. T. DUNCO3fBE presented the " national petition

wilier) was brought
Speaker took the
obliged to be ret
Tete

~to the body of the house before the
.fair. It was an enormous affair, and was
..loved piecemeal by several of the messen-
who were even in that way a considerable time in tak-
The hon. member gave notice that be would
ollowing evening call the attention of the house to the

1g it aw

meters 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
progress in the course of the evening.

• Mr. firma 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 EYCHEQUER 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 fundholder 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 public 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 his income from this country should be liable to the
tax.

Mr. LAROCCHERE 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. Humz 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 foJeigners 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 arpital into this country.
Mr. MASTZRMAN thought the foreigner ought in justice
+G 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
s motion was negatived by a majority of 203 to 40.
g got as far as the 88th clause of the bill,

l'he house havi

orders of the day were then disposed of, and the

Ijourneu

HOUSE OF LORDS.—TUESDAY.
BROUGHAM presented a petition from the provisional
,he National Complete Suffrage Union, praying
it suffrage, annual parliaments, vote by ballot, and
lification should be required for members elected
Commons. As the petition was signed
hoped their lordships would not think
n he proposed it should be read

Do much

as accordingly read at the table.
.be Queen's Prison Bill was brought up by
SHArrEssuay, after which their lordships ad-
led until Friday.

HOUSE OF COMMONS,—TUESDAY.
eplv to a question from Mr. Humx, as to whether
,rain Elliot was appointed as British consul at Texas,
Sir R. PERc replied, that he was appointed as consul at
s. but that he was detained in London in order to give
'tanations respecting the transactions at Hong-Kong.
-mild not commence until he departed for Texas.
''en called the attention of the house
and expressed the thanks of the
people for the respectful manner in which it had been re-
hon. member put forward various precedents
petitioners might be heard at the bar of the
in support of the allegations contained in their peti-
,on ; and then gave a sketch of the progress of parliamentary
retorm, which might be considered identical with the chartism
the present day, for in each case the principle was the
It was not to be denied that the Reform Bill was a
that the present House of Commons was even
l than the unreformed house to support class
ieittslation. He feared that a large majority of the house
would not assent to the allegations contained in the petition.
F's,r his own part, he did not agree to all of them, but still
he 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. BOWRING 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. T:DUNCOMBE

)nal pet

w that the

more dispos

Mr. FIELDEN 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. EASTHOPE said, he bad, 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 a 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
struggling, but believing that the avowed
political objec:s 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
ere - strongly opposed to the prayer of the petition. He
Jrdi , agreed with some of the principles contained in the
sham . . such as vote by ballot, and the abolition of a property
quAlhication for IM embers of Parliament; but he was opposed
to ,iniversal suffrage, because he believed that its adoption
Auld shake the security of property. There were contained
.n the petition opinions which, if carried out, would not only
lead to the extinction of the national debt but would involve
mfiscation of property. If the petitioners ob-
eans of what they asked for, little less than ab-
, they would proceed, by means of universal,
~iiversal spoliation, until the projects of ameliora-
-cd in total ruin, and perhaps the erection of a military
tiara on the wreck of our liberal institutions.
r'nestroc would not judge of the working classes of
•••c• the trashy document before the house, nor by
• - demagogue who drew it up ; but he would
'•• patience under suffering, and by the
"els in all parts of the world enabled
~ the people of England and those of
rle should vote for the motion of the hon.
..nsbury, because be supported the charter, and
believed it it were granted the representatives of
tle would be chosen from the wealthy, the educated,
the influential classes of the community. He could not
Pn`y Mr. MacauleY the estimate he formed of the people of
"gland; for his
own part be bad a better opinion of them.
didbeadto not think that entrusting them with power would
he
burgh. t rdPine anticipated by the bon. member for Edin-

petitioners were

therefore

a sweeping

suffrfigt, t

Lord F. EQRATO
r N opposed the prayer of the petition, and
said he thoght M.
fairness by umi.. itc.thalc,a uley had not been used with perfect
Mr' II AwEs said Mr. Roebuck had relieved him from all
difficulty as to his vote, for he had said that the vote on this
question was to be considered as a vote for or against the
charter, and to the charter he could not give his support, for
;l
he was opposed to ally such indefinite extension of the suf-
,s was prayed for by the petitioners. He was not op-
a gradual extension of the suffrage, but in the pre-
sent state of the education of the people,he believed a sudden
such as that soughtfor, Would lead to mischievous

frage a:
posed t

people of England, if entrusted
upje denied that the
vl r.
would be likely to turn it, as supposed by the
power,
p rp es of spol►ation.y By
;,er for Edinburgh, to u os
prayerthe
of the petitioners they were trespassing
iie,irance, and inciting the revolution Which they

to apprehend
t!ld have
:LEY heard with great regret the speech"
of 'l*-
little thought that such a speeeli
)in a metropolitan member. The de
of
England given by the hon. member for EPti"
ely frightful. Where were our army daihna-
Were they cowardly, treacherousHe denied that the question was a4",-;
of the charter. He was himself in favour
!nts, and could not therefore vote for the
the question before the house was simply
.7ould not hear 3,000,000 of their fel-
he house to point out the grievances
1

at the same time
bhorrence for the