The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-02-08 00:00:00

OtirriltitN FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 185(i.

carried by a majority 'of 10 to 2. Mr. StOner's motion
accordingly fell to the ground.

ENDTWErS gettootS.
Mr. Stoner 1-,rought forward th6.sfolldifing motion' of
which ue had also given, notice That this board is led
to believe frorn,thn number of endowed schools and other
charities 16, this union that the rates might. be sensibly
dinantshed, and a good sound moral and religious educa-
tion may be conferred without reference to creed : That a
petition be prepared to the House of Commons setting
forth the way these charities are managed, and asking the
executive to pass an act to enable boards of guardians to
elect as many guardians as trustees, and where they are
too numerous for business they shall be reduced, as they
die oiT, to a proper amber, after which the trustees shall
elect one alternately : That these trustees shall furnish
"their accounts half-yearly to the poor law auditor who
shall audit them, having power to disallow unnecessary or
improper items."

On the suggestion of the chairman, however, Mr. Stoner
withdrew this motion for the present.
A third notice from Mr. Stoner stood also on the paper
to the effect that the board feel it is highly important to
have a chaplain appointed independently of the Vicar of
Ormsk irk.

Mr. Stoner said as the board had already been detained
a considerable time he Would postpone the latter Motion
to that day fortnight.
The board then adjourned.

IMPERIAL PARLIAM ENT,

HOUSE OF LORDS.—THURSDAY.
The Loan CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack at
five o'clock.

THE WENSLEYThALE I'AERAGE

. ,
Lord LVtinxtritsT moved that the question of the life peer-
age ccAferred Upon Sir James Parke should be referred to the
committee of privileges. Ho did not dispute the eminent ser•
vices of Baron Parke, or the right of the crown to confer the
peerage, but he thought the prerogative ought to be limited by
constitutional considerations. The right of the crown to grant
life peerages was, he said, obtained in the reign of Henry VI.,
but bad become obsolete, and ought not to be revived. If such
proceedings on the part of the crown were allowed, he feared
that the consequences would be serious, as there would be two
distinct classes of peers in the upper house of parliament, and
a new element would be introduced by subserviency to the
government.

Earl GRANVILLt, in defending the exercise of the royal
prerogative, urged that it was found expedient to strengthen
the legal representation in the house of peers. The number of
law lords was not sufficient to perform the duties that devolved
upon them ; and it was necessary to take the highest legal
opinions in that tribunal of last appeal. He had, therefore,
proved the expediency of the proceeding, and its legality
had not ' been disputed. He contended that
as it was both legal and expedient, it at once became constitu-
tional. The noble and learned lord (Lyndhurst) had imagined
an extreme case, such as life peerages being conferred upon a
regiment of Life Guards. If the exercise of the royal prero-
gative created more life peers than it was expedient to do, the
proceeding would cease to be constitutional, and it would be the
duty of their lordships to impeach the ministry.
Lord ST. LEONARDS disputed the legality of the exercise
of the prerogative of the crown in the creation of life peerages.
The LORD CHANCELLOR then spoke at considerable length,
quoting a great number of precedents and authorities to show
the legality and expediency of the course pursued by the

Lord CAMPREL supported the motion of Lord Lyndhurst,
and declared that the conduct of the Crown, in making life
peers was contrary to the law of England.
Earl GREY opposed the motion, on the ground that it was
inexpedient for their lordships to come into collision with the
Crown, and the other House of Parliament.
The Duke of ARGYLE defended, and Lords BROthallAg and
DERBY condemned the creation of life peers.
Their lordships then divided, when the numbers were :
Por the motion— Contents.... Present 70

Proxies. 59-129
Again3t the motion—Non-contents present 53

Proxies 52-105

Majority in favour of the motion ..
Their lordships adjourned at twenty minutes to three o'clock
this morning.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—THURSDAY.
The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock.
Mr. AL T. BAINES took the oaths and his seat on his re
election for Leeds.

CONSULAR ESTABLISHMENTS.
Mr. Win gave notice that in a short time he should
move for a select committee to inquire into the state of our
consular establishments abroad.

THE MONETARY SYSTEM.
Mr. MITNTZ gave notice that on Tuesday next he should
move for a select committee on the subject of our monetary
system.

THE
,CRIMEAN SANITARY COMMISSION.
Mr. LAYARD gave notice that this day fortnight he should
call attention to the report made by Sir John M'Neil and
Colonel Tullock, with regard to the army in the Crimea.

reply in detail to the statements of Capt. StortELL, denying
that theit was any partiality in the appointments' and proino-
tions in the navy. ' There was always inefficiency in the upper
ranks, while promotion was made by seniority, and the only
way to' remedy this was to promote for merit only, but the
charges made on that ground applied to the system and not to
the adrhinistraters. With regard to the efficiency of our
maritime power he referred to the Opeaations of the navy in
the East, to the transport of troops, the duties in the Pack
.Sea, and the brilliant success in the Sea of Aloft, declared
that not one man, from Sir E. Lyons down to the lowest
. seaman; had been found deficient in the performance of their
duties, and all their operations bad been crowned with success,
The promotions Made last year were as follows— CoMmanders
made by the first lord, 31 ; by the board Of admirilty for
merit only 39. Of lieutenants made by the first lord, 32;
made for merit, 110, showing a majority in each case of pro-
motions for merit. The number of commanders created last
year, 6.6—exceeded by 20 the number employed in the royal
navy, and therefore, while anxious to reward distinguished
services by pr,omotion, he would natio'

ae time find employ-
le right bon. bait.

meat tor those who were promoted
then opposed, the suggestion of Captain Scobell i-hat the bounty
should be increased, the expediency of which he disputed,
observing that beauty tended in some degree to demoralise the
Ti

men. c was no occasion now for such a step
preFent moment the government bad more men at their com-
mand than were required for the service.
Mr. BOLDER() supported the motion of his honourable an
gallant friend, on the ground that advantages had lately bee
conferred on the army that had not been extended to the navy.
A committee of enquiry could do no harm, and might be pro•
dnctive of much good.

as at the

Mr. W. LINDSAY supported the enquiry ; he did not say
that the committee would be able to do any good, but would,
at all events, to some extent put an end to the dissatisfation
--, felt out of doors on the subject. He quoted certain
a great number of officers who
ng, and they could not get employed.

Japers to show that there were

were paidlOr doh
The cons

ence was that a,great discontent prevailed
- •

Mr. Bross supported the motion for enquiry.
Sir F. BARING made some observations in defence of the

promotions %tare always t

Admiralty, whose motives in makir

srepresented

Sir CHARLES NAPIER followed
generally undeistood in the navy that out of three men pro-
moted one promotion was made by the First Lord of the
Admiralty, for political purposes. Referring to the inefficient,'
of our navy, be it observed, that never was a fleet manned as
that which left England in 1854. tt was so badly manned
that, though they succeeded in stumbling into the Cattegat,
and when they got there there came a gale of wind, and they
were unable to furl their sails. He was not running down
the navy, but he did not wish another fleet to leave these
shores in such a condition. The supply to the ships was in a
shameful condition, and the only order given by Sir J. Graham

that it was

to one of the Lords of the Admiralty, who was sent to inspect the
trash sent from the Tower was, " Don't be too narticul
The Coast Guard and Riggers in the fleet d

,served the

grePtest credit for their exertions. He never saw office
devote themselves to the discipline of their men as those who
went out with him to the Baltic, and they deserved the
greatest credit. He hoped they would get it from the present
First Lord of the Admiralty. In conclusion the gallant Ad.
miral stated his intention of voting for Captain Scobell's

motion.

Mr. B. Osnoarrit replied to some of the observations made
by Sir C. Napier, and quoted the gallant Admiral's report in
reference to the Nile and two other vessels of the Fleet,
which he' stated were in an efficient condition when they arrived
in the Baltic. Some of the speeches that had been made
that night, dealt unfairly with the British navy, which was
never, in the history of the kingdom, in a better condition
that it was at present.

Captain SCOBELL then replied, and the House divided, when
the numbers were—For the motion, 80 ; against it, 171.
Majority against the motion, 91.