The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1852-05-11 00:00:00

ECCLESIASTICAL
The Bishop of OXFORD MO
alio MIT _I 1 • .

ms for its objec

m the old c

terence of the ecclesiastical iriuriimei“,„
ceses, and for the registration of them in ne
second time.

The Poor Relief Continuer,

B

After some furii.
house adjourned.

mittee

portant business the

FRIDAY, MAT 7.
Petitions were presented against the grant to Maynooth.
THE WAR WITH AVA.
The Earl of DERnY explained that, owing to an acci-
dent to the mail steamer between Calcutta and Bombay,
the papers asked for by Lord Ellenborough on this sub-
ject could not at present be produced.
- • --

LAW OF EVIDENCE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
This bill was read a second time.—Some other bills were
advanced a stage, and the house adjourned at half-past
five o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—TITESDAY, MAY 4.
Some private bills were read a third time and passed.
Several petitions were presented against the Militia Bill,
against Maynooth, and one from a town in Ireland pray-
ing that nunneries should be placed under the inspection
of the civil authorities.

THE BURMESE' 'WAR.
In reply to a question from Sir E. COLEBROOKE, Mr.
BERRIES stated that ail the papers connected with the
Burmese quarrel would be laid on the table as soon as the
result of the pending negotiaeons was ascertained.
SUDBURY AND ST. ALBANS.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER gave notice that
on Monday, the 10th inst., he would ask for leave to
bring in a bill to assign the seats forfeited by the disfran-
chisement of the boroughs of Sudbury and St. Albans.
THE MILITIA BILL.
The debate upon the Militia Bill was resumed by Capt.
SCODELL, who advocated naval defences and the arming
of our merchant steamers.—The house was subsequently
addressed by Sir H. Verney. Mr. G. Berkeley, Major Deres.
ford, Sir F. Baring, Mr. Charteris, and Mr. Cowber for,
and Sir De Lacy Evans, Mr. Macgregor, Mr. Hume, Mr.
Mitchell, and Mr. Clay against the measure.—Lord PAL-
MERSTON, said that, having been alluded to frequently dur-
ing this debate, he could only, in reply to these allusions,
meet assertion by counter-assertion, and opinion by
opinion. Mr. Cobden and Mr. Bright considered that
an invasion from France was an impossibility, and that,
therefore, it was the height of absurdity to make any
provision of defence. Hs, on the contrary, thought such
an event possible (to use no stronger word), and that it
was our duty to guard against such danger. The country
would judge between them. If he was wrong, and his
advice followed, at all events the country would be safe.
If they were wrong, and their advice was followed, the
country might be ruined. They, who were conversant
with peaceful arts, but knew nothing of war, or of the
means by which it might be incurred or resisted, despised
all professional authority, and wished to lull the country
into a false security. They rejected all English authority.
He (Lord Palmerston) had heard and believed an opinion
expressed by a very high foreign authority, the late King
of France, who, since his deposition, declared that his
generals had undertaken, in the event of a rupture with
this country on the Tahiti question, that in a week they
would be in London. He respected all opinions and
convictions when they were sincere, and he found such
opinions and convictions stated in a pamphlet he held in
his hand, which maintained that it was the Christian duty
of this country to submit to be conquered by France,
which would not prevent the working of our mills and
our making money. He firmly believed that this work
was written in serious and sober earnest, and that it
emanated from a party from whom much of the opposi-
tion to this bill proceeded. The Government had to
deal with two alternatives, one (as suggested by the
party he referred to) a voluntary submission on the part
of this country to its conquest by France as a just retri-
bution for engaging in war • or, if we were still wedded
to the ancient notions of self-vindication, to provide the
means by which invasion might be successfully resisted.
—Mr. WAIeLEY and Col. THOMPSON opposed the bill,
and were replied to by Mr. HENRY DRUMMOND and Lord
J. MANNERS.—Lord J. RUSSELL could not vote for the
amendment, thinking that, as the house had affirmed the
second reading of the bill by a large majority, it should
go into a consideration of its clauses in committee. He
objected, however, to the formula put by Lord Palmers-
ton, that by voting for this bill the country would be
safe, and by voting for the amendment it might be ruined.
His (Lord John's) whole objection to the bill was com-
prised in this, that it did not make us safe ; that it did
not provide the defence which the country required.
He, however, thought it better that the bill should go
into committee, though he had no sanguine view of its
being made an efficient measure, and it was probable that
next session a better system of defence might be devised
than either this bill or that of the late Government.—
Upon a division, the amendment was rejected by 285
against 76.—A second division took place upon the origi-
nal question; that the Speaker leave the chair, which was
carried by 219 against 85.—The house then went into
committee upon the bill ; and, after a sharp and protracted
discussion, the CHAIRMAN reported progress, and ob-
tained leave to sit again on Thursday.
The house adjourned at 20 minutes past 2 o'clock.
WEDNESDAY, MAY 5.
COMMITTEE ON THE BIRKENHEAD BILLS.
Mr. W. PATTEN moved for the revival of a committee
qn the Birkenhead bills, which had lapsed from the non-
attendance of a member.—The motion was agreed to.

TENANT RIGHT.
Mr. CONNOLLY resumed the debate upon the Tenant
Right (Ireland) Bill, adjourned on the 31st of March.
He contended that it contemplated a compulsory valua-
tion of lands, and compulsory interference between land-
lords and tenants, instead of the system of contracts,
depending upon mutual goodwill, existing in Ulster ;
and deplored the introduction, for electioneering pur-
poses, of a measure rending to excite religious and poli-
tical enmities.—Mr. Monsell, Mr. Moore, and Mr. Rey-
nolds supported the bill, which was opposed by Lord
Naas, Sir W. Somerville, and Lord Claude Hamilton.—
Mr. NAPIER said he had prepared the draughts of three
bills, one for consolidating and amending 70 statutes on
the subject of the relations between landlord and tenant,
a second for the classification of contracts, and the third
embodied the principle of compensation for improve-
ments. Those draughts were under the consideration of
the Government.—After a short reply from Mr. S.
CRAWYORD, the house divided, when the motion for the
second reading was negatived by 167 against 57, so that
the bill is lost.

The house adjourned at six o'clock.
THURSDAY, MAY 6.
PARLIAMENTARY OATHS.
In reply to a question from Mr. Reynolds, the CHAN-
CELLOR of the EXCHEQUER stated that it was not the
intention of government to introduce in the present ses-
sion of parliament any bill to alter the oaths taken by
members.