The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1847-07-20 00:00:00

HOUSE OF LORDS.-TUESDAY

The Militia Ballot Suspension Bill was read a third time
and passed.

SEDUCTION AND PROSTITUTION BILL

The Bishop of NORWICH moved the third reading of
this bill, but afterwards withdrew it on the suggestion of
Lord Brougham, Lord Denman, and Lord Campbell, who
contended that the legislature could not beneficially inter-
fere more than it did at present for the prevention of the
trade in prostitution.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

-TUESDAY

The ianChe;teißishopric Bill was read the second
time. _ _ _

Mr. T. BARING presented a petition from bankers, mer-
chants, and traders in the city of London, referring to the
distress with which the commerce of the country had been
and was still afflicted, and attributing a great deal of the
unnecessary pressure arising from that distress to the ac-
lion of the present Bank Charter Act. The petition con-
cluded by suggesting as a remedy that a relaxing power
should, in certain emergencies, be entrusted to the exe-
cutive government, and that the Bank of England should
have the power of issuing notes on silver bullion. It bad
been intended to found a motion upon this petition, but
that intention had been, for the present, relinquished, the
petitioners not wishing to make so important a matter the
object of a party struggle. It was his design to have
moved that the petition be printed with the votes, but as-
certaining that that could only he done on the understand-
ing that a motion would be founded upon it during the
present session, he had abandoned that intention. He
also observed that the petitioners stated that they could
see no guarantee against the speedy recurrence of a simi-
lar, if not of a still greater pressure, but in a change of the
Bank Charter Act.

The Poor Removal Bill, No. 2, was thrown out by 44

The Poor Removal Act Amendment Bill was read the
third time and passed.
The other business was unimportant.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

-WEDNESDAY

Mr. T. DUNCOMBE on moving the second reading of
the Collieries Bill, observed, that he had introduced it in
consequence of the rejection by the house of a larger mea-
sure on the same subject. The present bill only applied
to the " firing collieries" of Lancashire and Staffordshire,
where gunpowder was still employed for blasting the coal,
although they were so dangerous that the safety-lamp was
always used within them. His object was to protect the
workmen from the danger arising from this practice.
Sir G. GREY regretted that Mr. Duncombe had proposed
a bill of this character at so late a period of the session,
after the very decisive opinion which the house had already
pronounced on this subject. He believed that legislation
upon it, however desirable, would be very dangerous at
this moment ; for as yet sufficient time had not been given
for consideration and inquiry. He requested Mr. Dun-
combe to withdraw the bill for the present, and said that,
if Mr. Duncombe would not accede to his request, he
must move that his bill be read a second time that day
three months.

A
conversation of some length then took place, in which
Mr. Patten, Mr. Liddell, Mr. Newdegate, Mr. F. Maule,
Mr. Trelawny, and Mr. Forster, opposed; and Mr. Wak-
ley, Mr. Fernand, Mr. It. Yorke, and Mr. Bouverie sup-
ported the measure. Mr. Hutt, Mr. Bernal, Mr. Hind-
ley, and Mr. Escott, unwilling to condemn, and afraid to
support it, took a middle course, and suggested to Mr.
Duncombe to withdraw it ; but Mr. Duncombe was not
to be wheedled out of his bill. He pressed it to a division,
when the numbers were—
For the amendment
Against it
Majority in favour of the amendment
So the bill was lost.
*Sir D. L. Evans then moved the second reading of the
Parliamentary Electors Bill, stating that the object of it
was to give six additional months for the payment of rates
and taxes, as a preliminary to the registration of the
elector.
Mr. NEWDEGATE objected to the bill, on account of
the circumstances and the period of time at which it was
brought forward. Two bills on this subject, one intro-
duced by Mr. Walpole, and the other by Lord J. Russell,
had been abandoned in consequence of the lateness of the
session ; and the same course ought to be adopted with
zegard to this bill, It was said that this bill was intro-

ducedlo.prevent frauds; but he thought that it would
open a door to much greater frauds than those which it
prevented.
Sir W. CLAY and Mr. WAKLaygave their support to
the
Mr. CRIPPS opposed it, and moved that it be read a se-
cond time that day three months.

vv
After a few-
words from Sir B. Hall, Mr. Henley, and
Captain Pechell, the house divided on the amendment,
when, the numbers being 54 on each side, the Speaker
gave his vote against the amendment. The house then di-
vided on the question that the bill be then read a second
time, when the numbers were,—

Ayes 52
Noes . 53
Majority against the second reading.... —1
The bill was consequently lost.

On the report of the Bankruptcy and. Insolvency Bill,
Sir J. GRAHAM asked the Attorney-General whether
the judges of the new county courts were eligible to sit in
parliament ? As far as he was himself concerned, he had
never contemplated any such eligibility on the part of
such judges. He admitted that there was no disqualifica-
•tion of them in the act of last session, but the question
might arise whether they did not hold offices to which
they were appinted by the crown. If the Attorney-Ge-
neral should answer his question in the affirmative, he
(Sir J. Graham) would bring up a clause on the third
reading expressly disqualifying these new judges from sit-
•ting in parliament.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that, as the question,

"whether the offices of these judges were or were not
places or offices of profit under the crown," was one open
to great doubt, he must respectfully decine giving any
opinion upon it at present.
Sir J. GRAHAM then gave notice that on the third read-
ing of the bill he would do his best to dissipate that great
doubt, by bringing up a clause to disqualify these judges
from becoming members of parliament.
. .

Sir G. GREY, without giving any opinion on the point
which Sir J. Graham had raised, observed that the 'Lord
Chancellor had never contemplated the contingency of
these judges, whose duties would be onerous, seeking to
obtain seats in parliament.
The report was then received, and the bill was ordered
to be read a third time to-morrow.

Several bills were then advanced a stage ; among others,
the Destitute Persons (Ireland), No. 3, Bill.
Upon that bill Sir G. GREY informed Mr. Hamilton
that the total amount collected under the Queen's letter
for the relief of distress in Ireland and Scotland was
£170,533 16s. 2d., exclusive of a bill for £lOOO remitted
from India, which would not become due till the 10th of
September. The committee of the British Association

so that the to

bscnptions was .t4n, /04.
orders of the day were then disposed of, and

the house adjourned

HOUSE OF LORDS

-THURSDAY

The Poor Laws Administration Bill, after an amend-
ment being moved by Lord Brougham, and rejected, was
read a third time, and passed. Some other business was
than Ai anncpd nf and the HniiCP. adinnrnPd.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-

-THURSDAY

After a variety of questions, some of them of much in-
terest, an incidental discussion, raised by Lord George
Bentinck, upon a supposed infraction by the Dutch Go-
vernment of the treaty of Commerce concluded in 1824,
and one respecting the treatment of Dr. Kalley by the
Portuguese authorities of Madeira, introduced by Sir H.
Inglis, the New Zealand Bill and the Trustees Relief Bill
were each read a third time.

Lord J, RUSSELL then moved that the Bishopric of
Manchester Bill be committed.

bill for erecting a bishopric
ing the two bishoprics of St

n Manchester as for preserv-
, Asaph and Bangor.

Mr. HUME entered into a violent denunciation of the
bill, which, he contended, had been asked for by nobody,
and stated that he should divide against it at every stage.

He now moved that it be committed that day- thiee

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that the second reading
having been carried by a majority of 124 over 15 votes

forward. A compact was made ten years ago to Create a
Bishop of Manchester ; and supposing the bill, by which
St. Asaphs and Bangar were kept separate, was not passed.
a Bishop of Manchester would still have to be appointed.
He proceeded to contend that the unsatisfactory condition
of the parochial clergy of Manchester was a topic which

had no legitimate connexion with the debate. The funds
which were appropriated to the support of the bishopric
of Manchester came from the diminution of the revenues
of the bishoprics of Durham and Ely ; and, if they were
not to b I t- " ^f MP tb

oe appltea co the bishopric 01 .anchester, there
was no reason why they should be applied to the relief
of the parochial clergy of Manchester more than to the
parochial clergy of any other part of the country. The
whole question in this case resolved itself into this—whe-
ther the population had not so increased throughout the
country, and whether the towns had not so increased in
size and extent, as to render it necessary that in the go-
vernment of the Church there should be an additional
number of bishops. He declined to enter into the aues-

tion whether episcopal funds should be applied to paro-
chial purposes. That was not a question of principle,
but of degree, and must be decided by the amount of
revenue and the purposes to which it was to be applied,
Sir J. GRAHAM spoke against the principle of the bill,
but would consent to its going into committee, in order
to amend some clauses, which would decide whether or
not he should support the third reading. lie thought
the house ought to take its stand now against increasing
the number of bishoprics ; and spoke very lightly of the
duties which bishops had to perform. If he should con-
sent to found this bishopric, it should be on the under-

ings anu tine umnumg
of new ones. He objected also to bishops being appoint-
ed_with imperfect rights as to seats in the House of Lords.

Mr. M. Nimes:ln seconding the amendment, com-
plained of the unnecessary haste with which the govern-
ment had pressed this bill upon the house It had not
been printed till the 6th of July, and he had furnished
his constituents with a copy of it as soon as it reached
his hands. Such being the case, it ought not to have

been read a second time before its contents could have
been carefully considered by those whose interests it most
materially affected. He concurred with Mr. Hume in the
propriety of its being withdrawn, and wished to know by
whom the government had been pressed to introduce it.
In Manchester a strong feeling of its inutility prevailed ;

and that feeling was connected with another still more
general—namely, that the funds of the church in that
town were by no means fitly appropriated. The paro-
chial clergy of Manchester were most inadequately paid ;
and the general opinion of that neighbourhood was, that
the funds in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commission-
ers would be employed much better in increasing their
livings than in erecting a new see and (-Ailing it the
Bishopric of Manchester.
Mr. ACLAND expressed great indignation at the manner
in which Sir James Graham had ridiculed the duties of the
Bishops ; but he was glad that he had made that speech,
as the country could now understand the motives which
induced the late Government to resist the separation of
the sees of Bangor and St. Asaph.
Sir WM. MOLESWORTH objected to the bill, which was
supported by Mr. MILNES, Mr. E. DENISON, and Lord
SANDON (all of whom expressed their surprise at the tone
of Sir James Graham's speech), Mr. NEWDEGATE, and
Lord CLIVE.

Mr. HORSMAN reiterated and defended his speech of
Tuesday, and " expressed his surprise that Sir James Gra-
ham had spoken so irreverently of the labours of the
bishops, whom he must evidently consider as so much
lumber."

The bill was also supported by Mr. GOULBURN, who
stated, however, that he would have preferred to have
waited for a more comprehensive measure.
Mr. B, Escorr opposed it, and predicted its defeat.
Mr. C. WYNNE and Sir ROBERT INGLIS were for the
bill ; and after a few words from Mr. STUART WORTLEY,
who opposed it on constitutional grounds, and Mr. B.
OSBORNE, and Mr. T. DUNCOMBE, who were more vio-
lent, Mr. AGLIONBY and Mr. COLLErr,
The house divided, 20 voting for Mr. Hume's amend-
ment, and 138 for going into committee.

Mr. T. DuNcosidsithen made an angry speech, in
moving that the debate be adjourned, which led to a lively
discussion between Mr. B. Escorr, Lord CLEMENTS,
Lord J. RUSSELL, Mr. PHILLIPS and Sir G. GREY. The
motion was ultimately agreed to without a division.

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

HOUSE OF LORDS.-

-FRIDAY

The new regulation for receiving messages from the
Commons was adopted. The bills were brought up en
masse, instead of individually, as heretofore, and a list of
them read by the clerk of the table. This system is a
great improvement on the old one, in consequence of the
time which will be saved by it, while the Lord Chancellor
will be relieved to the extent of having to make but one
journey to the bar and back to the woolsack, instead of
many.—A conference was held on the subject of the
Punishment of Vagrants (Ireland) Bill, and the Mussel
Fisheries (Scotland), and Holyhead Harbour Bills, were
read a third time and passed.