The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1846-05-12 00:00:00

ITOUSF. OF COMMONS.-TUESDAY

All the notices of motions were postponed, and at half-
past five o'clock, on the motion of Sir R. PEEL, the
house resolved itself into a committee of the whole house
on the Corn Importation Act.
In the committee, when the first clause was read by
the chairman, by which, in lieu of the present duties, the
duties set forth in the schedule to this act are to tr.- taken
until the Ist of February, 1849, and that, from that day,
the following dries should be taken upon " all wheat,
barley, oats, rye, cease, and beans," namely, from every
quarter, ls., and so in proportion for a less quantity,
Lord G. BENTINcx moved the omission of the word
oats," on the ground that the people of Ireland, Scot-
land, and Wales, were greatly interested in the growth of
that grain. As there were in Ireland 585,001 occupiers
of land, who were all or nearly all growers of oats, it was
not for the interest of the farmers of that country that
we should hastily alter the law for the protection of their
grain in the English market. The reduction of the duty
on oats would be a tax on the farmers of Ireland to the
amount of £250.000 a year. lie then made an elaborate
reply to Sir R. Peel's speech of last night, and observed
that he differed from the minister, and the hard-featured,
cold-blooded economists sitting on the treasury benches,
in this respect, that he could not cut up human beings in
his legislation with as little compunction as if they were
so many logs of wood. He quoted an extract from the
letters of the Times' commissioner," for the purpose of
showing that, as a sum of £200,000 had been paid by the
farmers of the caunty of Cork into the Savings' Bank at
Cork, in sums of £34 each on an average, the Irish
farmers must be in a fliurishing condition at present, and
that the house was therefore bound not to sacrifice them
rashly on the destructive altar of free trade.
After a speech from Sir H. W. BARRON against this
amendment, the CHANCELLOR Of the EXCHEQUtR re-
marked, that the effect of acceding to this proposition
would be, not that "oats" would be admitted at the old
duty, but that they would be admitted free from any duty
at all. _ _ . .

Lord G. BENTINCK then moved the omission of the
whole clause, but subseque,ltiv withdrew his resolution.
The other clauses of the bill were then agreed to, and
the report was ordered, amid loud cheers, to be received
on Fri ay. _ _ .

On the motion of Sir R. PEEL, the Customs Duties
Bill was committed, and the report was ordered to be re-
ceived on Friday. _ _ .

vv
The other orders were then di6poserl of, and the house
adjourned, amid loud cheers, at nine o'clock.

HOUSE OF OF COMMONS-WEDNESDAY

The order of the day for going into committee on the
Roman Catholic Relief Bill was then read. On the
question that the Speaker do leave the chair,
Mr. COLQUHOUN observed, that though be had no
objection to those clauses in the bill which removed the
penalties attached to Roman Catholics who failed to
attend.the Protestant Church, or who kept schools in this
kingdom, he must object to those clauses which made
important alterations in the fundamental principles of the
constitution, and most especially to that clause which, if
it did not repeal, made a most startling change in the
oath of supremacy. After stating his opinion as to the
alarming nature of that change, he next objected to the
clause which repealed the statute of E►izabeth prohibiting
the introduction of Papal bulls and rescripts into Englana,
and reminded the house that on account of the extent to
which those bulls and rescripts claimed temporal power
for the l'ope, their introduction had been prohibited, so
lately as the year 1816, in France, and nearly all the other
states of Europe. He also objected to that clause which
repealed part of the Emancipation Act of 1829, and
allowed Roman Catholic archbishops and bishops to as-
sume the titles of their sees. He maintained that the
Roman Catholic prelates of Ireland were now associated
with the Jesuits, whose principles he denounced in the
strongest terms, and warned the house against being
guilty of the imprudence of conferring by this bill ad-
ditional powers upon a body of men, whose machinations
had been found inconsistent with the temporal powers
of the Sovereign, and the liberties of the people in every
European country. In conclusion, he moved that the
house resolve itself into committee that day six mouths.

Sir JAMES GRAHAM called Mr. Watson's attention to
the fact that her Maje,ty's government had introduced a
bill on their own responsibility, in many respects identical
with the present bill, and in some respects going still fur-
ther; and that the bill so introduced had been read a
second time in the House of Lords. He had every
reason to believe that that bill would shortly pass the
other house ; and he therefore asked Mr. Watson to
postpone the further progress of his bill until the house
had had time to see and consider the bill to which he had
just alluded.
MR. WATSON could not accede to the suggestion of
Sir James Graham, inasmuch as the bill introduced into
the House of Lords was essentially different to that then
before the House of Commons.
The Earl of ARUNDEL and SURREY took upon himself
the defence of the Jesuits against the imputations of Mr.
Colqubonn. and returned thanks to Mr. Watson for
having introduced the present measure.
Sir It. PEEL regretted that Mr. Watson had not
thought fit to accede to the reasonable and just appeal of
Sir J. Graham, and was compelled to vote against the
further progress of the present measure, in order to record
his dissent from Mr. Watson's course of proceeding.

Lord J. RUSSELL observed that the present measure
consisted of two parts, one having reference to obsolete
penalties against Roman Catholics. and the other to living
penalties enacted in 1829. Mr. Watson proposed to re-
peal both ; but the bill of the House of Lords only
repealed the former. Now, if government had made up
its mind not to repeal the latter, and was prepared to say
the law of 1829 ought to he the permanent law of the
land, it justified the caurse of Mr. Watson in calling
upon the house at once for a decision on that subject.
Sir J. GRAHAM then recommended Mr. Watson to
divide his bill into two parts, and to raise the discussion
on the latter part only, which went to repeal certain Pro-
visions of the act of 1829, which he still deemed to be

wise and salutary.
After a few words from Lord J. MANNERS, Mr.WAT-
SON stated that he had no objection to take the course

now suggested.
The SPEAKER informed the house that if the bill were
to be divided into two parts, an instruction must be
moved to that effect ; and before that could be done, Mr.
Colquhoun must withdraw his amendment.
Mr. COLQUHOUN declined to adopt that course.
Mr. O'CoNrivEf I. defied Mr. Colquhoun to the proof
of the accusations which he had brought against the

Jesuits, fie then eulogised them as the greatest benefac-
tors of literature and religion that the world had ever

produced,

Mr. FINCH placed in opposition to the eulogy of Mr.
O'Connell the severe condemnation passed on the Jesuits
by Clement XIV., in his bull for the repression of that
order.

After a discussion on the comparative merits and de-
merits of the Jesuits, in which Lord R. Gtosvenor, Mr.
P. Howard, Mr. Newdegate, and Mr. M. Milnes joined,
and another discussion on the mode of effecting a division
in the bill, in which Sir R. Peel, Mr. Law, Lord J. Rus-
sell, Mr. Watson, Mr. Estcourt, Mr. B. Escott, Mr.
Colquhoun, and Mr. Spooner took a part, the house
divided on Mr. Colquhoun's amendment, which was ne-
gatived by a majority of:110 over 67 voices.

The ho-use then went into committee; and on the mo-
tion of Mr. WATSON all the clauses, except those which
repealed certain provisions of the Emancipation Act of
1829, were struck out of the bill. Mr. Watson then
moved that the chairman report progress, and ask leave
to sit again, in order to have the bill reprinted, and the
registration clauses added. This motion was eventually
carried, hut not until a smart skirmish bad taken place
between Sir li. Peel, Mr. Law, and Mr. Newdegate, who
exchanged some sharp recrimination with one another.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER brought up the
Annuity Bills of Lord Hardiuge and Lord Gough. They
were read a first and ordered to be read a second time on
Friday.

The other orders of the day having been disposed of,
the house adjourned.

HOUSE OF LORDS.--ThunspAY.

Lord ASHBURTON, in moving for returns to the latest
period possible of the quantity of corn in bond in this
country, said that he asked for these documents at the
present moment in order to prevent delay when the Corn
Bill should be brought before the house. It was sup-
posed that a million and a half quarters of corn would be
taken out of bond by the operation of that measure; five
times the quantity tbat had ever been in bond during the
last six or seven years.
Lord BROUGHAM admitted that the letting ont of bond
of so large a quantity of corn would cause a depreciation
of prices, but believed that that depreciation would only
be temporary.
Earl FITZWILLIAJH wished the returns to be carried as
far hack as 1828. _

The Duke of RICHMOND said there was hardly ever a
period in which the farmer had more corn in hand. lie
did not believe that the bill would pass. At all events
the farmers will have 14st nothing by the delay.
Earl GREY was of opinion that the farmers had suffered
greatly by the delay. It would have been of advantage
to thrm if the ports had been opened in November last.

The returns were ordered.
Lord REDESDALE suggested that their lordships should
fix a time for committees on railroad bills, and that that
time should be ten weeks from Monday next.
The Deodands Abolition and Death by Accidents Bills
were read a third time and passed.