The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1836-05-13 00:00:00

HOUSE OF LORDS -TUESDAY,

On the motion of the Duke of 14,7Cintori;:illee,/idence taken
before the select committee on the bill for the sale of bread, was
ordered to be printed.
ENTAIL (SCOTLAND) BILL.
On the motion of the Earl of ROSEBERRY, this bill was read
a second time.

CONSTABULARY (IRELAND) BILL.
This bill was read a third time and passed.
PLURALITIES OF BENEFICES BILL.
On the motion of the Archbishop of CANTERBURY, the house
went into committee on this bill.
The Bishop. of EXETER expressed his fears that the third
clause, requiring that pluralities snould not be more than ten
miles apart would be found prejudicial in its operation.
Lord WYNDFORD objected to the limitation of a £5OO a year
benefice which was to prevent a clergyman from holding a
second living. He protested against the limitation of ten miles
beyond which range no plurality second benefice could be held
by the same incumbent, and proposed to extendthe distance to
45 miles. His loidsbip's arguments, however, were over-ruled.
On the 4th clause being read, the same noble lord (Wynford),
proposed an amendment to the effect that ithe privilege of hold-
ing two livings should depend upon the united value of both not
exceeding to £lOOO a year, instead cf that right being limited
to cases where the value of each did not exceed £5OO a.year.
The amendment was lost on a division seven voting in its
favour, and twenty-nine against it.
Adjourned to Friday (this-day.)
HOUSE OF COMMONS.—TUESDAY.
-DUBLIN STEAM PACKETS.
Mr. O'CONNELL, pursuant to the report on the petition for
leave to bring in a bill, moved for leave to bring in a bill to
enlarge the powers of the Dublin Steam Packet Company, to.
enable them to raise more money to build fresh steam packets.
&c. He observed that the bill thrown out recently embodied
the principle of limited responsiblity ; this exposed the parties
to unlimited responsibility. That being the case, he hoped
there would be no objection to his introducing this bill, that
the house might see its several provisions, and then determine
on the question whether the bill ought to be supported. He
hoped in the discussion of this question national jealousies
would not be indulged in.
Mr. PLUNKET seconded the motion. It was not to encourage
monopoly, but to promote that which had been proved to be
beneficial to Ireland, for such was on all hands admitted to be
the merit of this Company..
Sir M. S. STEWART said that he must again express himself
to be decidedly against the present application. A similar bill
had been introduced this session that was thrown out; and now,
many weeks after the time had passed for bringing in private bills,
application was made to renew such rejeected bill.
Mr. MARK PHILLIPS said, previously to the house being
ealled upon to vote, he should like to know whether the Direc-
tors named in the last bill would be those introduced into this
bill, which it was declared would embody the principle of un-
limited responsibility ? If not, the alteration introduced into
this bill might be only screening particulnr parties from re-
sponsibility.
Mr. O'CoNNELL answered that for every sixpence subscribed
under this bill, the subscriber would he exposed to all the con -
sequences of unlimited responsibility. But he submitted it
would be much better to allow the bill to be brought in, and then
the House could see its provisions, when the measure might be
more advantageously debated.

Lord SAN DON holied that the House would not listen to the
objections urged against the preliminary step of introducing
this bill. He thought good ground existed for allowing this bill
to be brought in, although the time for introducing private bills
bad expired. The company had been of the greatest service to
Ireland, and therefore every aid that could be rendered to it
ought to be extended. It required increased capital; and when
the application embodied unlimited responsibility, he thought
resistance ought nut to be thrown in the way of this application,
founded on matter of form, the principle of protection not having
been violated. . .

Sir H. PA KNELL said that he could not perceive how this bill
could be safely allowed to proceed without compromising the in-
terests of the existing proprietors; and that would be a com-
promise which be thought the House would pause before it saric-
tioned.• At present they had only individual statements as to
the approbation expressed of this bill, which might so seriously
affect the interests of proprietors in the existing company.
Dr. BOWRING observed, that the company had entered into
contracts which they required this bill to enable them to fulfil.
Now, he thought, that was what they ought not to have done;
but having done it. he did not see that the House ought to favour
the parties by violating its rules at this advanced period of the
session. And wha, was to be effected by the bill? It was to
graft unrestricted responsibility on restricted responsibility.
What could be the resu;t of such a proceeding but injury and
confusion ? Under all the circumstances, he thought it would
be better to refuse the application this session.
Lord SANDON admitted, with the hon. member, that some
difficulty might arise regarding existing shareholders ; but he
expected that the bill would remedy it, or he must suspend his
support of it.
Lord CLEMENTS strongly supported the motion, and as
strongly eulogised the company, maintaining that it was the
first establishment for extending the benefits of steam naviga-
tion, and that its exertions had been largely beneficial to the
internal and general interest of Ireland. He, therefore, hoped
that the House would not resist this application, by means of
which the company could legitimately extend its means of use-
fulness. He hoped that the House would not listen to applica-
tions and resistance made on the part of the Scotch companies
for they in fact desired to carry off the advantages created by
the novel and successful enterprises of this company. The re-
sistance now experienced by this bill he attributed entirely to
the manceuvring of the Scotch companies.
Sir Gis.ottori CLERK said that the chief question was, whether
the house ought to listen to this novel and unprecedented course
of proceeding. Ought the alteration of a bill to justify its rein-
troduction? and ought they not to have before them the Report
of the Committee on which the present application was founded?
Mr. G. F: YOUNG said that he considered this bill to be the
same in principle, only partially differing in the way in which
it was carried out. if this were so, or if the fact were other-
wise, it ought to be clearly shown; and also that there was such
urgency for the bill as to justify its introduction so late in the
session, and contrary to the resolutions of the house on Such
subjects. The bill would empower the raising of £150,000, out
of which £127,000 was•to be laid out in the building of packets,
&e. How this could be beneficial to the internal prosperity of
Ireland—and it was declared that it would be of such internal
use—he was at a loss to see.
Mr. O'CoNNELL replied. He complained of the course adop-
ted. How was the bill treated? All argued on its provisions
when it was not before them, and argued against allowing him
to lay it on the table, by which course only could it be seen whe-
ther or nut his representations were correct. Let the bill be
produced, and then it would be seen that it bore out his descrip-
tions; if it did not, he would be the first to abandon the bill.
He repeated that this bill would fix the most unlimited respon-
sibility on the stock of the Company. He would nut say one.