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

HOUSE OF COMNIONS-WEDNESDAY.

The order of the day for going into committee on the
Roman Catholic Relief Bill was then reed. On the
question that the Speaker do leave the chair,
Mr. COLQOHOUN observed, that though he 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clause which repealed the statute of Elizabeth prohibiting
the roduction of Papal hulls and rescripts into England,
and reminded the house that on account of the extent to
which those bulls and rescripts claimed temporal power
for the tope, their introduction had been prohibited, so
lately as the year 1816, in France, and nearly alt 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repealed part of the Emancipation Act of 1829.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
lad been round 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 months.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM called Mr. Watson's attention to
the fact that her .Majesty'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
lad 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 SURRRY took upon himself
the defence of the Jesuits against the imputations of Mr.
Colquhoun, and returned thanks to Mr. Watson for
having introduced the present measure.
Sir R. 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. Watsoa'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 bad 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 course 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 bitter part only, which went to•repeal certain Fro-
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
pow 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. COLQNHOUS declined to adopt that course.
Mr. O'CONNELL defied Mr. Colquhoun to the proof
of the accusations which he had brought against the
Jesuits. He then eulogised them as the greatest benefac-
tors of literature and religicn that the world bad ever
produced.

y,

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. Grosvenor, Mr.
P. Howard, Mr. Newdegate, and Mr. M. Milneet joined,
and another discussion on the mode of eff• ctitig a division
in the bill, in which Sir R. Peel, Mr. Law, Lord J. Rus-
sell, Mr. Watson, Mr. Es•court, Mr. B. Escort, Mr.
Colquhoun, and Mr. Spooner took a part, the house
divided on Mr. Colquboun's amendment, which was ne-
gatived by a majority of 110 over 67 voices.
The house then went into committee; and on the mo-
tion of Mr. WATSON all the clauses, except those which
repealed certain provisions of the Ema,tmpation 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 motitai was eventually
carried. hut not until a smart skirmish had taken place
between Sir R. 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 Hardinge and Lord Gough. They
were read a first and ordered to be read a second time on
Friday.

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

HOUSE OF LORDS.--ThunsnAY.

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 that had ever been in bond during the
last six or seven years.
Lord BROUGHAM admitted that the letting out 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 FITZWILLIAM wished the returns to be carried as
far back as 1828.

The Duke of RICHMOND said there was hardly ever a
period in which the farmer had more corn in band. Ile
did not believe that the bill would pass. At all events
the farmers will have lost 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 them 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.
Ttie Deodands Abolition and Death by Accidents Bills
were read a third time and passed.