The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-07-10 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS.--MONDAY

The SPEAIER took the chair shortly before four o'clock.
WEAVER CHURCHES BILL.
Sir P. EGERTON moved the resumption of the adjourned
debate on the third reading of the Weaver churches bill.
Mr. J. JERVIS thereupon moved the introduction of a
clause, the object of which was to introduce into the body
of the trustees (consisting of 105) ten practical men, to be
selected from those persons who paid 19 20ths of the tolls
that were raised. He could not imagine any reason against
the clause.

Mr. T. EGERTON resisted the clause. It was quite
irregular in a bill that had simply for its object the building
of new churches, to introduce clauses totally remodelling the
constitution of the trustees.

Mr. G. WILBRAH AM supported the clause. He thought
the introduction of such men into the trust would be very
useful.

Mr. TIIORNELY also supported the clause.
Mr. CRESSWELL opposed the clause.
Mr. E. J. STANLEY supported the clause ; nothing, he
thought, could be more just than the proposition made by
this clause, to have additional and experienced men on the
trust.

The gallery was then cleared for a division. The numbers
were—

For the clause
Against it... ,

-68

Majority against the clause
On re-entering the gallery we found
Mr. J. JERVIS speaking against the bill, on the question
that it do pass. He thought the bill most unjust.
Lord R. GROSVENOR also strongly opposed the bill, on
the ground that it was not only founded on the proposition
to divert funds for objects for which they were never in-
tended, but, worse still, to appropriate funds to church build-
ing that were raised by a tax on individuals of all religious
denominations—(hear, hear). If this bill passed a most
dangerous principle would be established : in such case there
would be numerous propositions of a like character, to ap-
propriate trust funds to the building of churches. Suppose
anything of the kind were attempted in Ireland, where the
majority were Roman Catholic. What would they think of
a proposition to appropriate surplus trust funds to the
building of Roman Catholic chapels?--(hear). He begged
to enter his most solemn protest against this bill ; to divide
the house, he thought, would be useless, or he would urge a
division.

Sir. C. LEMON said there was a surplus that could not be
better appropriated than to remedy spiritual destitution ;
there was very deplorable religious destitution in this parti-
cular district, and he knew no better way of remedying such
evil. He saw nothing of injustice in this bill, but, in the
hope of a better bill being brought forword next year, he
should oppose the question that the bill do pass, calculating
on seeing a hill next session that would be more exclusively
devoted to the supplying of spiritual accommodation.
Mr. HOBHOUSE again entered his decided protest against
the bill, the unjust principle of which was to appropriate to
religious purposes funds intended for lay objects.
The gallery was then cleared for a division. The numbers
were, on the question that the bill do pass,
For the motion...
Against it..
_

Majority in its favour
The bill was then passed.
Mr. O'CONNELL gave notice of his intention to bring in a
bill with reference to certain proceedings against the governor
and company of the Apothecaries' Hall Dublin.
A. new writ was ordered for East Cumberland, in the room
of Major Aglionby, deceased.
The SPEAKER informed the house that he had received a
notification from Mr. Tomline, to the effect that that gentle-
man did not intend to defend his return for Sudbury.
Mr. GREENE, in answer to Sir J. Graham's inquiry, said
that it was his intention to press forward the goods on canals
bill.

-88

Sir R. PEEL addressed to Lord Palmerston certain most
important inquiries relative to the state of onr relations with 1
China—inquiries which Lord Palmerston answered in a most
unsatisfactory fashion. The noble lord admitted, however,
that although the order in council, authorising reprisals on
the Emperor of China, appeared to expose to confiscation,
the property of the subjects of other powers trading to Chi-
na, yet, practically, no such result need be apprehended,
inasmuch as orders to the contrary had been issued to the
commanders of British vessels.
IRISH REGISTRATION BILL.
Lord STANLEY said perhaps he was not exactly in order,
but he wished before public business commenced to state
(under the circumstances of the case) the course he intended
to pursue relative to the Irish Corporation Bill. (Hear.)
He had introduced that bill in the month of March. Several
circumstances occurred to postpone the consideration of it
from time to time. Ten divisions had taken place, in five
of which the whole power of her Majesty's govern-
ment was arrayed against the bill, but they had only
partially succeeded in but one instance. (Hear.) In
the other nine cases the bill had stood the test of discussion,
but on well considering the opposition (which would be con-
tinued) he saw no reason to expect that it would be carried
into a law during the present session. (Hear.) Enough had
been done to establish the principle of the measure, but as
government did not think that being repeatedly beaten on
such a bill, sufficient to induce them to give up their offices
(hear, hear); and as it would be impossible, without inter-
ruption to other public business, to carry it through the house
this session, he wished now to state that he should withdraw
the bill for the present, but at the earliest possible moment
next year, he should move for leave to introduce a similar
measure. (Hear.) The noble lord then moved that the order
of the day be read, for the purpose of discharging it. (Hear.)
Lord J. RUSSELL said his opposition to the bill had not
been vexatious, but bona fide (laughter). He should be
ready to meet the noble lord in discussion on any similar
measure he might introduce next session, as he considered it
was an attempt virtually to repeal the reform act.
In answer to a question from Sir C. Douglas, Lord JOHN
RUSSELL said, he was unprepared to say whether he would
proceed with the right of voting bill this session. In answer
to a question from Sir Robert Peel, the noble lord answered
that he did not intend to go on with the treating and bribery
bill this session, nor with the English registration bill.
Sir ROBERT PEEL : " And the same, I suppose, with the
regard to the Ireland registration bill (No. 2), so that we
shall have got rid of these five bills at once." (" Hear,"
and laughter.)