The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-08-04 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-THURSDAY

two dl

Dr. LusulN GTON asked whether the investigation respect-
ing slavery in India had not been referred to a commission,
and whether they might expect soon to have the result of the

inquiry ?
Sir J. HOBTIOUSE said the report was very voluminous,
occupying 1857 pages. but he expected to receive it printed
by the next India mail. ,

The administration of justice bill was, on the motion of
Lord J. RUSSELL, postponed till next session. -
Sir E. SUGDEN, who was not opposed to its principle,
thought that more comprehensive improvements were neces-
sary than were proposed by the present measure.
On the sulphur question, Lord PALMERSTON said he had
no doubt the monopoly had been already abolished. He stat-
ed that a commission had been appointed, two members by
the British, and two by the Neapolitan government, to which
a third was added by the French government, to act as• arbi-

On the subject of the British claims on Portugal, Lord
PALMERSTON said that two propositions had been sent out
to Portugal. but no answer had yet been received.
On the motion of Lord J. RUSSELL, the regency bill was
committed, and being reported without amendment, was or-
dered to be read a third time on Friday.
The East India shipping bill, and the metropolitan police-
courts' bill, were respectively read a third time and passed.
The railways' bill and some others were advanced a stage.
On the order of the day for the church discipline bill,
Mr. WARBURTON objected to the Speaker's leaving the
chair for its commitment. It put the clergy, he said, too
much in the power of the bishop. The court to be consti-
tuted for inquiring into the conduct of the clergyman was to
be wholly a prelatical one. The defendant was to have no
challenge, and the inquiry was not to be made by persons of
his own class. He (Mr. Warburton) must therefore move
that the bill should be committed on that day three months.
He was not much in communication with the clergy (at which
avowal some members laughed and cried " hear," and for
two or three moments well nigh disconcerted the hon. mem-
ber), but he had understood from some clergymen that the
bill was much disapproved by the members of their profession.
Mr. HAWES was astonished at the introduction of suchlt
bill. This was the grossest attempt On the. part of the
episcopacy to obtain power since the time of Thomas a
Becket. What was wanted was a bill for the reform of the
ecclesiastical courts.

Mr. HODGES read a letter objecting to certain points of
detail, but approving the general principle of the bill. He
wished, however, for further information.
Dr. ?Ticlima, said, that a bill of this kind was necessary
before any measure for the reform of the ecclesiastical courts
could be practicable. The suggestion of an inquiry into the
conduct of a clergyman by a tribunal consisting entirely of
persons of his own class was one to which he could not ac-
cede. He saw no reason why a clergyman should be tried
wholly be clergymen, or a surgeon wholly by surgeons. This
bill had been most properly framed to admit laymen as well
as clergymen.
The house then divided, and the bill went into committee,
where Mr. WARDURTON renewed his objections.
Mr. G. VERNON observed on the unfairness of them, as
coming from parties whose complaint so long had been that
the bishops did not interfere to preserve good morals in the
private lives of their clergy. His own impression was, that
the defect of the bill consisted in its not giving to the bishop
a power sufficiently summary for the purpose of efficient
controul.
Mr. HAwEs asserted that this was a secret court for in-
quiring into the religious opinions of clergymen. Tt hfe public
were to be excluded from it, which they were nofrom the
diocesan courts. And why were not the bishops themselves
made amenable to the same, or some analagous tribunal?
Such a measure as the present had an immediate tendency to
rouse the indignant feelings of the British people, and irritate
their minds against the church.
Mr. WAKLEY wanted to know why, if this class of legisla-
tion was to be applied to the clerical profession, it should not
be applied to others—for instance, to the legal and the medi-
cal ? He apprehended it was one main object of the bill to
hush up any scandal against clergymen.
Dr. Nicola, replied, that at common law an examination
might be taken by committing magistrates in exclusion of the
public. The public were also excluded from the inquiries of
a grand jury, being intended not for the purpose of trying the
defendant, but merely for the purpose of ascertaining whe-
ther there were grounds to put him on his trial.
Col. SALWEY disapproved this measure, which he thought
a despotic one, but declared his opinion that something ought
to be done to control the clergy, whom he was pleased to re-
present as being by no means one of the best ordered classes
of society. Too many of them seemed to think that when
they had delivered a drowsy sermon, they had done all that
was required of them.
After a good deal of desultory conversation, and one or

partf,itit

r Abuses, the further conollmi
to Friday afternoon,

The other orders of tra) day having been disposed of,
Mr. Fox MAULE moved that the house should resolve
itself into committee for the purpose of sanctioning an ad-
vance of money from the treasury to provide for the admi-
nistration of justice in the borough of Birmingham.
This passed without opposition ; and then
Lord MORPETII obtained leave to bring in a bill for ena
hling ecclesiastical courts to discharge any prisoner in the
predicament of the often-mentioned John Thorogood, with
the consent of the party suing out the process.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL and Mr. GRANVILLE VER-
NON, however, said that but for the opinion of Dr. Lush-
ington they should have supposed the ecclesiastical courts to
be already in possession of the proposed power.
The bill was brought in, read a first time, and ordered to
be read a second time on Friday.
The house adjourned at half-past ten.

HOUSE OF LORDS.-FRIDAY

Lord Buouca Am brought in a bill for the better admi-
nistration of justice in equity. His lordship spoke of the
importance of passing some measure oa the subject this

session

The court houses (Ireland) bill went through committee,
after some ineffectual opposition from Lord CHA RLEVILLE.
The municipal districts (Ireland) bill went through com-
mittee, as did the Poddle river (Dublin) bill, &c.
Lord DuNcANNos having moved the second reading of
the church temporalities (Ireland) bill.
The Earl of Rtro:v inquired whether the ecclesiastical
commissioners had expressed their approbation of such
measure ?

Lord DUNGANNON' answered in the affirmative. It was,
therefore, read the second time, and ordered to be considered
in committee on Monday.

On the motion of the Marquis of LANSDOWNE,
.there
were ordered to be laid before parliament certain correspon-
dence between the Governor of New South Wales and. the
Secretary of State for the Colonies, on the subject of the
rate of sale, &c., of crown lands.
On moving that their lordships go into committee on the
bills of exchange act continuance bill, the Marquis of LANS-
DOWNE expressed his approbation of the measure, while
Lord WRARNCLIFFE considered that there are weighty ob-
jections to continuing such an act, without the sanction of
previous inquiry.
. . .

The bill eventually went through committee, but with
some amendments, limiting its duration, &c.
The third reading of the municipal corporations (Ireland)
bill, called forth much desultory conversation, and further
amendments.

Lord LYNDHURST proposed to omit the clause giving the
lord-lieutenant power to fix the time for holding the sessions
before the recorder of Dublin ; and the rejection of the words
objected to by his lordship was carried on a division.
The bill was then passed.
The rating of stock in trade bill was read the second time ;
the chimney sweepers bill went through committee ; and the
remaining bills having been disposed of, their lordships ad-
journed. _