The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1851-08-05 00:00:00

PJIRLIDIENTARY INTELLIGENCE.

HOUSE OF LORDS.
MONDAY.-SMITHFIELD MARKET.

Lord GRANVILLE moved that the compensation clauses
which had been inserted in the Smithfield Market Remo-
val Bill by the Select Committee shOuld be struck out,
and the bill restored to its original form, which motion,
upon a divi&on, was carried by a majority, of 44.
MERCHANT SEAMEN'S FUND.

Earl GRANVILLE moved that this bill be read a second
time.—TheEarl of ELLEN1101:01:GII said that an alteration
had been made in one of the clauses ; but the Govern-
ment could hardly be aware of the extent to which the
revenue would be affected by the inconsiderate manner in
which that clause had been framed. It would involve a
loss for the first three years of £120,000. Then by the
bill future pensions were to be granted on an average of
the last five year', to be determined by the Board of
Trade. It would be better to Lscertain distinctly what
were a man's rights, and not to leave them, except in
cases of extreme necessity, to any board or any man at his
discretion to determine what they should be.—Earl GRAN-
VILLE believed it to be utterly impracticable to have in-

. . .
troduced a bill, previous to the difficulties of working it
being ascertained. which would not have required renewed
legislation. It was true that Mr. Finlaiion had shewn
it would have been cheaper to have continued the present
system than to wind it up. but that continuance was im-
possible, because it implied not only an advance from the
Treasury, but increased contributions by the seamen
themselves, and that increase they rejected. The object
of the Government, when they found that the old system
must be wound up, was that the seamen should be put as
mach as possible in the same situation as they would have
been in had they continued under the old system, either
as receivers of pensicns or contributors, or rather in a bet-
ter situation.—The bill was then read a second time.
TUESDAY.—THE CRYSTAL PALACE.

Several pe'itions in favour of the retention of the Crys-
,tal Palace, and its conversion into a winter garden, were
presented.

ECCLESIASTICAL TITLES BILL.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE moved the third reading
of this bill.—The Earl of ABERDEEN could not refrain
from availing himself of this opportunity to protest against
the passing of this ill-omened measure, which he was con-
vinced would prove most iejarions to the public interests.
It would be for others who would come after to determine
whether that protest were consistent with the principles
of good faith and justice, and whether the apprehensions
which he entertained of its results were only vague and
unmanly fears.—The Bishop of OXFORD contended that
the Bishops especially, to whom the spiritual education
-of the poor was intrusted, were bound to protest against
the aggression of the Bishop of Rome—first, because it
was a systematic intrusion of a rival church into the
ground already occupied by the Protestant Church of
'England established by law ; and, secondly, because it
was an introduction of false and fallacious doctrine into
the country. Ile did not vote for this bill on any grounds
of sect ; still Icsa did he vote for it on the grounds that
that we were entitled to enter on a courseuf persecution
against our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects. Such a
course was as futile in practice as it was improper, unwise,
and unchristian in principle, and therefore he would never
lend himself to aid anything which savoured of persecution
•of religious principles. It was only in virtue of our being
a Chtistian people that we could protest against this re-
script of the rea of Rome as an aggression. The bill when
passed must not become a dead letter, hut it must be ri-
gorously enforced against that indefatigable enemy whose
-eneraies for centuries past had been so unremittingly
aimed at the destruction of the English Church.—Lord
STUART DE DECIES regretted that he felt himself COM.
pelled to vote against the bill.—The Duke of ARGYLL
denied that the value of the bill consisted in the extent to
which it was to be enforced. They had now established
that great principle of the law, and the Roman Catholics
would not be able to found an argument upon their silence.
—The Earls of GLENGALL and FORTESCUE supported the
measure, while Lord NELSON and the Marquis of SLIGO
protested against it.—Lord REDESDALE regretted the ab-
sence of Lord Derby, whose proposition for an inquiry
into the whole matter as to the best means of meeting
this aggression seemed to be the safest and most prudent
course of proceeding.—Lord GAG'S said that the increase
of convents end monasteries was the real Papal aggres-
sion, and he should be glad to see the Government aban.
don this bill, which would lead to nothing, and boldly
meet the actual danger to which he adverted.—Earl GREY,
in reply to some remarks from the Bishop of Oxford, ex-
plained the position
.of the Roman Catholic colonial
bishops, and in answer to the Duke of Newcastle declared
that he was still a firm supporter of religious liberty,
though at the same time he thought that the power and
authority of the Crown ought to be maintained against
the rescript of any foreign power.—Lord MONTEAGLE
said that, after the admission which had been made by
the noble marquis, that the titles which he wished to le-
galise by his amendment were already sufficiently recog-
nised by law, he would withdraw his amendment.—The
amendment was accordingly withdrawn, and the bill
passed.