The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1833-08-23 00:00:00

THE LIVEIIPCOT, STANDARD.

Erriperial

HOUSE OF LORDS, SATURDAY, ACG. 17.
Mr. Bernal and others from the Clouse of Conunons brought
up the Factories' Regulation Bill, which was read a first time,
and referred to a select committee.

The reports of the committees on the Lunatics' Commission
Bill, and the Fines and Recoveries Biil, were received, and the
bias ordered to be read a third time on Monday.

The blave 'Trade Convention Bill, the Unitormity of Process
Bill, the Sheriffs apenses Bill, anti the Customs' Repeal Biii
were read a second note.

Adjourned to Monday at two o'clock.

HOUSE OF COM MON S, SiTURDAY, AUG. 17.
The Speaker took the chair at twyaty minutes past twelve.
COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY.
On the motion of Lord Althorp tie report of the committee
was agreed to.
-Mr. Crawford took the oaths and his seat for the city of Lon-
don.

TITHE ARREARS (IRELAND) BILL.
Mr. LITTLETON moved the order of the day for the house re-
solving itself into committee on this bill.
Mr. HinnE moved that it be an instruction to the committee

"to provide for the repayment of such parts of the mom!), to
be advanced under the authority of this bill, as shall not be
repaid by the persons entitled to receive the tithes in the man-
ner provided for by this bill, anti that any balance of the money
unpaid and due to the public shall become chargeable on the
funds arising from the temporalities of the church of Ireland."
Mr. T. WALLACE seconded the amendment.
On the motion of Lord Aithorp, the deliate was adjourned
till Monday next. •
The house then adjourned at a quarter past four o'clock.

HOUSE OF LORDS, MONDAY' AUGUST 19.
The Bishop of ROCHESTER requested the indulgence of the
house while he made a statement on a subject of an entirely
personal nature; at the same time, however, he believed that
whenever any charge of corrupt practices was made against a
member of that house, it was his duty to take the earliest op-
portunity of rebuttin it. He held in his hand a report of a
vestry meeting at Sit. Nicholas, Brighton, at which a Mr.
English was stated to have declared, that " at a place called
Bayswater, or Broadwater, in the county of Kent, the Bishop of
Rochester was applied to to consecrate a piece of ground, which
he refused to do under £7oo,—(here the report stated tbatthere
were cries of " Shame, shame," )—but that the right rev. prelate
at length consented to take £5OO, he (Mr. English) having this
from good authority." He (the Bishop of Rochester) need
hardly assure their lordships that this statement was without
foundation (hear, hear); in fact, there was no such place as
Bayswater or Broadwater iu his diocess. (Hear.) He would
take the opportunity to add, that the bishops received rio fees
whatever for consecration (hear, hear), nor, he believed, did
they receive fees on any occasion. He was induced to say this,
because he believed that there was a misapprehension in the
public mind on this head. He did not now mean to make any
motion on the subject, but merely took the occasion to notice
the report for the purpose of correcting its misstatement.
The LORD CHANCEL LOR luite concurred in regretting that
such a charge as the one in question should have been made, and
he was glad that there had been an opportunity of rebutting a
charge which appeared to be so utterly groundless; 'but, never-
theless, he was sure that their lordships would see that there was
. a certain degree of inconvenience in the practice of noble lords
vindicating themselves in that house from attacks made upon
them in matters not connected with their parliamentary con-
duct. Whatever the practice might have been, it was clear
that the laws by which the proceedings of the house were regu-
lated pointed out a different course. He did not mean to give
any opinion on the spirit utithose laws, but merely to say that
in practice they had been relaxed. Nor did he complain of the
shape in which the right rev. prelate had on this occasion put
his statement, but merely to refer to the inconvenience which
would attend that mode of procedure if in all cases adopted.
The Earl of GosFonD moved the third reading of the Sepa-
ratists' Affirmation Bill.

The Bishop of HEREFORD said, that if these people acted
conscientiously, and stood strictly on the text, " Swear not at
all," they couid not take the affirmation in this bill at all, which
was as direct an appeal to the Almighty as any oath could be.
If their lordships should give this privilege to these '2.3 congre-
gations of Separatists, who were not distinguished from the
church like the Moravians and Quakers, they ought to bring in
a general bill to absolve all persons from taking oaths in courts
of justice according to the forms prescribed by law, and to allow
them to take them in the mode which they considered most
binding upon their consciences. He concluded by moving that
this bill be read a third time this day three mouths.

Earl GREY explained the ieasei;; which induced him to sup-
port the third reading of this bill at present. This sect was so
respectable as to be entitled to the relief which this bill extended
to its members, not only on its own account, but also on account
of the public advantage, which would suffer materially if these
persons were called upon to swear in the form prescribed by
law, and in that form only.
The Earl of GOSFORD had authority to state that this bill was
perfectly satisfactory to the Separatists, for whose relief it was
intended.
Their lordships then divided, when there appeared—
For the bill 35
Against i` l6
Majority for the bill . —l9
The factory bill was read a second time, and referred to a
select committee up stairs.