The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1851-03-25 00:00:00

this country had invaded t
violated the liberty of t

e of the Q

subject. no new laws were n

T the e

ng statutes, which were amply sufficient for the purpose; al
the question of their guilt or innocence be referred, as
•o be, to an English jury. The right hon. baronet co
- expressing a determination to oppose a bill whic
contemptible, and, if vigor"—
enthus: tstic'
t,ord J. Ru' EL*

astic cheering from the op
rose to reply.

fell fir short of
parliament was
of Durham he i

•
nitted almost universally that an
d although the Government plan
of by some as inefficient

introduced by h

rely erroneous

•timated before the meeting of
,us. In his letter to the Bishop
even state that any proceedings should

.
be taken in opposition to the Papal claims. He onliisaid that
the propriety of such a course should be deliberately consider ed.
It had always appeared to him that if any enactment was pas-
sed it should be of the mildest character, and that it would be
far better to fall short of what was justified by the occasion
than to exceed it. If they had indicted Cardinal Wiseman, RE
the hon. baronet (Sir J. Graham) said they should have done
under the act of Richard 111, and if he had been convictec
under that statute, and sentenced, as he must in that case hav(
been, to the forfeiture of all his goods and chattels, and to im
prisonment during the pleasure of the Crown, how loud, ant
bow much more reasonable would the charges brought agains

v• ••• -
them have been of reviving persecution, and of reviving law
almost obsolete for the oppression of the subject? He truste(
he should still remain the friend of religious liberty as hi
always had been, and as the Catholics at least would admi
Lim to have been. He would not confound the cause of re
ligious liberty with that of Papal aggression, and he believe(

ectually checked, the liberti
meted by the bill. ThE
ering.—The debate wa(

t while Papal aguession was t
'..:ngland and of Europe would be g
fie lord sat down amidst loud ch(

then adjourned,

HOUSE OF LORDS.-FRIDAY

Lord BROUGHAM moved the second reading of the County
Courts Further Extension Bill, into which he had introduced
several additional provisions. He repeated his arguments in
favour of the proposed reform, maintaining that much of the
business at present subject to the jurisdiction of the Bank-
ruptcy, Chancery, and local cenrts, might be more expedi-
tiously, satisfactorily, and economically transacted by the
County Courts.—The LORD CHANCELLOR cbkcted to some of
its details, but thought the bill generally was calculated for the
public advantage.—A short discussion then took place, in which
Lords CRANWORTH and ALINGER, and other lords, took part;
After which the bill was read a second time.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—FRIDAY
Mr. REYNOLDS moved that the house a,
adjourn until Monday.—Mr. MoocE took the opportunity of
referring to what had fallen from Mr. H. Drummond on the
previous evening, and said he should have expected that a body
of English gentlemen would have expressed some disapproba-
tion of the language which had been used if applied to the
mother of the Queen, and yet they had tolerated it as applied
to the mother of God.—Lord J. RUSSELL said he was absent
from the house at the time referred to, but he hoped there
would be no recurrence of acrimonious expressions in the
course of the future debates on the question.—Mr. J. O'Cos-
rieLL said he had intended to snake a specific motion on the
subject.—Sir R. INGLIS said that after the apology made by
the hon. member for Surrey he had hoped that no more would
be said upon the subject. He also contradicted the statement
of Mr. Reynolds as to Miss Talbot, who was in reality a pos-
tulant in the convent at Taunton.—Mr. REYNOLDS adhered to
his former statement, and expressed his surprise that Lord J.
Russell had not, on the previous evening, condemned the lan-
guage of Mr. Drummond.—Lord J. RUSSELL said he was not
in the house when it occurred, and he therefore thought it bet-
ter to leave the matter in the hands of the Speaker.—Admiral
BERKELEY said the hon. member for Dublin had charged his
brother with falsehood, and had attributed to him the motive
the.t his only object in interfering with Miss Talbot's position
was with a view to her property. This statement he dared not
have made had his brother been still a member of the house.—
Mr. REYNOLDS said he had not attributed falsehood to the
gallant admiral's relative.—Lord ARUNDEL and SURREY said,
that as the case was to come before the Lord Chance! or next
clay, he regretted it should have been again mooted in that
kouse.—Sir B. HALL read a letter from a Catholic bishop,
stating that the Lord Chancellor had directed that Miss Talbot
should be educated in the Taunton convent. It was subse-
quently discovered that she could not enter that convent except
as a postulant; and, to remove this difficulty, Miss Talbot had
herself asked to be admitted as a postulant.—Mr. M. GIBSON
asked Lord John Russell if the whole business of the session
was to be-sacrificed to the Ecclesiastical Titles Assumption
Bill, and deprecated such a course of proceeding.—Lord J.
Russimi. said, that after this bill should be read a second
Awe, they would go on with the army estimates, then with the

t its rising should