The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1835-03-31 00:00:00

Imperial Varliament.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, WEDNESDAY, MARCH 25.
(Continued from the STANDARD of Friday.)

NAVY ESTIMATES.

In a committee of supply—
Lord ASHLEY moved that the sum of £819,115 be granted to
his Majesty for the half-pay officers of the Hoyal Marines and
Navy up to the 31st of March, 1836.—Agreed to.
Lord ASHLEY moved that 1:522635 be granted for military
pensions and allowances up to the 31st of March, 1836.—Agreed

LO.
Lord ASHLEY moved, that £219,625 be granted to his Ma-
jesty to defray the allowances of civil pensions (and other pur-
poses) up to the 31st of March, 1836.—Agreed to.
SABBATH-DAY'S OBSERVANCE BILL. .

Mr. Po ULTER moved the order of the day for the second read-
ing of a bill for the better observance of the Lord's-day.
After a short discussion the second reading of the bill was
carried by a majority of 76, and ordered to be committed on
Wednesday (to-morrow).
The witnesses' indemnity bill went through a committee, and
the report was brought up, but from the tone of voice in which
the proceeding was conducted between the Chairman and the
Speaker, it was impossible to hear a single word.
The highways bill was read a second time, b.ut we could not
hear the day appointed for the next stage.

REOJSTRATION OF VOTERS.
The second reading of the registration of voters bill having
been moved, as we presume, by Lord J. Russell,
Mr. W A RBURTON deprecated the enormous expense attend-
ant upon opening up the lists before committees, who, under that
bill, if it should pass into a law, would have the power of doing

Lord J. RUSSELL was understood to say that he would not
press the clause to which the han. member for Bridpurt objected,
if the sense of the house were against him.
Mr. H. BULWER thought there were some regulations in the
present measure more unfair than in the former.
A conversation then ensued, in the course of which, while all
agreed in thanking the noble lord for the trouble he had taken
about the bill, Mr. C. Buller and Mr. Aglionby recommended
that it should be referred to a committee up-stairs. Mr. Foster,
Mr. Williams, Lord J. Russell, Mr. Baines, Mr. Rolfe, Mr.
Sheil, Mr. M. Philips, and several hon: members whose names
could not be ascertained in the gallery took part in this Con-
versation.

TITHE COMMUTATION (ENGLAND.)
The report of the committee of the whole house on this sub•
ject was brought up. The resolution was agreed to, and a bil
ordered to be brought in pursuant thereto.

TIMBER DUTIES.
The report of the- committee on the timber duties was brought
up and agreed to, and a bin ordered to be brought in pursuant
thereto.

The illegal aec.uritiet bill was reported, and ordered to be read
a third time to-morrow.

CRUELTY TO CATTLE ♦ND OTHER ANIMALS.

Mr. PEASE moved for and obtained leave to bring in a bill to
consolidate and amend acts relating to the cruel treatment of
cattle and other animals.

LIGHTHOUSES.

Mr. HOME called the attention of the house to the report of
the select committee on lighthouses, with the view to their con-
solidation under one management. After going into a detail of
the expenses which these establishments entailed upon the mer-
cantile marine of the country, and stating a variety of alleged
mismanagement, the hon. gentleman proceeded to say that he
thought the expenses of the lighthouses of the country ought to
be placed on the same footing as the consular charges, and those
expenses ought to be defrayed as part of the public burdens
out of the public purse; and he was the more induced to that
opinion because his Majesty's ships deriving equal advantages
from the lighthouses as the commercial traders, were excluded
from the charges. (Hear.) The committee appointed by the
house had obtained, through the intervention of the noble lord
then at the nead of the foreign department, (Lord Palmerston,)
the ordinances of France, and the regulations of other coun-
tries; and with respect to the information contained in the ap-
pendix to the report, he must say that the example of France
should be follo►ced by levying a similar tonnage duty for the
maintenance of the lighthouses. By such a course he believed
that in this country all objects in this respect would be accom-
plished for £40,000, instead of £250,000, as was now collected.
(Hear, bear.) The expenditure might also be considerably
lessened by an alteration in the mode of keeping the accounts,
and in the manner of their collection. Mr. Hume concluded
by moving for leave to bring in a bill to facilitate the consolida-
tion of lighthouses under one management.—Leave given.
Mr. BROTHERTON moved that the house do adjourn.
Mr. SHAW made some remark which we did not hear.
Mr. Giseonisu presented an election petition from Leicester,
stating that the agent had delivered a wrong christian name.
The hon. member gave notice of a motion fur this day, (Tues-
day, yin accordance with the player of the petition.
Mr. WYNN observed that the house could not grant the in-
dulgence asked.
he petition Was brought up.
Dr. BOWRING moved that the house do adjourn.
The motion was not put.

Mr. Ltvirov presented a petition relative to the election for
the county of Cork, to supply a defect in a former petition
respecting a mistake in a christian name. He observed, that
the objection to the petition just presented did not apply to this.
Mr. RUTHVEN, jun., who had risen once or twice before to
move the adjournment of the house, and was met with cries of
"order," rose again, and; persevering in his motion, the house
adjourned at one o'clock.

HOUSE OF LORDS, THLR9DAY.

The Marquis of Bum presented petitions for the extension of
church accommodation in Scoland, and in favour of the church
establishment in that country, front the Gaelic church, Edin-
burgh, from the parish of St. Mary, in the neighbourhood of
Glasgow, and from places in the counties of Ayr and Roxburgh.
The Earl of ROSEBERY presented a petition in favour of the
established church of Scotland from the borough of Queensferry.
Lord Bliono tiAsi said that in presenting the petition be held
in his hand, he should take the same course that was adopted
on a former night by a noble friend of his, and merely state its
contents, because he did not wish to commit himself to any of
the allegations of the petitioner. According to the new regime
of that house, it appeared that an individual, if he spoke on a
petition, was held in some degree responsible for its allegations;
but he, in order to get rid of that supposed responsibility, would
merely read the petition. The noble and learned lord then read
the petition. It was from a pers,n named Charles Hayman,
who stated that he had been for six years an inmate of the work-
house of Stapleton, near Bristol; and he complained that he
had been prevented from receiving spiritual assistance from the
Rev. T. White, who resided near Bristol, and who was (as we
understood) a regular dissenting minister. The petitioner stated
that he felt much aggrieved by not being able to avail himself
of the visits of the Rev. Mr. White.

The LORD CHANCELLOR presented a petition from Radford
Roe, Esq., barrister-at-law, complaining of the high and unjust
legal charges that had been imposed upon him.
A person from the office of the poor law commissioners pre-
sented copies of the correspondence of the commissioners on the
subject of the Stoke Poges union.
On the motion of Lord ELLENaortouGH, the finance accounts
of the united kingdom for the last year were ordered to be
printed.—Adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, THURSDAY.
CANTERBURY ELECTION.

Mr. DCGDA LE, as chairman of the Canterbury election com-
mittee, who have decided that S. K. Lushington, Esq., ought
to have been returned as member for the city of Canterbury,
moved the house that the late member, F. Villiers, Esq., might
be at liberty, by petit:on, to question the validity of the return
for the city of Canterbury within the next fourteen days.

LEICESTER BOROUGH ELECTION.

Mr. GtssoaNs presented a petition from Mr. Joseph Parkes,
praying to be allowed to amend a clerical error committed by
hiui with respect to the name of one of the sureties furnished by
the petitioners against the return for the borough of Leicester.
Mr. Parkes was called to the bar of the house, and examined
respecting the error, after which the motion was carried on a
division by a majority of nine.

cottK COUNTY ELECTION PETITION.
Dr. LEF it Or then moved for leave to rectify a mistake in the
christian name of one of the sureties proposed in the case of this
petition—to substitute "William Mannix" instead of " Henry
Mannix," and that the time for perfecting the surety be en-
larged for ten days.
Mr. John Jackson, agent for the petitioner, was called in and
examined, for the purpose of proving that the error was merely
clerical and altogether unintentional. On this motion the house
divided. It was carried by a majority of 27...

LONDON UNIVERSITY.
Mr. TooxE, in bringing forward his motion for "an address
to his Majesty, beseeching him to grant his royal charter of in-
corporation to the University of London, as appro'ved in the
year 1831, by the then law officers of the crown, and containing
nu other restriction than against conferring degrees in divinity
and in medicine," observed, iu the course of his speech, that
the University did not prefer to have any chair of theology, be-
cause it was considered the pupils might be instructed in their
religious tenets and duties at home; nor did it desire to have
the power of conferring degrees in divinity or in medicine.
(Hear.) All it wanted was the right to grant degrees in arts
and in law, with probably the same initials as in the Univer-
sities at present recognised. These degrees they looked for in
the expectation that they would be received by the public with
that respect to which they were entitled from the value of the
instruction therein. The London University was not a joint
stock or commercial company in the ordinary sense of the word,
because four per cent, was the highest interest the share holders
could receive for their money. The claims of the University to
a charter were daily increasing. There were now 400 pupils,
and the medical board was unsurpassed by that of any other in-
stitution.

Mr. GOULBURN objected to the motion on the ground that the
proceedings before the privy council, respecting the grant of a
charter to the University were not before the house. He con-
cluded by moving as an amendment an address to the Crown
fur a copy of the memorials, in this case to the privy council,
and a statement of its proceedings.
Sir ROBERT INGLIS did not mean to say anything disrespect-
ful of the London University; but thought the motion an in-
fringement upon the prerogatives of the Crown. The question
had been well argued, and could not have been brought before
the privy council under more favourable circumstances for the
institution than last year. With respect to the value of the de-
grees they were claiming the right of bestowing, honours con-
ferred by tutors were never considered to be of any particular
value. The value of honours at the Universities consisted in
their being given, not by college tutors in their respective col-
leges, but Tiy a class of examiners selected from the University
at large. In granting a charter to the London University, it
would be only, as it were, conferring one on a particular col-
lege, and the degree would he of no more value than a college
certificate. It was not denied that the London University was
to a certain extent a money speculation. Shares were sub-
scribed for, and might be sold or transferred like shares in a gas
company, or any other speculation of the kind. Was this, then,
he would ask, the kind of institution for which a charter ought
to be granted, with such powers as were sought for? The hon.
gentleman kMr. Tooke) had said that he did not claim the
power for the London University of conferring degrees in divi-
nity, but what was the extent Of that power as now exercised by
the Universities? He found that in the year 131 the Univer-
sity of Oxford conferred 268 degrees of bachelor of arts, 168 de-
grees of master of sits, and only 12 degrees in divinity.
Dr. LUSHINGTON supported the motion on the broad ground
that it was the duty of a government to give encouragement to
the cultivation of those talents which God had given to man,
and which were not intended to be left uncultivated.
Lord F. EGERTON agreed in much of what had been said by the
hon. and learned member who last addressed the house, but as
he intended to vote for the amendment of the right hon. gentle-
man, he could not consent to giVe a silent vote, lest he should
be considered as intending to quash the original motion. With
the highest respect for the hon. baronet (the member for the
University of Oxford), he must say, that if his vote on this occa-
sion were to be guided by his (Sir R. Inglis's) speech, and that
of the hon. and learned member for the Tower Hamlets ( Dr.
Lushington), without reference to other considerations, he must
vote for the latter. For his own part, he did not think that the
interests of sound education would suffer by the incorporation of
the University of London. Ile could not object to the estab.