The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1844-07-30 00:00:00

Entpertat Varlianunt.

HOUSE OF LORDS.—MoNDAY.

The Sudbury Disfranchisement Bill was read a second
time.

The Charitable Bequests (Ireland) Bill was read a third
time, Lord MONTEAGLE declaring, on the part of him-
self and his friends around him, on the apposition
benches, that ministers were entitled to great praise for
the pains they had taken to render this bill as pe-fect as
possible, in which they had so far succeeded that he be
lieved it would not be fairly objected to as not being
equitable and impartial. They were also entitled to great
credit for the courage they displayed in the announcement
of their comprehensive views respecting the College of
Maynnoth and education in Ireland.
Lord BEAUMONT moved the committal of the Roman
Catholic Penalties Repeal Bill.
The Bishop of LONDON opposed the bill, which went,
in his opinion, the length of re-establishing Popish supae-
macy in this kingdom. He deprecated the discussion of
the measure in the absence of the bishops, who were the
legally-constituted guardians of the religion of the coun-
try. He moved that the bill should be committed that
day three months.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said he had taken great pains
to remove from this bill every clause which could be
deemed objectionable by any reasonable man. He sug-
gested, therefore, the withdrawal both of the motion and
the amendment to allow these alterations to be made, in
order that the real objects of the bill might be under-
stood.

After some further discussion, the bill passed through
committee.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-MONDAY.

Mr. GLADSTONE moved that the house should resolve
into committee on the railways bill, and explained to the
house the alterations he had made in the bill.
[An abstract of the principal clauses was given in our
last.]

Several honourable members expressed their approba-
tion of the proposed alterations, and clauses one to five
were agreed to.
On clause six being moved,
Mr. GLADSTONE observed, in answer to an objection
made by Mr. Thornely, that he would never be a party
to compel railway companies to run a particular train
upon the Lord's day.
Mr. THORNELY moved, as an amendment. that instead
of "every week-day," these words should be inserted—
" every day on which passengers were conveyed."
The committee divided. For the amendment, 73; for
the clause, 41 ; majority for the amendment, 32.
The remaining clauses were agreed to, and the report
was ordered to be brought up to-morrow.
Captain PLUMRIDGE, seeing the noble lord the mem-
ber for Staffordshire in his place, wished to ask him, as
an officer of the royal navy, what his opinion was of the
late explosion ? Could he give the house any explanation
of it ?

Lord INGESTRIE really did not know whether he was
in order or not, or whether it was expected he should
state what took place off Brighton on Saturday. Briefly
he might say, that upon that occasion a large ship was
destroyed by Captain Warner, but how it was done he
was not at liberty to state. Hef bad a short statement of
the fact, which, with the leave of the house, he would
read. It was a short account of the matter, was dated
July 21, 1844, and signed by himself, Captain Breton,
Captain Dickinson, and Captain Henderson. The noble
and gallant member then proceeded to read the document.
In it the abovenamed officers certified that the barque
John o'Gaunt was, on Saturday, the 20th of July, placed
under their management and control; that the explosion
did not take place in consequence of anything placed on
board, or alongside of it, by Captain Warner ; that the
explosion took place by a signal from them ; that Captain
Warner was not previously aware of the time when it
would be given ; and that their belief was, that Captain
Warner had not been once that day on board the John
o'Gaunt. He would give a full statement of his views
when the proper time should arrive. At present he
would only say, that his conviction of the importance of
Captain Warner's discovery to this country was undimi-
nished by the experiment of Saturday. _ _

Mr. &MIL moved an address to the Crown for the
production of certain papers connected with the occupa-
tion of Algiers by the French, and, in doing so, entered
into a history of the events preceding and subsequent to
the capture of Algiers, down to the latest intelligence
from that quarter respecting the operations against Abd-
el-Kader, contending that the true policy of this country
had not been maintained in allowing France to subjugate
the country, from which British manufactures were in
some measure excluded by an ordonnance, which raised,
in 1843, the duties leviable upon them.
Sir R. PEEL regretted that this subject had been brought
forward, because it was calculated to do anything but aid
the efforts of the British government to prevent a war
between France and Morocco. Considering the time
which had elapsed since the occupation of Algiers took
place, he thought it would be scarcely consistent with
common sense or discretion to ask that it should be now
abandoned. With respect to our naval establishment,
we were in a state of preparation which would enable us
to meet any emergency whatever. The right hon. bart.
intimated that France stood pledged not to extend her
conquests in the direction of Morocco or Tunis, and he
hoped no remarks would be made in that house which
would give rise to retorts in the Chamber of Deputies.
After a short discussion, the motion was rejected with-
out a division, and the house adjourned.