The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1844-06-18 00:00:00

flupertai paritanunt.

HOUSE OF LORDS.—MosoAY.
The Earl of STRA DBILOKE moved the thril nndirg of
the Night Poaching Prevention Mil.
Tie Earl of RADNOR was of opinion, the the best way
of getting rid of all legislation on this Eulject was to ie-
lieve t'te necessities of the peopla ny re:liming all the
strictions on the importation of the necessaries of life.
—Unfortunate labourers were driven to these practices Lai
distre-s.

Earl FITZHARDTNGE sa7d, he was as anxious as his
noble friend to alleviate the distresses of the poor. This
bill, however, he thought a very nec-s-ary one. It was a
measure that would not interfere with the honest and
industrious poor. He could most truly sate that, dutir,g
an experience of 40 years in the county of Gloucester, he
had never known an instance where a party convicted of
poach n: was driven to the coannti,sion of that offence
through distress. or who could otherwise boast of a good
character.

The bill was then read a third tune,
Tue Copyhold and Customary Tenure Ac's Bill w•as
read a second time.
The Law of Libel Act Amendment Bill was committed
prc forma, and was reported with amendments to the
house.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-MONDAY..

The Eastern Union Railway Bill was read a third time
and passed.
The Market Ilarborough and Coventry Roads Bill was
read a second ►ime, and ordered to be committed.
Lord ASHLEY and other members presented numerous
against the Dissenters Chapels Bill.
Sir R. PEEL, in reply to Mr. I'. Borthwick, sa;d the
British government had received a communication from
Don Carlos, who stated his object was the tranquilization
of Spain. The proposal of Dun Carlos was, that if his
proposition was agreed t), viz., the marriage of his eldest
son with the Queen of Spain, he (Don Carlos) would
-make certain concessions. As regarded his own rights,
these concessions, however, were not clearly pointed out.
-The British government were content with forwarding
these communications to the government of Spain, with-
out expressing any opinion as to whether they were likely
or not to quiet the public mind in Spain, the government
(A that country were the best judges.
Mr. P. BORTIMICK considered the answers of the right
hon. baronet were not satisfactory, therefore he should
proceed with the motion of which he had given notice.
• On the order of the day being read for going into com-
mittee on the Sugar Duties Bill,
• Mr. EWART rose and brought forward a resolution to
reduce the duty on foreign sugar to the same rate of duty
as colonial sugar.
Mr. GOULBORN excused himself from dealing with this
motion at any length, on the ground that this proposal
had been so often discussed on former occasions. He ad-
mitted that, it the revenue would allow it, a very large re-
duction of the sugar duties would be desirable, but not an
entire withdrawal of protection by the equalisation of all
the duties on that article.

On a division, Mr. Ewart's motion was defeated by a
majority of 259 to 56.
The Dissenters' Chapel Bill went through committee
pro forma, and was ordered to be recommitted on Thurs-
day. _ _

....
The Joint Stock Company's Bills were read a second

time.

After some discussion on the Vestries in Churches
Bill it was ordered to stand over for the present, in order
that the parishes of England might learn the nature of the
measure, and have the opportunity of expressing opinions
upon it.

• HOUSE OF LORDS, TUESDAY.
The Earl of Fowls, after presenting a great number of
petitions against the union of the sees of Bangor and St.
Asaph, moved the second reading of the bill which he
had introduced, to repeal so much of the act of 1836 as
provided for the union of those sees. The noble earl
having urged the unanimity of the vast number of peti-
tions presented to the House, and the universal feeling of
the clergy of North Wales in favour of his proposition,
proceeded to answer the objections he anticipated. It
might, he said, be called inconsistent to repeal part of an
Act so lately passed ; but then it would be worse than in-
consistent not to repeal it, if it were found to work a great
evil. But he had a precedent for his motion. Within a
short time after the original Act was passed, it was thought
desirable to repeal so much of it as related to the union of
the see of Sodor and Man with the see of Carlisle. Why,
then, should that which had been granted to the entreaties
of the inhabitants of the Isle of Man be refused to the en-
treaties of the clergy and inhabitants of North Wales ?
The great increase of the population in Wales, the extent
of the surface over which the bishop would have to exer-
cise his spiritual functions, and the natural difficulties of
the country, were all potent arguments against the pro-
posed union of the sees.
The Duke of WELLINGTON, on the part of the govern-
ment, opposed the bill. The arguments used by Lord
Powis, he said. might be very good azainst the Act of
1836, but now that the Act was in operation, and that the
orders in council consequent of it had been promulgated,
it would embarass the Government and her Majesty in
council, if a bill to repeal part of this Act were to be
passed into a law. His Grace continued :—" The orders
in council were made in 1838, six years ago, and the
orders having been duly registered as required by the Act,
my noble friend now comes for a repeal of the Act, which
is the foundation of all those measures. My noble friend
has argued the question as if nothing had been done, and
as if we had now to consider whether these sees should be
united or not ; but if be comes forward to repeal the act
uniting the sees, on which are founded the other measures
under the order in council, he ought, at least, to have
provided all the means and machinery for which the orders
in council, under the authority of the Act of Parliazuent,
have made provisions ; but on these points my noble
friend and his bill are entirely silent. The Act, however,
and the orders in council, provide not only for the pecuni-
ary means, but also for the political situation of the new
Bishops of Ripon and Manchester. It provides that if
two new bishops are to be appointed, two of those who
had formerly seats in this House shall be withdrawn, and
unite the sees of Bristol and Gloucester, and secondly of
St. Asaph and Bangor, thus leaving the number of bishops
in the House the same as before the passing of the Act.
My noble friend should have adverted to this, and seen
that his measure would make an organic change in the
constitution of this House, and in the number of spiritual
peers. It makes the augmentation, but no provision in
which those bishops shall be called to take their seats in
the House ; no provision for rotation if the number
should not be greater than at present, nor for any con-
sequences of making one more bishop. Considering the
necessity of providing for these points, I intreat your
lord hips to remember the difficulty in which you and her
Majesty in council will be placed if you give a second
reading to this bill." The noble duke moved that the bill
be read a second time that day six months.
The Bishop of BANGOR warmly supported the bill.
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY admitted that the
feelings of the clergy and laity of Wales were in favour of
this measure ; but argued that the opinions of the commis-
sioners were against it, and against the expediency of
maintaining the sees separate. The most reverend prelate
opposed the bill. _ _

The Bishop of St. DAVID'S charged the Government
with want of regard to the grievances of the Welsh people.
He knew that representations made to the Government
previous to the recent disturbances in Wales had been
discharged, and the principality now felt the bitter effects
of that discharge. The Church in Wales was labouring
under the effects of that general disregard.
The Earl of WINCHELSEA warmly supported the bill.
The Bishop of LONDON opposed the bill, on the ground
that, if carried, it would endanger the creation of the new
see of Manchester.
The Bishop of EXETER supported the bill, and argued,
that it was in committee on the bill that the inconveni-
ences mentioned by the Duke of Wellington, and the fu-
ture provision for the Bishop of Manchester would have
to be considered.
The Bishop of SALISBURY adduced his own personal
experience as an instance of the mischief and disappoint-
ment attending the unions of sees. lie had, he said, the
misfortune of having cast upon him the duty of two dio-
ceses ; most unwillingly he had been induced by the
example of those, to whose judgement and experience he
felt great deference was due, and by a supposed state of
necessity in the Church, for which he had been told no
other remedy could be found, to undertake the care of
another diocese in addition to that which properly belonged
to him. Now. he could assert, that the union he was
concerned with had given satisfaction to no man, and least
of all to himself. The burden of it distracted his attention
from the duties of his own peculiar diocese : it over-
weighed his spirits, and it broke his health. He had
earnestly desired to be relieved from that burden, but for
that relief he had petitioned in vain. The clergymen of
his own diocese might well complain that a portion of
their care and Alperntendence which were due to them had
been diverted from them ; and those of the other diocese
deeply felt, he knew, that they were deprived of the care
and oversight of a bishop residing amongst themselves.
The right reverend prelate assured the government that,
by rejecting this measure, they would greatly shock the
feelings, disappoint the hopes, and shake the confidence of
those who were the firmest friends of the Church.
Greatly would the Church rejoice—exclaimed the right
rev. prelate—to see a government strong not only in finan-
cial resources, not only in its success in both Houses of
Parliament, but strong also in those higher attributes
which attached to the Government the affections of the
people. Greatly would the Church rejoice to see an ad-
ministration strong in that faith which can trust for a
blessing on all religious questions ; strong in that hope
which can animate to meet difficulties ; and strong in
that enlarged charity for the souls of men, which would
make them see it to be a statesman's duty to bring reli-
gion home to the doors of the people, and that the offi-
deney of the Church of Christ was the only sure founda-
tion alike of social order and eternal peace.
The Earl of H A RROWBY likewise supported the bill.
Their Lordships then divided—
For the second reading ..
For the Duke of Wellington's amendment.... 37
Majority against the Government —l2
The,bill was read a second time.

HOUSE OP COMMONS.—TUESDAY.
Mr. BowricwicK moved for a select committee to in-
quire into the operation of the Anatomy Act, but the
motion was
,resisted by Sir 3. Graham, and refused on

a division.
Mr. WARD then brought on his annual motion for a
committee of the whole house on the temporalities of the
Irish Churcb,
Lord ELIO? observed upon the vagueness of this pro-
posal for a committee, by which the hon mover had
specific proposal whatever upon
evaded the making of any
the important sutject of this motion. He quoted the
declarations of many distinguished advocates of the Ro-
Paan Catholics against the disturbgn_ce of the Protestant

Church in Ireland. The Protestant Clergy in that coun-
try were not open to the censures which they had justly
incurred in elrlier times : they were now pious and dili-
gent ministers of religion. Tie Roman Catholics now
profe,sed to repud;ate all State provisions for then:selves;
and the present o`-jest, therefore, was not to endow the
Roman CatLoli:! re;igion, hut to take away the property
of the Protestant Ci.ureh fur the purpose of applying it
to secular uses.

Mr. Str Aw said the question seemed now to be no
lancer whether the Irish Protestant Church should have
a little mere or a little less, but whethor its whole pro-
perty should be transferred to another Church, or carried
away from Church purposes altogether. The general
state of the Church of Ireland might challenge compari-
son with that of any establishment in the world. The
income of the Church, as stated by Mr. Ward, was the
gross income : its net income was only about £550,000.
He rejoiced that this motion had been met with manly
resistance by the government. and felt assured that the
people would sanction no other principle.
The debate was then adjourned.