The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1833-03-01 00:00:00

swing money on the dock estates, they had. raised
and a half, which they had expended in various build
ie town. He asked the house, was it proper that
ions revenue should be under the almost irresponsible
f any certain number of individuals? (Hear, hear,'
anon Council of Liverpool, who controlled that eu°'''
enue, was a self-elected body, amounting to fort)
Is, who elected themselves for life. The dock estate'i
naged by a committee of twenty-one, the majority e,
re nominated by the Common Council. The cont,i
as, therefore, that the corporation had the control '
,
ids—they possessed great influence in the borough
the the nomination of all the clergy in the town, and
the dock estates. They sold land as owners of
en, td members of their own body, and purchased 1,,,w
to the opinions of the majority of a committee. ,`;
and influence thus vested in them they had abuse?
eveh abused their ecclesiastical patronage, by refuoll
ite persons to churches unless they were connect
abers of their own body. He appealed to the hoof
such abuses were to be allowed, and whether soe
ight to be left in the hands of a self-elected cOrpot.f
e hoped that the attention of the committee, now 61
quire into the existing corporations, would be pew
,cted to that of Liverpool.
Lition was read, and, on the motion of the hon. all
entleman, was ordered to be referred to the COIIY
corporations.
)N. GENTLEMAN then presented a petition, signed bi
abers of the Guardian Society for the Protection
Liverpool, praying for the abolition of the snaa
:amp duties. He said those duties operated ye'?
-for instance, he had known a large library tea.%
thout being subjected to any duty, while the o'.
could not transact the smallest piece of busine''
nning under their operations.
•N. GENTLEMAN also presented a petition from 81:
named James Hargrave, praying for the abelitio
rn Laws.
Lerman \twin gave notice that on Friday he would
petition from the persons engaged in the soap trade
ropolis, relative to the duties on that article.
CONNOR presented a petition from members of tie
mrt Political Union against the Grand Jury systee
, and praying for an amendment in the system.
jury
the laws now in contemplation were a rae'
Last year they might have been of use, but ItOe'
e or five young ensigns were to have all the posvet
l
to their hands, of what- avail would any amendmell
ury laws ? The thing was a mockery on the coulltr,
'
If such an atrocious and abominable measu'ci
ied through that House, of what use was it to awe°

iTE presented two petitions from places in Somerset'
-Mg for the abolition of slavery.

[NsoN inesented a petition from Richmond, in Surr''
r the better observance of the sabbath.
IBETT thought the law as it now stood on this subi ct
,5 a
dent for all useful purposes. He was quite satioet
id be passed to interfere between master and servan
ld not lead to confusion which never would be at an
law were to be made whereby servants should not br
)11 Sundays, would a cook not immediately say to hit,
at she would not cook the dinner for Sunday?
that the measure was to prevent masters worklo,r
ats on Sunday, such a system would be perfect');
unless it went into
.private families. (Hear, hear''
tlemen backward in employing their coachmen;
Ms, and their footmen on Sundays ? Why, tho),
of workmen who laboured very hard, in Hyde Para
:e. (Hear.) They were well dressed up, and lool'ea
but he would be bound t) say that if they 11
e they would much rather be at home with the mail;
ighter.) If the house were to legislate betwee
their maids, there would soon be such a system
introduced in this country as had never been heard
ountrv. •

)iON thought the Hon. Member for Oldham
,0 soon upon the nature of the proposed mea,'ol
ire was to be introduced for the better observance (),
th it ought to have general support. (Hear, heal
!fore the house condemned a proposed measure 0
hey ought, in the first place, to know its exact &Ili
!ri it should be introduced it should have his he 6
and he thought it might be so framed as not i aole
o interfere between master and servant, so as to
3 proper recreation of the latter.
ELLIOTT presented a petition from the United AL'
igregations of Moorbattle, praying for the total au'',
hes.

. .
W.YmEs presented a petition from Auchtermuchti
ity of Fife, praying for the abolition of negro slaver);
tion from Strathmeghlin, in the same county, to thsl
Also a petition from. Leslie, praying for the to;
f the Church establishment in Ireland, and that Itg
sight be applied towards the removal of the preseo
taxation.
BETT was much pleased to hear this petition, and 11
been much more pleased still, to have found that 'y
Le lay-impropriations. It was the lay-impropriati°
d abolishing.
LON presented five petitions, praying for the aholiti°ll,
property, in Ireland, and for its application to sod'
elculated to relieve the burdens of that country fr°,ll)
al Union of Leslie, and from the Protestant Disseil.
so. The hon. member was convinced that trancluto
sever exist in either Ireland or England as 104;j
professed a religion contrary to the Establisacto
Ireland were compelled to contribute so largelY
nance of doctrines with which they could not agre.l,
that the time was not far distant. when the IrPf
uld be done away with, and that unhappy coup"'
state of tranquillity.
r. MEMBER, whose name we could not aseertaitio'
enter his protest againSt the doctrine of spoliaticj
e petition. He considered the church of Irelave
1 right to its property as any gentleman in E°s
to his. (Hear, hear.) There was no individual,.
ithes that were entitled to them, so that if they wed,
r to-morrow they would go to the State. He trusteit
sat both the churches o?England and Ireland We
,00 firm a basis to be shaken by every breath tbot
generality of Dissenters agree, with the doctril!„,
rch of England; they only differed fromit in f°'
my.
sat
WYER said the hon. gentleman who had just,t
stated no reason why he, as a Catholic, who did -'0
the Protestant Church, should contribute to to
that Church. Tithes had by act of parliament, beb,
from the Catholic Church to the Protestant Churfrtei•
no reason why an act oi'parliament could not a
(Hear, hear.)
char fAII.RON said that he would plead guilty to the
acestors had enjoyed too peat a portion of COrd;
ut they supported the poor.
the
. MEMBER, in reference to the assertion thatreland had been transferred by act of parlial,l6,
atholics to the Protestants, sail he behirved n,,
h act in existence ; if there were, he should be,,lbtry
tere.to 14)(1 it,. Certain he was that in this cou'aign
to such an act. There were acts passed in the I`l,-,,ir
not for the transfer of tithes, but for tsiiii_
appeared that at that time there w-as as great, tbis
illeetin tithes in this country as there was
collects'sg them in Ireland.
1415 $
believeg there was no such act; indeed none pa
for the Catholic clergy of that day became cou',l4.llctiie
tholic errors, the very moment that the head 0;
e king—became convinced. The Catholic oerrz
sly became Protestants, 0-1. and those who had 0-,`
as Catholics then received them as Protestaulf
!et to the abolition of tithes, many persons, biliPe,
rest, believed that they came mainly from theed
he landlord, and that a total abolition of them we'he
ivour of the poorer classes; but would go to ;
so would then have ten tenths the value of the lan('
ix or seven tenths, as at present.—(Hear, hear.) fl
e
BETT-Some hon. gentlemen to the right and ,'_
a been making some assertions which ;I must hell
the
o
famine the foundations of. It has been stated a
if the property of the whole kingdom re:4s upn L
ation as tithes and other church pi operty. It 1t,,;c1
granted that the, possession of much of the
agdom arises from grants from the Crown,
ures. Now, the rights of the parties holding efairweit
e very different. The property was conferred P,1...10
Act of Henry. VIII., but it was confered upon.
t 1
certain conditions, viz., that the new proprieter6
aver discharge the duties consequent upon hold_on_ge
ty, and satisfy the demands to which it had betr,,
ct. Now, I say, that no part of the tithes weds
.ay without being subject to these commissions,
ventual and monastic proertv. The case therefore,,
so clear as the hon. member near me supp(!-,e4
the tithes, are for the most part in the hands
here does not appear to be more than 500 Pr ',‘"er
men receiving tithes in Ireland, whilst the num!,,,,
priests performing the duty is no less than
o, no.)
Moly rose to set the house right with respect to,
1
hich many honourable members seemed to thin