The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-05-06 00:00:00

Lord DENMAN

J RUSSELL felt bound todh expres
ni.

ained i

He did not believe
complained of by the peti-
legree remedied by acced-
n, while it would he the
sin immediate transfer

ironid be in thews

,e prayer of

—.Janes, and thus increase
forcibly set forth in the petition. Thin king
• ' -i-- i,,oqe was that de-

I that the que
)Y Mr. Roetruc

he should give his v

ruember for FlilSb
PEEL said

" no, for or against
against the motion of

..at, even if the question was not as to
~.ocy of granting the charter, still he should oppose the
l inn f it beau g the petitioners by their counsel or agents
at the bar in support of these allegations. He thought it
more holiest to tell the petitioners at once that they could
nit he heard at the bar, rather than, by bearing them, to
,)pes which must inevitably end in delusion. The
di, .vas an impeachment of the whole constitution of the
ry ; and was be to be called upon to suspend all the
>f the country to enter upon an inquiry like this,
',ow
n must terminate in nothing? It was far more honest
to tell them at once that their prayer could not be listened

to than to hear them first and then tell them that their argu-
ments had made no impression upon his mind. To adopt
the principle of universal suffrage would be to establish a
democracy on the ruins of the mixed monarchy under which
this country had, for 150 years, enjoyed more substantial
happiness than had ever fallen to the lot of any other nation.
Mr. MuNTz said he voted for the motion simply because
it was one of inquiry, and he could not make up his mind to
refuse inquiry when he heard of the state of suffering in
which such an enormous number of his fellow-subjects were
struggling.
Mr. OSWALD said he would be no party to the delusion
of hearing the petitioners at the bar of the house, when he
knew such a proceeding could lead to no beneficial results.
Mr. ViLuEas supported the motion of Mr. Duncombe.
Lord CLEMENTS opposed the motion.
Mr. O'CONNELL supported the motion, because he was
an advocate for universal suffrage ; but he could not in any
way identify himself with the petition.
Mr. DUNCOMBE replied, after which the motion was nega-
tived by a majority of 287 to 49.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and
the house adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—WEDNESDAY.
When the order of the day was moved for the second
reading of the Church Patronage (Scotland) bill,
Sir J. GRAHAM said, that, owing to the division which had
heretofore prevailed in Scotland upon this question, govern-
ment had felt that it would be useless to bring forward any
measure with a hope that it would lead to reconcilement of
the differences which prevailed. Now, however, matters
wore a different aspect, and, from the communications which
had taken place between the government and influential par-
ties in Scotland, he had reason to hope that some healing
measure might be now advantageously adopted. Under
these circumstances he would ask the hon. member who had
charge of the bill, to postpone its second reading, in order
that government might have time to consider of the proper
course to be pursued ; and if in a reasonable time govern-
ment should not be prepared with a measure, the hon. mem-
ber would, of course, be at liberty to proceed with his own.
Mr. CAMPBELL said that, under these circumstances, he
should postpone the second reading of his bill for six weeks.
Mr. F. MAuf.E‘was opposed to the postponement, believ-
ing that the measure which the government intended to in-
troduce would be the same as had formerly been brought
before the other house of parliament by Lord Aberdeen,
upon which the opinion of the people and of the church of
Scotland had been already unequivocally expressed. He
should therefore move that the bill be then read a second
time.
Mr. PLUMPTEE supported the postponement.
After some discussion, in which Mr. Campbell, Mr. Coch-
rane, Mr. P. M. Stewart, and Mr. Wallace took part,
Sir R. PEEL said that it was a most unprecedented thing
to move the second reading of a bill after the hon. member
whose bill it was announced his intention of postponing it,
and in the present instance it was the more strange on the
part of Mr. Fox M iule to attempt to force on legislation
upon the subject, when it was recollected that he had been
for five years in office without attempting to do anything
whatever to put an end to the dissensions which prevailed.
After some further discussion the house divided, and the
postponement of the bill was carried by a majority of 131
to 48. . _ . .

The Public-house bill was re-committed pro forma, with
a view to introduce some amendments, after which it was
ordered to be read a third time on Wednesday week. ,_

After some other bills had been disposed of, the house
adjourned.

PORTER'S PATENT ANCHOR

The following properties peculiar to this anchor are fully
verified by reports, founded on practical experience of its
merits.

It is impossible to foul it, either by hemp or chain cable;
consequently a vessel may ride at single anchor as secure
from fouling as if moored.
It cants and takes hold more quickly than any other.
It has extraordinary holding powers, whether the bottom
be chalk, clay, sand, or mud, &c.
It holds on to the shortest stay peak.
It presents no upper fluke to injure either the vessel her-
self or others in shoal water; and the risk and delay occa-
sioned by hooking the cables of other vessels in crowded an-
chorages are avoided. _

It is most convenient for stowage, as the flukes can easily
be separated from the shank and passed into the hold; it is
therefore most convenient as a spare anchor. It can also be
easily separated and transported in two boats,, which is an
advantage where it is of great weight.
It produces the desired effect of ground tackle at much
less weight.

In consequence of the upper fluke coming down on the
centre of the shank, the greater portion of the strain is re-
moved from the pivot, and transferred to that part of the
shank on which the upper pea rests, thus dividing the re-
sistance more equally by bringing the leverage nearer to the
ring ; the anchor is thereby enabled to bear strains and jerks
which would be fatal to one of the ordinary construction.

In consequence of the arms being made apart from the
shank, with bars extending from pea to pea, the risk of an
unsold weld at the crown is avoided ; and as that is the part
where other anchors so often fail, this is considered to be an
important advantage.