The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-07-12 00:00:00

finptrial Varliameni

HOUSE OF LOkIIS.=THURSDAY.
On the motion of the Earl of SHAFTESBURY that the Li-
werpoool Improvement Bill he read a third time,
The Duke of RICHMOND wished to have two clauses
:struck out, by which the public-houses in the town were to
be kept closed from twelve o'clock on Saturday night until
one o'clock on Sunday afternoon. The House of Commons
had refused to put similar clauses in a general bill, and he

saw no reason why they should be inserted in a merely local
measure. It was unfair to the houses on one side of the
river that they should be shut to that hour of the day, when
people who were resolved to have drink could easily get over
to the Cheshire side and find all the public-houses open. He
would, under these circumstances, move that these clauses
be struck out.

The Bishop of SALISBURY supported the clauses, which,
he observed, had met the approbation of nearly all the parties
in the town. It had been proved that one-fifth of the com-
mitments in Liverpool were of drunken persons, who were
taken up at an early hour on Sundays. He had been re-
quested by his right rev. friend the Bishop of London to
state the very good effects which had followed the closing up
of the public-houses in the metropolis from midnight of Sa-
turday until one o'clock on Sunday afternoon.
The Bishop of Norwich fully concurred in the observations
of his right rev. friend who had just sat down, as to the evils
which had arisen from allowing the public-houses to be open
on Sunday mornings.
Lord SKELMERSDALE said, he should vote for the clauses,
which had been supported by the magistrates of Liverpool of
all shades of political opinions.
The house then divided, when there appeared in favour of
the clauses--
Content
Not content l5
Majority against the amendment —33
On our return to the gallery,
The Duke of RICHMOND was addressing the house against
the clause prohibiting the sale of liquors to persons appa-
rently under the age of 16; which elause he moved be ex-
punged.
Lord CAMPBELL supported the amendment.
The Bishop of SALISBURY and the Earl of WICKLOW op-
posed it; and _ . . .

Their lordships again divided, negativing the amendment—
Content
Not content . .
Majority against the amendment —6
The bill was then read a third time and passed
Upon the order of the day being read for going into corn.
mittee upon the Customs Bill, Lord STANHOPE repeated
must of the objections to the measure which he had urged
with so little success upon its former stages. He was op-
posed to every clause in the proposed tariff except those
reducing the duty upon coffee and rice.
Lord RADNOR objected to those provisions of the bill
which maintained, or increased the rate of, differential
duties; but Lord WICKLOW had sufficient confidence in the
present government to support the measure; although be ac-
knowledged that if it had been brought forward by the late
ministers, he should have opposed it. .

. ..
Lord FORTESCUE was of opinion that whatever alarm the
clause admitting the importation of foreign cattle had at
first excited had now subsided ; and the House then went
into committee. _

The clauses were agreed to without opposition; but upon
Schedule No. 1 Lord STANHOPE adopted the amendment
which had been moved in the other house by Mr. Miles, and
proposed that the duty upon live cattle should be taken by
weight instead of per head.
The Duke of BUCKINGHAM cordially concurred ; but
upon a division, eight peers only voted for the alteration in
the schedule.

One or two other amendments were summarily negatived,
and the bill, having passed through committee, was ordered
to be read a third time on Friday.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-THURSDAY

Mr. H UME moved the appointment of a select committee
to inquire into the proceedings of the commissioners for the
reduction of the national debt, from the year 1836 to 1841,
with reference to the amount of £5,395,569 Three per Cent.
stock added to the debt without the previous sanction of
parliament.
The CHAYCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER and Mr. T. F.
BARING opposed the motion as unnecessary.
After a short discussion, the motion was negatived by a
majority of 170 to 34.

Mr. Serjeant MURPHY moved that the House should, on
Wednesday, the 13th day of July, resolve itself into a com-
mittee of the whole House, to take into consideration the
acts 17 and 18 Charles 11., c. 27, intituled " An Act for
Provision of Ministers in Cities and Corporate Towns, and
making the Church of St. Andrew's, in the Suburbs of the
City of Dublin, Presentative for ever," with the view to the
repeal of so much thereof as relate to the provisions of
ministers in cities and corporate towns in Ireland. The
object of the motion was to abolish the payment of " minis-
ters' money" in Ireland.
Mr. Sergeant JACKSON gave a decided negative to the
motion.

Mr. SHELL said, that the question before the House was
but a portion of a larger and more important one which,
though now dormant, would be revived with new vigour in
the ensuing session of parliament.
-

After some observations from Mr. SHAW and Mr. M. J.
O'CONNELL,
Sir R. INGLIS said, he could not refrain from expressing
the alarm he felt at the announcement of Mr. Sheil.

Sir Wm. Somerville, Mr. Litton, and Mr. Callaghan,
severally addressed the House, after which
Lord ELIOT said, he was much surprised that this matter
should now be complained of, for the first time as a grievance.
He was willing to admit, however, that a less objectionable.
mode of remunerating the clergy in Irish cities might be
devised.

On a division, the motion was rejected by a majority of
85 to 56.

Mr. HARDY moved the appointment of a committee to
consider of, and report upon, the working of the Anatomy
Act with reference to Mr. Roberts' discovery of a fluid for
preserving bodies from decomposition.
Sir J. GRAHAM said that great praise was due to Mr. War-
burton, to whose public-spirited exertions the passing of the
Anatomy Act was to be attributed. Prior to the passing of
that act, the abuses which existed were not only of a disgust-
ing character, but they were even alarming to the safety of
life itself.. These abuses had, however, beep corrected by
that act, the working of Which was carefully watched at the
Horoe-office. Sir 13. Brodie and other high authorities con-
sidered Mr. Roberts' discovery as a failure.
The motion was withdrawn.

Sir R. Isor.rs moved a resolution to the effect that in all
proceedings of the committees specially appointed to investi-
gate the charges of alleged corrupt compromises and bribery,
in respect of the late elections at Nottingham, Reading, Har-
wich, &c., the parties implicated or accused hall at all times
be entitled to be present at, such, committees, irrespective of
their right as members of the House. He was aware that
the present committees had nearly closed their labours, and
that as regarded them his motion would be useless, but he
wished to lay down the principle as a precedent in future
cases. _

Mr. ROEBUCK opposed the motion, and hoped the House
would not withdraw its confidence from the committee, un-
less they misused the powers entrusted to them.
Mr. I'. DUNCOMBE moved, as an amendment, the pre-
vious question.
Sir R. PEEL thought it better to meet the resolution with
a direct negative.
After considerable discussion the amendment was carried
by a majority of 121 to 49.
Mr. BANNERMA.N moved the following resolution :
" That it is the opinion of this House that, considering the
present state of the country, it would be highly expedient to
vest in her present most gracious Majesty similar authority
to that which was given to her predecessors, and this House,
before the close of this session, will cheerfully acquiesce in
granting such powers as may enable her Majesty, with the
advice of her Privy Council, to reduce or discontinue, should
circumstances so require, the duties which now regulate the
importation of foreign corn until the first day of January,
1813, or for six weeks after the commencement of the next
session of parliament." The hon. gentleman cited several
former precedents in support of his motion.
Mr. WALLACE seconded the motion.

Mr. GLAnsToNTOpposed the motion, as one which not
only involved principles of a most dangerous character, but
which would decidedly fail to effect the object for which it
was intended. There were strong objections to giving such
large discretionary powers to the government—it would be
better to repeal the corn-laws. He trusted that the law
recently passed, in conjunction with a favourable harvest,
would afford a seasonable relief to the prevailing distress.
Mr. WARD contended that the speech of Mr. Huskisson
in 1826 was a full answer by anticipation to the arguments
used by Mr. Gladstone.

Lord WORSLEY was opposed to a motion which could
confer upon any government a power so dangerous as this—
a power, the existence of which would leave the agriculturists
without any means of judging of the prices they would be
likely to obtain, when at any moment the government cculd
of its own authority throw open our ports to the admission
of foreign grain.

Mr. NI:NIILNES regretted that government had not at
once assented to the motion, when he considered the scan-
dalous price of corn on the one hand, and the deep distress
prevailing through the country on the other. As the
government had passed a bill with the express view of
reducing the price of grain, they should now at once take the
responsibility of the power of opening the ports, should that
bill fail of the effect which it was intended to produce.

Mr. P. M. STEWART said it was clear that the recently-
passed corn-law had not produced its intended effect. The
speculators were as well satisfied as under the former law.
They speculated, it was true, for a smaller stake, but the risk
was far less and the certainty of success greater. There were
now 1,500,000 quarters of corn in bond, and the holders were
keeping it back in the hope of a further rise in price and
abatement of duty.

After some observations from Mr. WALLACE and Mr.
PARKER. in support of the motion,
Sir R. PEEL said that in 1826, when the discretionary
power was given to the government to admit foreign grain,
the admission was to take place under certain conditions, one
of which was that the corn so admitted should pay a duty of
12s. per quarter. One of the arguments used by Mr. Can-
ning when originally proposing the sliding scale was, that it
would obviate the necessity of vesting such an order in the
government. He hoped, however, that no government,
should such a necessity arise, would hesitate to take the
power which it was by the motion proposed to give them.
He could understand a proposition for repealing the law just
past, or for altering that law, but he could not understand a
proeeeding the result of which would be to throw uncertainty
into the whole of the transactions in corn. He would not
admit that the few weeks since the recent corn law passed
had been sufficient to give a fair trial to that measure. The
power proposed to be given was one liable to great abuse,
and considering that the motion, if agreed to, would have the
effect of shaking all faith in foreign nations upon the sta-
bility of our commercial regulations, he should call upon the
house to reject the proposition.
Lord HOWICK supported the motion of Mr. Bannerman.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that the continued speculations for
a rise in corn, and the consequent increase of price, were a
proof of the inherent evils cf the sliding scale. He thought,
however, there was a great objection to the motion before
the house, for it was placing in the hands of the executive
government. the distribution of the whole food of the country.
butHe would prefer an alteration of the corn law lately passed;
caosutrhsaetswugagseasttepdrebsyenthtehopeless, he could only express a
The house thearPP
hmoepnetthat should an imperious necessity arise, the govern-
negatived by a ma,
the would not hesitate to take the responsibility of adopting
supported the motion.
Mr. HOME motion.
Some
br returns uprrne
jsurdeilcaitailn divided, and Mr. Bannerman's motion was
discussiojotrt:otoykorp6laCe on ATI% flume's motion for
M cwocKßoLpeunbalvicys'ervictee.
tgottoiliT stated
that
Mr. S. .4ERBER
grant the returns would
Sir G.
in
se. gerout returns which were moved for
place on the adjournment of the debate on
was taken up in raakienrnPlained that the time of the clerks
by the honourable
Mr. Hume's motion, which w
t
Divisions took e b .
negatived by a majority of
The adjourned debate on Mr. Wallace's 7
50 ; but it was ultimately agreed
motion was fixed
for this day (Friday.)
The other orders of the day were then - .1*
IsPosed of, and the
house adjourned.

HOUSE OF LORDS.--FRIDAY.
The Bishop of NORWICI! presented a petition in favour of
the Mines and Collieries Bill, which led to some discussion.
The Earl of DEVON moved that the bill be referred to .a
select committee.