The Liverpool Standard, and General Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1854-07-11 00:00:00

HOUSE OF LORDS.-MONDA.Y, jrLT 10.

The royal assent was given by commission toll public
and private bills.
The house adjourned..

The house resumed at five o'clock.
The BISHOP of LONDON drew the attention of the
house to the withdrawal of salary from, the Bishop of New
Zealand, which he condemned as a great iDjustice.
The Duke of NEWCASTLE gave an explanation of the
circumstances attending the withdrawal, similar to that
afforded by Sir G. GREY in the House of Commons.

Some discussion took place relative to the Cork and
Waterford Railway Bill, chiefly on the question whether
the standing orders had been complied with, and ended in
a division, the numbers being 48 to 33 in the affirmative.
Lord LYNDITu Rs'r entered into a lengthened statement
respecting the claims of Captain Carpenter on the Admi-
ralty, on account of the invention of a screw propeller for
the navy, concerning which certain negotiations had taken
place many years since. Captain Carpenter's screw had
been in use since that time, and he had not been able to
obtain compensation.
The Earl of ABERDEEN declined to enter into the rela-
tive merits of the screw propeller of Captain Carpenter
over that of other parties; but stated that the Admiralty
had acted on the highest legal authority. The present
board had taken the same course as its predecessors, and
viewed it purely as a patent question, leaving the parties
interested to find a remedy at law.

Lord HARDWICKE expressed his dissatisfaction at the
explanation offered by the Earl of Aberdeen, and consi-
dered that Captain Carpenter had been most unjustly
treated.

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS BILL.
The House went into committee on this bill.
Lord EGLINTON moved to negative tho clause pro-
hibiting the use of dogs for purposes of draught.
The Duke of ARGYLE supported the clause.
Lord BROUGHAM also advocated the proposed claim.
The clause was strongly opposed by Earl GRANVILLE.
The Bishop of OXFORD supported, and the Earl of
llALmEsnuny opposed the clause.
After some further discussion, the house divided—
For the clause 43
Against it 93

The amendment lost by

A short discussion took place on the amendments which
the LORD CHANCELLOR proposed to introduce in the
Divorce Bill.

Lord CAMPBELL and the Bishop of OXFORD strongly
pressed for the postponement of the Bill, until his lord-
ship had had a fuller opportunity of considering the object
After an explanation from the LORD CHANCELLOR,
the Bill was withdrawn.

Some other business was then despatched; various Bills
were advanced a stage, and the House adjourned at ten
minutes to nine p.m.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—MoNDAT, JULY 10.
The House met at four o'clock.

The House was summoned to the House of Lords to hear
the Royal assent given to a number of public and private
bills.

BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS.
The House having gone into committee on the Bribery
Bill,

Lord J. RUSSELL stated that the Select Committee, to
whom this bill had been referred, had considered it with
great care, and they had added to it several clauses from
the hills proposed by Sir F. Kelly and Mr. Walpole. Some
new clauses had also been introduced with respect to the
election of officers. All these provisions were of great im-
portance ; and he would move that they be adopted.
Under time circluotances, he did not thiuli it tloaablo to

proceed with the Controverted Elections Bill in the

sent session

On the second clause, which defines bribery,
Mr. AGLIONBY moved that the word " authorize

introduced, with the object of more clearly establisl

After a long discussion, the Committee divided :
For the motion, 110
Against it,

Majority against,

The clause was agreed to.
Clause 3, defining what shall be deemed bribery in votes,
which rendered all who should directly or indirectly ask
the candidate for any money or place, for giving or receiv-
ing a vote, liable to a penalty of £lO. led to serious objec-
tions, and at length the words in question were withdrawn.
On clause 4, which defines treating, Mr. B. DENISON
asked whether it would be illegal to issue refreshment
tickets to voters at an eiection ?

The ATTORNET-GEffERAL replied in the affirmative.

Sir J. PACKINGTON moved the omission of the words,

After a lengthened conversation, the motion wa.
drawn, and the clause passed, the Attorney General hav-
ing consented to a change in the clause ; the questions of
travelling expenses and refreshment tickets to be cow
sidered separately. At a subsequent stage, on the sth
clause, which relates to undue influence.

Mr. MALENS insisted upon the necessity of providing
against denunciation from the altar, and he moved the
insertion of words to this effect.

The commitee divided—For the motion, 26 ; against it

155; majority against, 99.

Chase agreed to.

Mr. 3. SVEITir moved, in addition to, the clause, that
votes given from undue influence be void.

Lon J. RUSSELL resisted the motion
The committee divided—
For the motion

Against it

Majority against the motion

Clause 19; providing that electors should not be paid
for services at elections, after a long discussion, was

struck out

A division took place on the question that clause 1%
which provides that voters shy not be liable to• service
as special constables during the election, stand part of
the bill.
For the Anse

Against it

Majority for

The clause was then carried.
On clause 14, whish relates to the. costs of prosecution-
under the act, being-read,

Lord J. RUSSELL stated that they wouldbe paid out of
the Consolidated Fund.
Althe clauses up t 0.16 were agreed to.
The Chairman reporto.4. progress, the• committee ta
again' on Thursday.
Therhouse adjourned at 15,minutes past lo'clock.