Sitting of 6 June 1832

MINUTES.
New Writs issued. On the Motion of Mr. SPRING RICE, for Hampshire, in the room of Sir JAMES MACDONALD, become Chief Commissioner of the Ionian Islands.
Bill. Read a third time:—King's County Assizes.
Petitions presented. By Mr. SHAW, from Kilmeen, against the Government Plan of Education (Ireland); and from the Corporation of Weavers, Dublin, that the Privileges of Freemen may be continued to them.—By the LORD ADVOCATE, from Ulloa, for Stopping the Supplies.—By Mr. O'CONNELL, from Carrick-on-Suir; and by Mr. RUTHVEN, from Merchants, Bankers, and others of Dublin,—for a more extensive Reform than that of the Irish Bill. By Mr. DIXON, from Zetland; and by Sir GEORGE CLERK, from George Mercer, Esq.,—against the Reform of Parliament (Scotland) Bill.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM (IRELAND) —PETITIONS.
Mr. O'Connellpresented a Petition from the Irish National Political Union, relative to the Irish Reform Bill. The petitioners complained of the great injustice done them, by the inequality of the proposed Representation as compared with England, an inequality that would tend to the separation of the two countries. They only wished to be placed on the same footing as the constituency of England. They had exhibited certain
464
details, in order to show that they ought to be placed on a better footing than that on which the Bill would place them; and showed that, taking the population as a basis, they were most unjustly treated. The population of England was sixteen millions, and that of Ireland (exclusive of certain omissions in the census, one of which was the omission of 30,000 ill Dublin alone) was upwards of seven millions and a half. If population alone were considered, Ireland would be unjustly treated. But it had been said, that Ireland was very deficient in point of revenue. It was said that while the revenue of England was 48,000,000 l. that of Ireland was only 4,000,000 l. That was erroneous, for it appeared by the parliamentary documents, that the duty on tea consumed in Ireland, which alone was 500,000 l. a-year, as well as the duties on many other articles consumed in that country, were charged in England, and credited to the English revenue instead of the Irish. All commodities from the East paid their duty in England, although a great portion was consumed in Ireland. Those duties, added to the published revenue of Ireland, would amount to one-seventh of the English revenue, and, therefore, according to that proportion, the petitioners contended that Ireland ought to have 147 Members. He had, however, never asked for more than 125. The petitioners also prayed for the restoration of the 40 s. freeholders in fee, and for an extension of the constituency, by reducing the 10 l. qualification to 5l., and for allowing fourteen years' leaseholders to be on the same footing as a freeholder for life. According to the proposed qualification for borough Representation, many boroughs would be merely nomination boroughs, for there was hardly one that could boast of more than 200 voters, and many not 120; so that a person with a few thousand pounds could command the majority of votes in any of the boroughs. It would also lead to perjury, corruption, and drunkenness, which was much worse than the present system, by which one agent could meet another agent, and pay over to the other a certain sum of money for a seat. The petition deserved the most serious attention of the House, and he was confident the grievances complained of, by which Ireland was placed on such an inferior footing, as compared with England, would tend to separate the two countries, which he hoped

465
never to see accomplished, and to which he certainly never would consent.
Mr. Cramptondid not rise for the purpose of entering into any premature discussion on the Irish Reform Bill, but he trusted, when the Bill came on for further consideration, he should be able to show most clearly, that the statements of the hon. member for Kerry were very inaccurate, and founded on most erroneous conclusions. If the constituency in open towns was a subject now for reprehension from the hon. Member, on account of the riot and drunkenness it occasioned, what, he would ask, would it be when it was ransferred from property to population?
Mr. Leadercould assure the House, and should be prepared to prove it at the proper time, that many of the towns which now enjoyed a constituency, would, by the proposed Bill, be converted into close boroughs.
Mr. Shawagreed with the hon. member for Kerry, that the Irish Reform Bill would in the end, cause a separation of the two countries. The hon. Member had drawn a distinction between a separation of the two countries and a Repeal of the Union, by carefully reserving himself upon the latter.
Mr. Sheilwould ask the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Crampton), whether he meant to say that there would be no such reductions in the constituency of the Irish towns as had been described by the hon. member for Kerry? Would he say, that the votes in the borough of Cashel, for instance, would not be reduced to 187? He would ask, with such facts before them what would be done? Would the constituency be increased by reducing the rate of qualification, or by enlarging the boundaries? He would greatly prefer the former of these two modes. In the English Bill a change had been made in the Lords which made it more popular, and their Lordships had continued the 40 s. freeholders. They in Ireland did not ask that; they merely asked that the same feeling which had been shown to England might be shown to Ireland. In order that the Reform Bill might be successful it must be satisfactory. If they were desirous that Ireland should be united to England, they must be put on the same footing.
Mr. O'Connell, in moving that the petition be printed, said, the people of Ireland were treated with contempt. He had
466
stated several facts which the Solicitor General did not venture to deny. He (Mr. O'Connell) was accused of being an advocate for rotten boroughs. That was not the case; he merely claimed for Ireland that the boroughs should not be in a worse state than they were before. As far as regarded the Repeal of the Union, to which some had alluded, he merely asked that Government, by giving a sufficient Reform, should take from him the power of promoting that repeal. Another thing of which he had to complain was, the difficulty felt in Ireland in registering the votes, the whole system of registration there being most atrocious.
Mr. Cramptonsaid, he would not be drawn into a discussion which would involve the whole principle of the Irish Reform Bill, by the hon. and learned Member; but when the proper time came, he would not flinch from the discussion.
Mr. Henry Grattanconcurred in the observations that had fallen from the hon. member for Kerry, relative to the difficulties in the registration of votes, and he felt certain that the people of Ireland would look for a Repeal of the Union, unless they had a fair Reform Bill.
Mr. Beaumontthought that Ireland ought to be treated with equal justice to England, and he should be most happy to give his assistance to the hon. member for Kerry, in any measure that he conceived would tend to the good of that country.
Colonel Percevalwas astonished to hear of the difficulty in the registration of votes. He had never heard of any such difficulty though he had been concerned a good deal with elections.
Mr. James E. Gordonsaid, the Bill would neither please Protestants nor Catholics, though for different reasons.
Mr. Blackneyknew that many freeholds had not been registered, owing to the charge which was made of 2s. 6d. for the registry of each freeholder.
Petition to be printed.

COURT OF CHANCERY.
Mr. John Campbellsaid, he wished to put a question to his Majesty's Ministers, on a subject which, though of great public importance, was not likely to lead to any discussion. He alluded to the meditated reforms in the Court of Chancery. They had been taught to expect, that at an early day a bill would be introduced, either in that or in the other House of Parliament, for the

467
purpose of effecting certain reforms in the Court of Chancery. The session was now rapidly wearing away, and he would ask, what hope was there that such a measure would be brought forward before its close. There was another subject, he meant the settlement of the salary of the Lord Chancellor—on which also he should like to receive some information. A bill had been passed last Session, which deprived the Lord Chancellor of a considerable portion of his salary, and he was anxious to learn what steps, if any, had been taken to make up for this deficiency.
Lord Althorpsaid, that with respect to the first point, a learned Gentleman had undertaken to draw up a bill for the purpose of effecting the reforms alluded to; and with reference to the second, he would himself introduce a measure to the House.
Sir Charles Wetherellhoped that, in making any alterations in the Court of Chancery, grave consideration would be given to the subject, which its immense importance demanded.
Mr. Spencesaid, he could positively state, that there were bills, connected with reform in the Court of Chancery, at present under the consideration of the Lord Chancellor; and a promise had been made, through himself, by the authority of the Lord Chancellor, that a bill should speedily be introduced, to reform one branch of the Court of Chancery, which more particularly required Reform—he meant the Master's Office. That bill was prepared to be laid before Parliament at the time originally proposed, before the recess; but the Lord Chancellor, on consideration, thought it better that one general measure should be introduced, embracing the Six Clerks' Office, the Registrar's Office, the Subpœna Office, and indeed all the offices connected with Chancery. A bill for that purpose had been prepared; but he was not authorized to say precisely when it would be laid before Parliament. He was, however, quite certain that it would be brought forward as soon as the subject had received that grave consideration which his hon. and learned friend opposite thought that it deserved. There was also another bill at present under the consideration of the Lord Chancellor, the object of which was to shorten pleadings in the Court of Chancery. From such a measure he anticipated the best effects. That bill would
468
be laid on the Table soon after the Whitsun recess, and the other would be brought in in the course of the present Session.

COURT OF CHANCERY (IRELAND), BILL.
Mr. Shawmoved the Second Reading of this Bill.
Mr. Cramptonopposed the Bill, which, in his opinion, was not only quite unnecessary, but would, in the end, be found mischievous. It was unnecessary, because the Lord Chancellor would, with as little delay as possible, promulgate such orders for the regulation of fees, and, above all, for saving the time of the suitors, as would be beneficial to all parties. He should, therefore, move, as an amendment, "That the Bill be read a second time this day six months."
Mr. Shawsaid, the measure was one which the circumstances of the case imperiously required. He must state that the Master of the Rolls approved of the Bill, and had informed him, that the repeal of one of the orders alone would have been a saving of 6,000 l. per annum to the suitors of his Court. What he complained of was, that 15,000 l. per annum were paid to the officers of the Court for compensation for the loss of fees which they still received, and would continue to receive, unless the orders were revised. He only wanted some pledge that this should be the case.
Mr. Cramptonsaid, that he had no doubt that the object of the hon. member for the city of Dublin would be attained without his persisting in. a present Motion, as he was sure that a revision of the orders in question would take place before the first day of next Session.
Mr. Shaw, on that understanding, would consent to postpone the Bill for the present.
Bill withdrawn.

PRIVILEGES OF PARLIAMENT BILL.
Mr. Baring moved the Order of the Day for the House to go into Committee on this Bill.
Mr. O'Connellrose for the purpose of moving, as an amendment, that the Bill should be committed that day six months. His first objection to this Bill was, that it was brought in at an improper period. Instead of having been brought forward at a time when, in consequence of the existence of nomination and saleable boroughs, access to that House was rendered

469
easy to those who were desirous of taking such means to defraud their creditors, it was introduced just as the Reform Bill was passed, and when the people of England would at length have the power of electing as their Representatives the men of their choice; and the effect of this Bill, if it should be carried into a law, would be, that they could have no Representatives except men of wealth and fortune. It was, in point of fact, introducing a new qualification. He was further of opinion, that a subject of this kind should be reserved for the consideration of a Reformed Parliament; and it was well known, that the qualification, as it existed at present, was in many instances a mere humbug. His next objection to this measure was, that the protection enjoyed by a Member of Parliament was not for the benefit of the individual, but for the benefit of his constituents. This Bill proceeded on a contrary principle, and therefore upon a mistaken one. When the Legislature declared, that the Members should have certain privileges, it was not for their own benefit they were conferred, but for the advantage of their constituents. Let them make what qualification they thought proper; but having taken that precaution with regard to a candidate, let them remember, that the candidate once chosen, the privilege belonged not to him, but to his constituents. It was so much the custom to attribute personal motives to men in these times, that he thought it right to say, that there were few men whom it would affect less than him: he believed that he derived a larger revenue from landed property than any of the last four Members for his county. His next objection to this Bill regarded generally the right of arresting the persons of debtors. That was a right which he for one thought should not exist, and which, at all events, should not be extended to any cases, except such as were the result of a judicial sentence. There was an evil, too, to be apprehended from such a measure as this, to which gentlemen of landed property should not be indifferent. There might be many Members in both Houses who might happen to have mortgages on their estates, for the payment of which, or of many more, their properties were amply and more than sufficient; and yet, if this Bill passed, some great rich capitalist or fundholder—some man who had amassed riches, honestly, as it might be, in some
470
cases, but dishonestly, as it was in many, by trafficking in the funds, and jobbing in the stock-market, where a good he would fetch him thousands, and an insurrection might make his fortune—some rich capitalist of that description, by buying up the securities on their estates, might deprive such Members, especially if their political opinions happened to differ from his own, of their legislatorial functions. He believed that the Bill would give rise to a system of purchasing up judgments, mortgages, and encumbrances on the estates of Members of the Legislature, which, though perfectly solvent, they might not be able to satisfy on a short notice, and thus a very unfitting control over their votes would be obtained. He objected to give wealth more power than it had already. In his opinion it had already too much; it did not lead to happiness, and he thought the accumulation of masses of wealth into a few hands was the great evil of this country. These were his (Mr. O'Connell's) objections to this measure, and it was on these grounds that he moved the present Amendment.
Mr. Baring, after apologising to the House for pressing this Bill forward on the present occasion, said, that the learned Gentleman, the member for Kerry (Mr. O'Connell), seemed to consider the measure as being in some degree connected with the Reform Bill. Now, this was not the case; for it would be in the recollection of many Members of the House, that he had mentioned the subject nearly two years ago, certainly before the Reform Bill was even thought of, and that his proposition had been favourably received. Undoubtedly, however, there were circumstances which rendered the change he proposed more necessary under the old system than it would be under the law about to be established, as, under the old law, fraudulent debtors might more easily, by the dint of money, force their way into that House. The privileges of Parliament were extended much more in former times than at present; but the possession of any privileges by Members of Parliament, other than those possessed by the King's subjects at large, was a gross injustice, unless it could be shown, that the possession of such privileges were necessary, in order to enable them to do their duty to their constituents. What he now proposed was, a mere following up of the spirit of the Constitution. If the hon. and learned

471
Member thought any qualification necessary—and he (Mr. Baring) apprehended the learned Gentleman would scarcely, deny it—then surely he could not complain of a change which went to render the qualification real and not nominal and to prevent men from entering that House, in order to defeat the just claims of their creditors. He did not like to enter into particulars, because it might be offensive to the feelings of connexions of men who had been Members of that House, but he could mention many who had evaded the payment of their debts by obtaining a seat in that House with the money of their creditors. He had already alluded to the case of Burton. There was also that of a man named Mills, who had actually defrauded his creditors of 23,000 l., through the means of these privileges, which seemed to be thought necessary for the support of the honour and dignity of that House. The learned Gentleman said, that the Bill was arraying the rich against the poor. It was the very reverse; it was a Bill intended to protect the poor against the rich; to prevent the honest tradesman from being defrauded of his just demands, by those who were dishonest enough to plead the privileges of Parliament. The learned Gentleman had alluded to the power which the Bill would give certain rich capitalists, or men supposed to have a great deal of ready money. He (Mr. Baring) did not know whether the learned Member meant to throw out any insinuation against him; but if he did, he could tell him, that he had no claim against the property of any Member of that House. Having thus, as he conceived, replied to all the objections of the learned Gentleman, he would merely observe, that persons well acquainted with the subject had informed him, that a man could not be arrested, at least, very speedily, for a debt contracted in the shape of mortgage. He was quite willing, however, should the fact prove otherwise, to introduce a clause with respect to the securities on landed property, for the purpose of protecting debtors under such circumstances. When he first proposed to bring in the Bill it had been his intention, after a certain period, to allow a Member to be arrested; but persons of legal knowledge and experience having taken objections to the connection of arrest with the Members of that House, he now proposed that a Member should have thirty
472
days' notice of the claim on him; and if in thirty more, it was not satisfied, then his seat would be declared vacant, and the creditor would be left to enforce his claim against him like any other individual With respect to the Law affecting Bankruptcy, passed in the 52d of George 3rd, he believed it had been found extremely absurd and inconvenient. At the present moment, the seat was not filled up for year and ten days, if the bankrupt refused to resign it; so that, for the whole of the time, the place was without a Representative. He proposed, in the present Bill, to amend that law, and to declare the seat vacant at the expiration of sixty day from the issue of the fiat of bankruptcy Having stated thus much, he was quite ready to give any other explanation that might be considered necessary, if the House consented to go into Committee on the Bill.
Mr. John Campbellassured the hon. member for Thetford, that the member for Kerry was quite right, in his opinion, with respect to the power of arresting for mortgage debts; and he thought it would be necessary, therefore, to introduce a clause to the effect he had mentioned. The other parts of the Bill had his most cordial support, as enforcing the principle of Reform by adding to the respectability of the House, and enabling them to gain back the confidence of the people.
Mr. Bernalhoped the member for Thetford would introduce the clause with respect to landed property at once. He had intended to oppose the motion for the Speaker's leaving the Chair; but, as the hon. member for Thetford intimated his disposition to introduce the clause respecting mortgages in the Committee, instead of delaying it until the bringing up of the Report, he would refrain from doing so.
Mr. Lambert, however unpopular it might be, and however well it might sound that every Member of that House ought to pay his debts, must oppose the Motion for going into a Committee on his Bill. In his opinion, if the measure were adopted, it would derogate from the dignity and independence of the House. Any Member of that House, who, having for necessary and indispensable purposes, mortgaged his estate, and entered into a bond, giving a warrant to confess judgment, might, if this Bill were passed, be arrested by any party having the com-

473
mand of money, at a critical moment, for political purposes, or even, for similar purposes by the agents of a foreign power. Such an abandonment of their privileges would prove a check to the freedom of debate, and to independence of sentiment. A respectable merchant, if a Member of Parliament, might, under such circumstances, have a run made upon him which would not be made were he not a Member of Parliament. A Member of Parliament would thus be placed in a worse situation than anybody else.
Mr. Stephensonapproved of the principle of the Bill; but wished that the hon. member for Thetford would delay proceeding with it, in order that he might avail himself of the suggestions which had been thrown out in the course of the present discussion.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonthought, that the great evil which the Bill had been introduced to remedy had arisen from the total abuse of the law respecting the qualification of Members. The principle of that law was, that no man should sit in that House, to levy contributions on his countrymen, who had not himself the means of contributing. It was undoubtedly intended by that law to insure, that persons sitting in that House should not only be solvent, but should be possessed of some property. With respect to the present measure, he was favourable to the principle of it; but it was evident that the details required more consideration than could that evening be given to them.
Mr. C. W. Wynnhad hardly ever known a measure introduced into that House respecting which he felt so much doubt and difficulty. That no Member of that House should be subject to arrest was one of the most ancient privileges which the House possessed, and ought not to be hastily abandoned. With respect to the law of qualification, to which the hon. member for Kirkcudbright had just alluded, it was well known that that law required the Representative of a borough to have landed property of the value of 300 l. a-year, and the Representative of a county to have landed property of the value of 600 l. a-year; but the actual practice was also well known. Did Mr. Pitt, or Mr. Fox, or Mr. Sheridan possess such a qualification? And would it have been desirable that, on that account, such men should be excluded from that House? Would it have been desirable
474
that men, to whom, forty years ago, the country looked up as their political teachers, should have been thus deprived of their parliamentary character? Reflecting on these things, he must really pause before he could determine to give his assent to the proposed measure. It was not hard upon any person who gave credit to a man, already a Member of Parliament, that he should be prevented from arresting that man, as he knew beforehand of the privilege by which a Member of Parliament was protected; but it undoubtedly was hard that a Member of Parliament should be free from arrest for debts contracted before he became a Member, and when the creditor, therefore, could have no warning. If the House went into a Committee on the Bill, he hoped it would only be pro forma, in order that it might be re-committed on some future day; for, although there was much in the measure very desirable, there was also much which required deliberate consideration.
Lord Althorpwas undoubtedly of opinion, that it was most desirable that insolvent persons should not be elected to sit, and should not sit in that House. But the hon. member for Thetford must feel, that there were many difficulties in the way of adopting the measure under consideration in its present shape. It was evident that the effect of the Bill, as it now stood, would be, to place a man who was a Member of Parliament in a worse situation than a man who was not a Member of Parliament. For the Bill, as it stood, might be applied to a person being a Member of Parliament, who was nevertheless perfectly solvent; and, notice being given to him, under the provisions of the Bill, he might be expelled from that House, if he had not the means of immediately satisfying the demand upon him. With respect to what had fallen from the hon. member for Kirkcudbright respecting the law of qualification, in his (Lord Althorp's) opinion, that law stood on a very good footing at present. If a Member was not the actual and bona fide possessor of a qualification, he must at least have sufficient character to be intrusted with one. It appeared to him that there were so many difficulties in the way of adopting the measure in its present shape, that he hoped the hon. member for Thetford would be prevailed upon to reconsider it. In discussing the question,

475
they ought not merely to look to the preservation or the abandonment of the privileges of Members as a matter of a personal natures; they ought to consider how far the interests of their constituents might be damaged by a diminution of those privileges.
Mr. Godsonsaid, that the principle of the Bill was good, but the proposed mode of carrying that principle into effect decidedly bad. He hoped, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman would see the propriety of postponing his Motion, and in the mean time, perhaps, to move for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the subject, and to report upon the best mode of carrying the object desired into effect.
Mr. Baringwould be very glad to leave the whole question in the hands of the noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), if he, in conjunction with the law officers of the Crown, would undertake to carry it into effect. Upon the present occasion, however, he should decidedly wish to go into the Committee pro forma, for the purpose of filling up the blanks. He should then move for its re-committal on that day week, when he should bring up the clause which he had mentioned in the early part of the Debate, and when any hon. Gentleman might move any amendment that he thought would contribute to the safety and efficiency of the measure.
Mr. Wranghamwas opposed to the principle of the Bill, because it would destroy the independence, and consequently, the political utility of Members.
The Solicitor Generalmust also, he said, join with other Gentlemen in calling upon the House to pause before they agreed to such a measure.
The House divided on the Amendment:—Ayes 29; Noes 72—Majority 43.

List of the AYES.

Blackney, W.

Johnstone, A.

Carter, J.

Knox, Hon. J.

Chapman, M. L.

Lefevre, Shaw

Chichester, —

Loch, J.

Coote, Sir C.

Mackenzie, S.

Evans, —

Macnamara, W. N.

Gillon, W. D.

Morrison, J.

Godson, R.

Phillips, C. M.

Grattan, J.

Ryder, Hon. G.

Haliburton, Hn. D. G.

Schonswar, G.

Hodges, T. L.

Strickland, G.

Hume, J.

Wallace, T.

Jeffrey, Rt. Hn. F.

Wellesley, W. T. L.

476

Williams, Sir J.

TELLERS.

Wood, Alderman

Lambert, H.

Wrangham, D. C.

O'Connell, D.

The House in Committee—Title of the Bill read pro forma, and House resumed—Committee to sit again.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM—BILL FOR SCOTLAND—COMMITTEE—FOURTH DAY.
On the Motion of the Lord Advocate, the House went into Committee on the Reform of Parliament (Scotland) Bill.
The several clauses from the 23rd to the 36th Were agreed to with verbal amendments.
On the 37th clause being proposed,
Mr. Andrew Johnstonerose to bring forward the important Motion to which he had given notice, respecting the exemption of clergymen of Scotland from the duties of electors. Nobody, he was sure, would accuse him of hostility to the Scotch Church, with which he had been connected for ten years as an office-bearer, and for which he was known to profess a warm attachment. The objection to giving the clergy the franchise did not arise from the nature of the right of their property, from whence the franchise might arise, but from the nature of the office with which the clergy was invested; and he founded his proposition on the principle that the exercise of the elective franchise was incompatible with the proper discharge of the pastoral office. This proposition was not exclusive in regard to different churches; for it was the duty of the Legislature to support the Christian Church in the enjoyment and exercise of its privileges, and more especially when the Legislature was engaged in the momentous work of renovating the political constitution of Scotland. As to the duties of Christian pastors, he would not refer to any Church articles, or the ordinances of man; but notice briefly one or two authorities, taken from that record to which all owed submission, as shewing decidedly the exclusive nature of the work committed to the "ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God." In exhorting one of the first Christian teachers, as to the ordination of ministers, the great apostle of the Gentiles said, "Moreover, he must have a good report of them which are without, lest he fall into reproach." But was it not most likely that when exposed to the strife of political contest, the minister of Christ would run

477
the risk of falling into such "reproach?" The same apostle, also, when again addressing that distinguished Christian minister, said, "Meditate upon these things, give thyself wholly to them;" and, on another occasion, he asked most emphatically, "Who is sufficient for these things?" If any clergyman in Scotland, having a cure of souls, would lay his hand on his heart, and declare that he was "sufficient" for his great work, he (Mr. A. Johnson) would be the first to propose the conferring the elective franchise on that clergyman. The question was peculiarly applicable to Scotland, when the genius of her people, and the spirit of her institutions were kept in view. The learned Lord Advocate, when he gave to the House an admirable sketch of the political history of Scotland, on the second reading of the Reform Bill last Session, in a speech which reflected honour on the learned Lord and on his native country, observed, that they there saw 'a people whose religious education has been attended to by the Government, while they submitted to other oppressions quite as grievous, fly to arms only when their religion was attacked.'* And on the same interesting occasion it was remarked, in a most able and statesmanlike speech, by one whose recent loss was now deplored, 'Scotland was undoubtedly a country which had many excellent institutions. The doctrines of her church were pure; her clergy were respectable and learned; her gentry were well educated; and, above all, her people were as moral, as industrious, and as intelligent, as any in the world.'† It was to preserve her institutions which had called forth these just praises, and to preserve that peculiar character which belonged to the Church and people of Scotland, that he brought forward this motion. In conferring on her a renewed political constitution, the House would observe how little the Church of Scotland owed to the Legislature since the Union. Shortly after that period, the British Parliament, at the instigation of a Tory Ministry, who were displeased at the part which Presbyterian Scotland had taken at the memorable revolution of 1688, deprived the people of the right of acquiring their Church patronages on certain conditions; and this had given rise chiefly to
* Hansard (third series) vol. iv. p. 533.
† Ibid. p. 563, 564.
478
the Dissenters—now a most numerous and highly respectable class in society. Ought not the present liberal and enlightened Parliament to beware of legislating in such a manner as to subvert the interests both of the Established Church and of Dissenters? When the class of persons primarily affected by his motion was considered, it would be found that the clergy were "but men, subject to like passions with our-selves." Till within the present century, there had scarcely been a clerical voter in Scotland, and at present there were only thirty-three on the county rolls of freeholders in that country. At present, therefore, it was evident that, from the nature of the county constituency, there was little or no room for any political interference on the part of these clerical voters; but under the present Bill it might be, that the clergy, from being officially connected with property, would accidentally, almost all, be entitled to claim the elective franchise; circumstances were completely altered; strong temptations might be held out to them to engage in political strife, and to seek to influence their parishioners, with whom it was well known they were in habits of daily intercourse, and over whom they exercised an unbounded moral control. In their new position how might it be supposed, fairly, that they would act? Lord Clarendon, who was known to be so great a friend to churchmen as to have restored the prelates of England to their seats in the other branch of the Legislature, had remarked, in alluding to the clergy, "there is no class of men who take so erroneous a view of human affairs as churchmen;" and one whose brilliant eloquence used at the close of the last century to delight that House, in his Treatise on the French Revolution, said, 'Politics and the pulpit are terms that have little agreement. No sound ought to be heard in the Church but the healing voice of Christian charity. The cause of civil liberty and civil government gains as little as that of religion, by this confusion of duties. Those who quit their proper character to assume what does not belong to them, are for the greater part ignorant both of the character they have, and the character they assume. Wholly unacquainted with the world in which they are so fond of meddling, and inexperienced in all its affairs on which they pronounce with so much confidence, they know nothing of politics but the passions

479
they excite.' But it was said, you may confer the privilege, and leave it to the discretion of the clergy to exercise it or not, as they shall think fit. His reply to this was, that "privileges infer duties." The elective franchise was a civil privilege of great importance, and imposed a serious duty on those to whom it was extended. Would it not, then, be a mockery of this valuable privilege to bestow it on a class of society in regard to whom it was to be "elegantly understood" by the Legislature that it would not be exercised? Did the experience of the past warrant hon. Members to conclude that the clergy would not use the political franchise? He would only refer to two particular periods, being most anxious to condense his remarks, so as not to fatigue the Committee. In 1597, as stated by Wight on the Election Law, the Committee of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland was prevailed on by James 6th to complain that the Church was the only body destitute of representatives in the Scottish Parliament, and in consequence an Act was passed, conferring seats on those whom the King might create bishop, abbot, or other prelate; and, in 1598, the General Assembly was prevailed with, said the same author, to declare it "lawful for ministers to accept a seat in Parliament; that it would be for the benefit of the Church to have its representative in that body; and that fifty-one members should be chosen for that purpose." The other reference he should make was, to a petition presented to the last Parliament, after the introduction of the measure of Reform, bearing to be from the Presbytery of Dumblane, praying the House to provide that each of the ministers of the Church of Scotland, as by law established, be entitled to vote for a Representative in Parliament. Here, then, was a claim for the franchise springing from the official station of the claimants; and the two instances cited, proved that churchmen, both in ancient and modern times, had been and were desirous of political power in Scotland. But how was this petition presented and received? The right hon. Baronet, the member for Perthshire, in presenting the petition, remarked,—'He was himself not favourable to giving the elective franchise to the clergymen of the Church of Scotland; because doing so would bring them into collision with the people at elections, and thus lower their character, which at
480
present stood very high, owing to the fact that, in no instance, was any opportunity afforded of bringing them into unpleasant collision with their parishioners. He could not, therefore, support the prayer of the petition.'* The hon. Baronet, the member for Linlithgowshire, then said, "I cordially agree with my right hon. friend: to take the clergy of Scotland from the exclusive performance of their clerical duties would be a great injury to them and their flocks." The petitioners likewise complained, that the Established Church was unrepresented; but how stood the fact? There were about fifteen office-bearers of that Church at that period, holding, and who now held, seats in Parliament, all under the obligation of assisting their pastors in the cure of souls; and he had not the least doubt but that, on every proper occasion, these Elders, as they were termed, would be ready to maintain and defend the interests of their Church. The instances he had adduced, went to prove that, both in ancient and modern times, there had been and were those in the Church who were desirous of political power; and it was, therefore, the duty of the Legislature to protect the people from the danger of the clergy becoming so far secularized as to descend to the arena of political strife; and also to protect the clergy themselves from the risk of the loss of their high character and respectability, from the importunities of patrons, from the solicitations of electors, or from any unhallowed conflicts (which God forbid should ever take place) in regard to sectarian differences. Hitherto the Church and the Dissenters had differed chiefly as to Church government, and not on points of Christian doctrine; and having vied with each other in the faithful and conscientious discharge of their sacred duties, they had been mutually benefited. In the Established Church of Scotland, two-thirds of the patronage belonged to laymen, and the remaining third to the Crown; and here would lie strong temptations for the clergy to interfere in politics, from the natural desire of obtaining preferment, or family advantage, or from the strong feeling of gratitude for favours received. In counties the tenantry and feuars would be peculiarly open to solicitations; and in towns and burghs the parishioners would
* Hansard (third series) vol. iii. p. 1348–9.

481
be exposed to the importunities of such clergymen who might be prevailed on to exercise the franchise. There could, indeed, be no estimate made of the unhappy consequences which might follow any such interference. It was equally the duty of the Legislature to protect the clergy from importunity and solicitation on the one hand; and, on the other, to protect the people against the overwhelming influence of the Crown and lay patrons. It had been said, if you do not authorise a direct interference on the part of the clergy, in regard to the elective franchise, they will interfere indirectly—but this argument went too far—it was impossible to avoid indirect evasion or interference in all circumstances. But there was a marked difference between the exercise of a civil right, conferred by the Legislature, with the sanction of public opinion, and an interference which that Legislature might have declared to be improper. In the one case there would be little risk of any open offence to the religious and moral feelings of the community: on the other hand, the indirect interference of the clergyman would be visited by the obloquy of the community, and the censure of the Church. Several hon. Members went so far as to admit, that the clergy should not vote in right of their manse and glebe; but this view of the question was based on a principle quite different from that on which he had founded his proposition of exemption, on account of the sacred nature of the office held by the clergyman. Nor would this mark any disapprobation on the part of the Legislature as to the interference of the clergy; for, if the right to vote was held not to be sufficient from the anomalous nature of the property, how easy would it be for a clergyman desirous of having the franchise, to procure a 10 l. or leasehold right, either in town or country? Then he had been told, why give the Church a slap in the face without due cause? He would say, can the Church for one moment, find fault with the Legislature viewing her clergy as set apart, in an elevated position, and conveying its sense of esteem and admiration of that Church, in the mild language in which he had proposed their exemption from the franchise? In regard to the connexion which had at any time taken place between the Church and worldly politics, various Acts of Parliament were on the Statute-books, to which he would not then direct the atten-
482
tion of the Committee. As to the Dissenters, their clergymen were generally chosen by the congregation; and stipend and residence were provided for them. But it was said, we cannot touch the Dissenters. Were they not, however, the subjects of a Protestant Government; and, as such entitled to countenance and support in the relative connexion of pastor and people? By the famous Toleration Act of Queen Anne, the Dissenters were fully recognized; and this Act had been adduced to rule a case in the Supreme Civil Court of Scotland, within the present century. It was then stated from the bench, "that the right of Protestant Dissenters, as much as that of the National Church itself, is statutory; they are not connived at and endured, but recognized and protected in their rights, though not stipendiary." Thus, the Legislature was bound to interfere in behalf of their clergy and their people. He entreated the noble Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the English Members around him, to view this question apart from English analogy, prejudice, or partiality. The two countries were very differently situated. In England, the clergy had exercised the franchise time out of mind; Church possessions were freehold; non-residence was permitted; and the powers of the civil Magistrate were, in many instances, bound up with the priestly office: whereas in Scotland, the clergy could scarcely be said to have exercised the franchise at all; Church possessions were not freehold; non-residence was not allowed; and it was only in extreme cases, and in remote highland districts, that a clerical Magistrate would be found: the question was, therefore, peculiar to Scotland; and the attention of that country would be fixed with deep anxiety, on the proceedings of the Scottish Members, on that night. It had been well considered by the people of Scotland since last October, when he had the honour to enter the notice of a similar motion on the Journals of the House. The opinions of the heads of the Scottish Church, or, as might be more properly said, those who took a lead in her affairs, were known to most hon. Members. They were averse to the privilege of the elective franchise. He had received many letters, from eminent Divines, to the same effect. But a few days since, a most respectable and talented minister in Edinburgh, in reply to a question from him on the subject,

483
said—"I have no hesitation as to the injurious tendency of the privilege; but, if it should be conferred, I will take care it never shall be exercised by me." As to the laity—so far as he had learned—they were quite unanimous as to the propriety of exemption. He would merely allude to the resolution of a Committee of the Convention of Royal Burghs, on a late occasion, in reference to the Reform Bill. This Convention now represented what was formerly the third estate in the Scottish Parliament—they declared they were unanimously of opinion, that the elective franchise should not be conferred on the clergy of any denomination of Christians: in Scotland. In concluding his remark on this great constitutional question—remarks so unworthy of the subject—he would solemnly call on the hon. Member on his own side of the House, to avoid converting the boon they were about to confer on their country into what might too probably, prove a curse; and to the hon. Members on the other side, especially those who considered that the measure of Reform was ruinous in its extent, and revolutionary in its tendency, he would say do you assist at this precious moment, while yet the opportunity is yours, to apply to that measure a sound moral corrective and control; and he would entreat the support of all; so that, while they had the happiness of conferring a renovated, healthy, political Constitution on Scotland, they might no incur the hazard of destroying her best—her sacred institutions. He begged leave to move the insertion of the following words:—"And that no person being a clergyman of the Established Church of Scotland, or of any other Church of any denomination of Christians in that country, exercising the pastoral charges, except any such clergyman as may be in the possession of such right previously to the passing of this Act, shall be entitled to vote at any such election in Scotland."
Mr. Halliburtonseconded the motion of his hon. friend, and would detain the Committee a few moments, while he stated the reasons which induced him to give it his most earnest support. He was aware that he could not urge any additions arguments to those which had been so ably addressed to the House by his hon. friend; but the question was one of such acknowledged importance, that he was impelled to do more than give a silent vote upon it. His opinion was, that if the clause which
484
had been proposed were introduced, and became the law of the land, it would be the means of conferring a great additional benefit upon the people of Scotland; and if it were rejected, a series of evils would ensue, the magnitude and extent of which neither himself nor any other hon. Member could form an adequate estimate. He was happy, however, in believing, from the various conversations which he had had with hon. Members on this subject, that there was a great preponderance of opinion in favour of some such clause as was now proposed; and the difference of opinion was rather as to the extent to which it ought to go, than to its spirit and intention. His hon. friend had made it a matter of principle, and not as having reference to any right of franchise which the clergy might acquire by possessing a life-interest in any property connected with the Church. He had put it upon the principle which the Committee had just recognized by the adoption of the thirty-sixth clause. The principle there recognized was, that the elective franchise should not be extended to Sheriffs or Sheriffs' Clerks; and if the argument was good, as applied to them, à fortiori, it was good as applied to the clergy; inasmuch as to preserve the source of the religion and morality of the country pure and unpolluted, was of still greater importance to the Legislature than to preserve undefiled the seats of law and justice. He had observed, that when his hon. friend adverted to the argument, that to refuse the right of voting to the clergy would not prevent their indirect interference in elections, an hon. Member gave an hostile cheer; by which he presumed that hon. Member entertained that objection. But such an argument was fallacious. In the first place, every thing was done by this enactment to discountenance the interference of the clergy at elections, by disclaiming the principle of their right to interfere; whereas, if the Legislature were expressly to give the right of voting to clergymen, it would become, not only a privilege, but an obligation; and there must exist on the part of that body, a strong feeling of principle to prevent them from exercising a right given by the Legislature; for, by giving that right, they were necessarily called upon to exercise all the influence which their station conferred, in order to promote whatever object they might feel it their duty to advocate, by reason

485
of the power so given them. Indeed, to suppose that the clergy while having a right expressly bestowed upon them by Act of Parliament, should refrain from using it, or from exercising all the influence they might possess over their parishioners and congregations, to prevail on them to support the same men and measures as themselves, was most preposterous. The Scotch clergy were a well educated, and, taken as a body, a highly moral class of men; neither had they any great ulterior objects at which to aim, but still they had a feeling for patronage, like other men; and when it was considered that the individuals who filled the Scottish Church were chiefly drawn from the middle ranks of life, and that to obtain a living in the Church was to them a thing of the greatest possible value, every one must be convinced that they would necessarily be desirous of evincing their gratitude to those who had put them in that situation, and thus, from the very best of motives, they might be induced to pursue a line of conduct in secular affairs most injurious to society, by its robbing them of that sacred character by which their morals and principles were now preserved; and by its divesting them of those pure feelings, essential to the efficient discharge of their religious functions. His hon. friend had put this question upon its just and true ground. It had been the boast of the supporters of this Bill, that it was, with few exceptions, founded wholly on the principle of enfranchisement, that was its great characteristic. One of those exceptions was contained in the clause just passed, and it would only be an extension of that clause, in a case in which the interests of all parties required it should be extended, if the House was to adopt the motion of his hon. friend. The enacting that the clergy shall not have a right to vote in virtue of their Church property, was to effect that by a side-wind which it would be much better to do in a direct manner. If, then, it should be the opinion of the Committee, that a great and serious evil would be inflicted on Scotland by changing the habits and feelings of the clergy of that country, and that inducing those individuals to mix themselves up with electioneering contests, who had hitherto kept aloof from all political and secular strifes and contentions, would lead to no good, but might be attended with much real mischief, he hoped that he and his hon.
486
friend would be sanctioned by a majority of votes in the adoption of the present Motion. So far from its being inconsistent with the principle of the Bill, or contrary to the feelings of the people of Scotland, his opinion was, that by such an amendment the value of this measure would be greatly enhanced, and the best interests of his native country promoted and preserved. It would keep the character of the clergy, as it had hitherto been kept, free from all political taint or secular feelings—leaving them to pursue their holy calling undisturbed by worldly discordances, and uninfluenced and unassailed by temporal cares. He would join his hon. friend in entreating the English Members of that House not to judge of this question by their peculiar modes of thinking with regard to the clergy of England, who might have other and very different grounds for retaining a right they had long enjoyed, than the clergy of Scotland could have to obtain a right which they had hitherto never possessed. But he much doubted whether even the clergy of England, beneficially either to themselves, to religion, or to the country, were allowed to exercise the elective franchise. He had read in The Times of yesterday a transaction which reflected great disgrace on a clergyman of the Church of England, in reference to the Berkshire election now taking place, and it appeared to him that this reverend gentleman was supporting the Tory candidate; but that was of no consequence: whichever side he espoused, the conduct attributed to him could not but bring great scandal upon the Church of which he was a member, a scandal from which the Church of Scotland had hitherto happily been exempted, and he hoped would ever continue to be. He begged to second the Motion of his hon. friend.
Lord Althorpcould assure his hon. friend who introduced this Motion, that he had not the least doubt of his sincerity in wishing to improve the Bill, and that he did not mean anything hostile to the Church of Scotland; but, on the contrary, that he was actuated by the most friendly feelings towards it; at the same time, he (Lord Althorp) could not quite go along with him on the question. He admitted, as it had been stated by his hon. friend who spoke last, that it was possible his English feelings might lead him astray; and he was perfectly ready to declare, that he

487
considered this a question on which the feelings of the people of Scotland ought peculiarly to be attended to. But he could not think that it would be right, for any of the reasons which had been assigned by his hon. friends, to prevent the clergy of Scotland from enjoying the elective franchise. The arguments which had been advanced in support of the proposition to withhold from the clergy that right, appeared to him inconclusive. It was stated, that the entire abstinence on the part of the clergy of Scotland from all interference with election contests, was to be ascribed to the circumstance that they had hitherto had no right to vote. This was not the true cause of their non-interference. It must necessarily be owing to the fact, that the class of persons among whom the right of franchise was distributed in Scotland, was so small in number, and of such a character, that it was not likely the clergy would attempt to influence their votes. His hon. friends had argued, that the effect of depriving the clergy of the elective franchise would be, to prevent them using improper influence at elections. This was not, by any means, a consequence naturally flowing from the circumstance of their not possessing a right to vote. From all that was known of the disposition of men's minds, it could not be predicated that a non-voting clergyman was necessarily a non-interfering clergyman. It was impossible, indeed, to conceive that the mere fact of being deprived of a vote would deprive the clergy of the influence which they at present deservedly possessed throughout Scotland; or prevent their making use of such influence, or of acting upon their own political feelings. If this, then, was the case—if they were not prevented from interfering at the elections, by being deprived of their votes, the ground on which his hon. friends had founded their arguments must fail them. Although those other inducements to which his hon. friends had alluded might have an effect upon the more respectable portion of the clergy, and make them abstain from all interference, yet the less respectable part would be actuated by the ordinary feelings that controlled the conduct of men. But might not the most conscientious clergyman feel it his duty to use all his influence on these occasions? Was it possible to suppose that a man living in a country where the elective franchise was distributed among the whole people, and
488
who considered that one particular course of conduct by those electors would be beneficial to the country, should abstain from all interference; nay, that he should not feel it to be his imperative duty to interfere? He (Lord Althorp) could not believe it possible that persons possessing such influence as the Scotch clergy possessed, could be expected to abstain from exercising it; and if they would, at all events, exercise it, was it not better, and far more consonant with our sense of justice, to give them the same right as their fellow-subjects enjoyed, and allow them to use their influence openly by their votes, than covertly and in secret? On these grounds he was not inclined to agree with his hon. friends in supporting this Motion. If the clergy of Scotland received a right of voting, they ought to possess that right in the same way as the clergy of the Church of England enjoyed it. But this proposition went quite contrary to every principle on which they had been acting, because the extent to which it went was this—that a clergyman who lived in the county of Caithness, and had property in the southern extremity of Scotland, was not to be at liberty to vote; so that, because he was a clergyman, he was to be deprived of the elective franchise. On these grounds, he felt inclined to oppose the Motion—inclined, because if he thought it was the feeling of the whole people of Scotland, and, above all, the feeling of the clergy themselves, then, indeed, he should think it right to give the subject a more earnest consideration. His hon. friend said, he would exempt the clergy from the duty which the franchise imposed, and he wished it to be considered that he was conferring a privilege upon them, rather than inflicting a privation; but he (Lord Althorp) was afraid they would form a different judgment from that of his hon. friend. It was impossible to believe that a class of men, like that of the Scottish clergy, would be satisfied to be deprived of a right which had ever been regarded as a privilege of the greatest value. Looking upon the elective franchise as a great privilege to those who possessed it, and not seeing any ground to deprive the clergy of Scotland of it, he could not concur in the proposition which had been made. This proposition, however, was not confined to the clergy of the Established Church, but went a great deal further, and proposed

489
to deprive the whole body of the Dissenting clergy of Scotland of the right in the same way. This would be depriving so large a class of persons of the right of exercising the franchise, that it was an additional reason with him for opposing the Motion, as one most disadvantageous to the country at large.
Mr. John Campbell: After what has fallen from the noble Lord (which I have heard with extreme pleasure), I shall very briefly address the Committee; but upon a question in which I feel such a deep interest, I cannot content myself with giving a silent vote. The hon. Member who proposed this clause had no occasion to make any protestations as to his motives. All who know him must be convinced that he is actuated by a sincere desire to promote the cause of true religion. The sentiments he expresses form a striking contrast with the fiery effusions of religious rancour which are sometimes poured forth within these walls. In opposing the measure, I hope I may take credit for as great respect and affection for the Church of Scotland as my honourable friend. Sir, it is my boast that I am the son of a minister of that Church, who for fifty-four years was pastor of the same flock. After deep and anxious consideration bestowed upon the subject, I am convinced, that to disqualify the Scottish clergy in the manner proposed would be highly inexpedient. As the Bill stands, the elective franchise is conferred upon them, not by any privilege, but by the general law. A special enactment is required to deprive them of that which is to be enjoyed by their fellow-citizens. To justify this, a very clear case of necessity must be made out. God forbid that they should become political partizans, or that anything should be allowed to divert them from the due discharge of their sacred duties! I approve of the statute which says that they shall not sit in Parliament; and I think it is much better that they should never be in the Commission of the Peace, as I have known many evils to arise from the union of the functions of a Clergyman and a Magistrate. But why should they not be allowed to exercise the elective franchise? What duty will they neglect or violate by going, once in five or six years, to the polling-place—(which can only be a few miles distant)—and voting for the candidate who they think is likely to be the best guardian of the interests
490
of religion and morality. If, upon a dissolution of Parliament, the hon. member for Crail were again a candidate would it not be hard upon them that they should be deprived of the power of supporting the champion of those doctrines which they so much approve? If any of them consider the elective franchise a burthen, they can easily renounce it; for, by omitting to have their names registered, they will have no right to vote. But where, by the principle of the Bill, property, intelligence, and respectability, are to be represented, I do think it would be affixing a stigma upon the Church of Scotland, if it were enacted that no member of that Establishment can be a constituent. They must feel it as a degradation; and there is a great danger of your rendering dissatisfied and discontented a body of men, who, from their great influence over the middling and lower orders of society, it is of the utmost importance to attach to the State. It is vain to think that this attempt will detach from politics such clergymen as are determined to become agitators or political agents. It will only add to the inclination of many, who, if the elective franchise were within their power, might probably be indifferent about it—
"Nitimur in vetitum semper pethmusque negatum."
To create an absolute disqualification would be such injustice as I am sure, after what has been observed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, very few will countenance. If you merely say, that a vote shall not be gained by the manse and glebe, those who are resolved to have a vote will easily acquire one in another right. But, suppose they were absolutely forbidden to vote in any right, might not this increase their influence? and by what law can you prevent their exercising that influence to please their patron, or to further any object of passion, or prejudice, or interest? My hon. friend should have gone on to render it penal for them to canvass any member of the Kirk Session, or any farmer, shopkeeper, or tradesman, within the parish—and this probably would only have increased the desire and the power to interfere. Look at the efforts made in the Church of Rome, having for their professed purpose to detach the clergy from all secular pursuits. Yet the priests of that communion have in many countries engrossed all the powers of the State, and mixed themselves up with all the affairs of private life. My firm opinion is, that if

491
the elective franchise be intrusted to the Scottish clergy, it will very rarely be abused; and that, where it is exercised, it will be in support of the cause of learning, piety and patriotism. If the restriction were not extended to the Dissenters, the clergy of the Established Church would, by contrast, be placed in a most humiliating situation, being cut off from that which is allowed to Relievers, and Seceders, and Baptists, and Antibaptists, and Burghers, and Anti-burghers. To extend it to the Dissenters seems to me contrary to the first principles of justice. The Dissenting clergy are not public functionaries; you give them nothing, and you have no right to impose any disqualification upon them. Besides, consider the anomalies and absurdities which would follow this enactment. A Catholic priest, with a freehold qualification, may vote for a Member of Parliament in England and Ireland, but not in Scotland; and a Bishop, who is a Dissenter in Scotland, would not be allowed even to poll for a Member of Parliament, while a Bishop in England has a seat in the House of Lords. For these reasons I feel myself bound to oppose the disqualification of the Scottish clergy. I should equally have opposed the disqualification of the Scottish Judges, and I had risen for that purpose before I knew that the learned Lord had agreed to give up the latter part of the 36th Section. If, upon any particular occasion, the Scottish Judges misconduct themselves, let them be punished; but it would be too much, without inquiry or accusation, to deprive them of that which they and their predecessors have immemorially enjoyed, and which is still left to all their brethren in the rest of the United Kingdom.
Sir George Murrayfelt called upon to say a few words on the present Motion, more especially as there had been some allusion made to him by the hon. Gentleman who brought it forward. It was with great satisfaction he had heard the observations which fell from the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer; he had, in his (Sir George Murray's) opinion, taken a very just view of this case. The noble Lord had been often deservedly complimented upon the good temper which he had shown throughout the whole of the discussions upon this great and important measure, and he would compliment the noble Lord also on the pains he had taken to make himself acquainted with
492
all the details of the Bill more immediately before the House. The noble Lord had evidently considered the present question with care and attention, and he (Sir George Murray) could not let this opportunity pass without thanking the noble Lord, on the part of Scotland, for his conduct in doing so. The present question proposed a new principle, and, at the same time, one of very considerable importance. It was, whether clergymen, otherwise entitled to vote, by possessing the requisite qualification, should be restrained from doing so on account of their clerical profession. He knew several clergymen of the Church of Scotland, who at present exercised the right of voting at elections, and he had never heard the least objection stated to their doing so. The principle contained in the proposition of the hon. Member was, however, that gentlemen in the station of clergymen ought not to be called upon to exercise a political right, because their interference in political matters was incompatible with the advantageous discharge of their religious duties. If the hon. Member intended to apply this to the Church of Scotland only, it was a proposition injurious to the character of the clergy of that Church. He had heard that many Scotch clergymen had objected to this clause, and had stated that the Church should be as little as possible mixed up in party politics, and in election contests. His reply had always been, that he concurred entirely in that opinion; and the hon. Gentleman had most truly stated that these sentiments were expressed by him last year, on presenting a petition to the House from the Presbytery of Dumblane, in favour of this clause in the Bill. But on acknowledging the receipt of the petition from the Presbytery of Dumblane, he (Sir George Murray) had given it as his opinion that the clergy of the Church of Scotland had a just claim to have the rights and interests of that Church protected in Parliament; and he had stated to the Presbytery, that it would give him pleasure to see that effected in the Reform Bill, by granting two Members to the Church of Scotland, on a principle analogous to that by which Representation was given in England to the Universities; and that, in this manner, the clergy would not be involved in the political contentions of their parishioners. When he went to Scotland, however, and had communication with several very respectable clergy-

493
men on this subject, he found that there was a desire on their part rather to withdraw as much as possible from political affairs, and they were, therefore, adverse to the suggestions which he had thrown out. But this very circumstance had led him to consider the little danger that would result from giving to the clergy of Scotland the elective franchise as proposed in the Bill, seeing that they themselves entertained the sentiments which he had just stated prevailed amongst them—namely, of seeking to withdraw from, rather than to covet, political power. He had felt all his life the most sincere respect for the Church of Scotland, and the firmest attachment to it; and, as a proof of its merited high character, and of its practical usefulness, he could appeal to the best of all tests of the value of any Church—its general and acknowledged beneficial influence over the moral and religious habits of the people under its guidance and charge. He was quite as desirous as the hon. Gentleman opposite could be, to preserve this character to the Church of Scotland, and he gave that hon. Gentleman full credit for his laudable intentions in that respect. He did not go along with him, however, in all his apprehensions, nor did he think, supposing these apprehensions to be well founded, that the course which that hon. Gentleman recommended would be effective in obviating them. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last (Mr. Campbell) had alluded to the Church of Rome. The policy of the head of that Church was, to separate the clergy from all secular affairs, but the result was, that that Church had been reproached with having interfered more than the clergy of any other Church in affairs of State, as well as in the affairs of individuals. It was a part of human nature to struggle against restrictions; and his own apprehension was, that they should, perhaps, rather excite the clergy of Scotland to greater interference than it was now their own wish to have with politics, if they cast an unmerited stigma upon them by adopting the motion of the hon. Gentle man. His own conviction was, that the character of the Church of Scotland was their best safeguard: perhaps he should go too far were he to say, that he knew no Church to be compared with it; but this he would say, that he knew of no Church that went beyond it. The House might, therefore, safely yield this power to
494
the Scotch clergy; and he was confident that the value which they must know attached to their present high character, would prevent them from improperly exerting their influence in political matters. He entirely agreed, therefore, in the view taken of this subject by the noble Lord; and, although he most willingly acknowledged that the hon. Member, who brought forward the Motion before the House, was influenced by the purest motives, yet he could not but think that his good intentions had drawn him aside from the most correct view of the subject, and that the success of his Motion would serve only to cast an unjust stigma upon the Scotch clergy, without producing the effect which he desired.
Sir George Warrendersaid, after what had taken place, he trusted that the hon. Member would withdraw his Motion. He was sure every one would give him credit for being actuated by the most pure and honourable motives in the course which he had pursued; but, after the reasons urged by the noble Lord, it would be inexpedient to press this Motion to a division. If the House were to assent to the proposition, it would appear something like throwing a stigma upon the clergy of the Church of Scotland. When there was a general rule of enfranchisement, it would be invidious to exempt any particular body of persons, and more especially men of the high character and attainments possessed by this class. He entirely concurred in what had been said, as to the benefits conferred on the people of Scotland by her clergy. No men had rendered more essential service to their country than they had. They had produced such a change in the character of the people as to place them in a moral point of view, above all nations, and had instructed them in such a way as to enable them to acquire influence and wealth in all quarters of the world. A great deal of the commercial importance of this nation was owing to the energy and exertion of the Scotch, who, from the nature of their education, were prepared to act in this manner. If the hon. Gentleman divided the House, he would be in a small minority. Therefore, he earnestly entreated him not to do so. He had no doubt that the hon. Gentleman had been urged to bring forward this Motion; but under all the circumstances of the case, he would not act wisely in pressing it.
Mr. Andrew Johnstonesaid, as the right hon. Baronet justly imagined, he had been strongly urged to bring forward this Motion. It would give him great pleasure to act upon the advice which had been given him but he did not see how he could consistently with his duty, withdraw this proposition. He certainly could not comply with this request, unless his hon. friend who seconded his proposition would consent to his doing so. He was anxious that the people of Scotland should know what had taken place on this occasion, and how many Members from that country were prepared to support his view of the case. As for pressing this Motion to a division, he was in the hands of his hon. friend.
Colonel Lindsaysaid, he had had several communications from Scotland on this subject, and it appeared that the clergy were, for the most part, anxious that they should not have the elective franchise. He certainly concurred in the present proposition, but thought, after what had fallen from the noble Lord, and other Members, that it would be better not to say more on the subject; he, therefore, must urge his hon. friend not to press his Motion to a division. He was perfectly well aware of the manner in which the hon. Member had been pressed to persist in his Motion; but under the circumstances of the case, even those who were most anxious that it should be carried would yield on the present occasion.
Mr. Robert Fergusonagreed in the principle of the proposition of his hon. friend. The less the clergy of any country had to do with political matters the better for themselves and their flocks. He agreed, therefore, in the general proposition. In consequence, however, of what had taken place, and seeing that there was no probability of his hon. friend's succeeding in his Motion he must request him not to divide the House. He was sure that his friends, the clergy, would recommend him not to proceed further with his Motion.
Sir Andrew Agnewagreed in principle with his hon. friend; and if he divided the House, he (Sir A. Agnew) should certainly vote with him, but sufficient had been done, and therefore, he would request him not to divide.
Mr. Cumming Brucesaid, his opinion coincided with that of the hon. Member, but he must request him not to divide, as there was no probability of success.
Sir Charles Forbessaid, as a son of the Church of Scotland, he could not be supposed to be indifferent to her interests. Taking the same view of the question as his hon. friend, he should support him if he went to a divisions; and, from the very general support he had received from both sides, he would recommend him to do so. Several hon. Gentlemen had stated that they supported his proposition, but did not wish for a division. He (Sir Charles Forbes) did not understand their mode of reasoning on this subject. He would tell the hon. Member at once, however, that if he did not divide the House, not one word of what had taken place would be published. It was now the custom to give at least something of a debate when a division took place; but very often, when there was no division, the most important matters passed unnoticed. He had only to add, that if the hon. Member did not divide the House, he would not.
Sir John Haysaid, he concurred in the principle of this proposition; but, in his opinion, more evil than good would result from pressing it at this moment.
Mr. Andrew Johnstonesaid, as so many Gentlemen had declared themselves supporters of his proposition, he felt encouraged to divide the House. He felt deeply indebted to the noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman for their kind expressions; but he might safely say, that he knew the Church of Scotland in all its workings better than either of them, and, although he was aware of great difficulties, he considered that he was bound to support the proposition he had brought forward.
Mr. Cumming Bruceconsidered the conduct of the hon. Gentleman rather extraordinary. He called upon hon. Gentlemen to declare themselves in favour of his Motion, so that he might say, that he was not without supporters, in case he did not press for a division, and now he had extracted these opinions, he intended to divide.
The Committee divided; Ayes 7; Noes 72; Majority 65.
Clause agreed to, as also were the other clauses to the 47th.
House resumed—Committee to sit again.

MINUTES.
Bills. Brought up from the Commons:—The Reform of Parliament (England). Read a second time:—Militia Ballot Suspension. Received the Royal Assent:—the Insolvent Debtors' Act Continuation
Petitions presented. By the Duke of BUCKINGHAM, from the Lord-lieutenant, the High Sheriff, the Grand Jury, and Magistrates of the Queen's County, for Inquiry into the Administration of the Law in Ireland.—By the Earl of FINGALL, from Bective, for as extensive a measure of Reform for Ireland as had been granted to England; and from thirteen Places in Ireland, for the Abolition of Tithes and Church Rates.—By the LORD CHANCELLOR, from St. John's, Wapping, for Reform.