Sitting of 26 June 1833

MINUTES.
Papers ordered. On the Motion of Mr. DOBBIN, a Return from the Clerks of the Peace of the several counties of Ireland, of the place and Time at which the respectivc Quarter Sessions were holden in 1832.—On the Motion of Mr. O'CONNELL, Accounts of all Receipts and Disbursements by the Corporation of Dublin for the last twenty years.—On the Motion of Mr. STEWART, Lists of all Pensions granted by the East-India Company to Commanders, Officers, Seamen, widows, and Orphans, of the Commercial Marine Service, from 1793 to the present time; also of Commanders to whom Compensation was given in consequence of a change in the Shipping System, in 1799.—On the Motion of Mr. RICHARDS, an Account of all Places in which United, or Joint-Stock Banks have been Established, under the Act 7th George 4th, cap,46.—On the Motion of Sir ROBERT FERGUSON, a Return of the Amount advanced by the Lord Lieutenant for the first Expense of each District Lunatic Asylum; and the Manner in which the Interest and Capital is to be, or has been. Repaid: also detailed Accounts of the Expenses incurred, and other Circumstances concerning the Erection of these District Lunatic Asylums.—On the Motion of Mr. HUME an Account of the Quantity of all West-India Produce, Exported from each of the British Colonies, and from the Mauritius, during the last three years.
Bill. Read a third time:—Enclosure Awards.
Petitions presented. By the Earl of LINCOLN, from East Retford, against the Emancipation of the Jews,—By Sir JOHN MAXWELL, from Jedburgh and Paisley, for Alterations in the Royal Burgh (Scotland) Bill.—By Mr. EMERSON TENNENT, from Belfast, against any Alterations in the Duties on Foreign Timber and from Connor, in favour of the Grand Juries (Ireland) Bill.—By Mr. VERNON SMITH, from the Unitarians of Northampton, to be Relieved from the Payment of Church Rates.—By Mr. C. WOOD from the Owners of Fishing-boats belonging to

1239
Boxham, Torbay, complaining of the Loss on their Trade from the Admission of Foreign Fish into the Market—By Mr. ADDAMS WILLIAMS, from Monmouth, for Amending the Sate of Beer Act—By Mr. SANFORD, against the Tithes Commutation Bill.

MARRIAGES BY ROMAN CATHOLIC PRIESTS.
Mr. Perrin Mr. Perrin moved the Order of the Day for the second reading of this Bill, which the hon. and learned Gentleman explained, went to repeal the penalty of 500 l. to which Catholic priests were liable in Ireland for marrying a Catholic and a Protestant, and to place the marriages thus celebrated by Roman Catholic clergymen on the same footing as those celebrated by Dissenting Ministers. He did not apprehend that there would be any objection raised to the second reading of the Bill.
Colonel Perceval, while he was ready to mitigate the present excessive penalties imposed on this offence, would maintain, that some checks, such as Scceders were liable to, should be placed upon Roman Catholic clergymen marrying Catholics and Protestants. If there was no clause to that effect in the Bill, and if such a clause should not be introduced into it, he should feel it his duty to oppose the measure.
Mr. Perrinapprehended, that the gallant Colonel did not object to the principle of the Bill, and that being the case, if it should be the sense of the House that the clause he mentioned should be added to the Bill, that might be done in the Committee.
Mr. Shawsaid, that though he thought the penalty in question should be mitigated, he would oppose its entire removal. It was a delusion to say, that this Bill went to place Roman Catholic clergymen in this respect on the same footing as other Dissenters in Ireland, for that was no footing at all. There had hitherto existed a check upon the marriages of Catholics and Protestants by Roman Catholic priests in Ireland, and he hoped that the House would not readily consent to remove it entirely. He would certainly mitigate the penalty, for its too great severity went to defeat its object; but he would not altogether remove the punishment from an offence which, time out of mind had been made subject to penalties by the law of that country.
Mr. Secretary Stanleysaid, it appeared to him, that the objection which had been just urged by the hon. and learned Gentleman was a very well-founded one against the system which at present prevailed in Ireland, but it was not a well-founded one against the principle of this Bill, which went to remove an enormously dispropor-
1240
tioned penalty, the very disproportion of which in a great degree occasioned the evil in question. Without entering into the question as to whether it might not be hereafter advisable to introduce a general regulation with regard to such marriages by Roman Catholic clergymen and Dissenting clergymen in Ireland,—a question which was much too extensive at present for discussion, but which hereafter would be well worthy of the serious attention of the House,—he did not apprehend that there could be any objection to the second reading of a Bill which merely went to place the marriages by Roman Catholic clergymen on the same footing with those celebrated by Dissenters in Ireland. He certainly would support the Motion.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that the hon. and learned member for the University of Dublin having spoken of the existence of those penalties "time out of mind," he would just tell the House what they were. One statute made the marrying of a Catholic and Protestant by a Catholic Priest a capital felony, for which he could be executed; by a subsequent statute a penalty of 500 l. was attached to the offence, and the Irish Court of King's Bench, in Lord Kilwarden's time, decided, that those penalties were cumulative—that was to say, that the priest might be hanged first, and fined 500 l. afterwards.
Sir Robert Batesoncould not give his consent to the Bill, unless it was understood that in a future stage some provision would be made for restricting the Roman Catholic priests and all dissenting ministers from celebrating marriages in certain cases. He wished also particularly to provide against parties called couple-makers in Ire. land, who would celebrate marriages between persons of any persuasion for the smallest donation—nay, even for a bottle of whisky. The evils arising from such acts were loudly complained of in the county with which he was connected.
The Order of the Day having been read, on the question that the Bill be read a second time,
Mr. Sergeant Perrinsaid, he must shortly call the attention of the House to the objects of this Bill. By an Act of Anne, and another of the 12th George 3rd, it was provided, that any Catholic clergyman who should celebrate a marriage between a Roman Catholic and a Protestant should be guilty of a capital offence, and should suffer death. The 33rd George 3rd professed to repeal the former Acts so far as making marriages so celebrated invalid, and imposed a

1241
penalty of 500 l. on any Roman Catholic clergyman who should celebrate such a marriage. It had, however, been held by the Courts of Law in Ireland, that these statutes did not effect the first object, and therefore the law in Ireland stood in the extraordinary predicament that a Roman Catholic and Protestant might contract marriage without the intervention of a clergyman at all: while, if a Roman Catholic clergyman should intervene and perform the ceremony, he would be guilty of a felony without benefit of clergy. The object of the present Bill was, to repeal those statutes, which imposed a serious grievance upon a most meritorious class of individuals. He was willing to meet any suggestion that might be made in Committee, and therefore hoped, that the Bill would be allowed to be read a second time.
Sir Robert Inglisthought, that the hon. and learned Sergeant would have adopted a much better course if, instead of bringing forward this Bill, he had proposed a Select Committee to take the subject into its consideration. A similar measure had been introduced last year, and he had since been in frequent communication on the subject with people in Ireland, and had found that though the statutes which had been referred to were in existence, yet no case of their infringement had been tried, except one in the county of Antrim, where the party had been fined 500 l. [Mr. Perrin: That was not the case of a Roman Catholic priest.] The returns which he had seen described the party as James Macgarry, a reputed Papist priest. He apprehended, that to make the marriage of a Roman Catholic legal it must be celebrated by a priest. He could not but think, that it would be more expedient to refer the whole subject to a Select Committee, than to press forward a separate Bill of this kind.
The Solicitor Generalsupported the second reading of the Bill, which went merely to repeal certain penal enactments passed by the Irish Parliament. Those penalties were a disgrace to the Statute book, and ought not to be permitted to remain. As the law stood, marriages in Ireland could be contracted without the intervention of a priest at all, and he must object to any distinction being continued between a Roman Catholic minister and those of any other persuasion.
Mr. Shawsaid, that it was somewhat difficult to deal with his Majesty's Government, for on one day they said one thing, and another the reverse. He alluded par-
1242
ticularly to the circumstances attending the Bill which had been introduced last year on the same subject by the hon. member for Dublin (Mr. Ruthven), and who was obliged to abandon it in consequence of the opposition it met with from the Government. ["No, no."] That Bill had been opposed by the hon. and learned Solicitor-General for Ireland, who had then a seat in the House, and the measure fell; but the Government now seemed disposed to support the present Bill, which was precisely similar to its predecessor. He thought, and would admit, that the existing penalties were too severe, but he could not consent to leave it open to Roman Catholic priests to celebrate marriages between Roman Catholics and Protestants. The Bill, if passed, would do away with every restriction, and would leave the marriage law completely at sea.
Mr. Secretary Stanleydenied, that the Government had made any objection to the principle of the Bill which had been introduced by the hon. member for Dublin. The fact was, that amendments were proposed inconsistent with the principle, and the hon. Member withdrew it. It was most desirable, that the marriage law, both in this country and Ireland, should be examined, for at present it was disgraceful to the country, and he was satisfied, that such an object would not be impeded, but, on the contrary, facilitated, by the House consenting to the second reading of this Bill.
Mr. Ruthvensaid, that the Bill which he had introduced last Session had not been defeated by the Government, but by the factious opposition of the high Protestant ascendancy party, whose bigotry had already withered the country, and which he hoped soon to see dwindle away. He was glad to find, that the subject had been taken up by the hon. and learned Sergeant, who should have his support.
Colonel Percevalobjected to the repeal of the present restrictions upon Roman Catholic priests, unless a sufficient check were placed upon them. He had only proposed such Amendments to the Bill of last Session as would have placed the Roman Catholic priest on the same footing and under similar restrictions, as the Clergy of the Established Church and Dissenting Ministers. He hoped, that the subject would either be referred to a Select Committee, or that the hon. Member who had introduced the Bill would consent, in Committee, to some provisions for placing the Roman Catholic under the same restrictions as other clergy.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that this was the exact principle of the Bill, and he hoped a better spirit would arise in the House than to consent to the continuance of the punishment of death for Catholic clergymen celebrating marriages between Roman Catholics and Protestants. He felt satisfied the House would not consent to the continuance of so atrocious a law. With respect to the objecttion to the Bill because it reduced the penalties, he could only say, that he knew of three instances where Roman Catholic clergymen had been compelled to leave the country for some time, in consequence of having celebrated marriages between Roman Catholics and parties who subsequently were proved to be of the Protestant persuasion.
Bill read a second time.

ROYAL BURGHS (SCOTLAND).
The Lord Advocate The Lord Advocate moved that the Order of the Day for the further consideration of the Report on the Royal Burghs' (Scotland) Bill be read.
Order read and Bill recommitted.
On the first clause being put,
Mr. Robert Wallacesaid, that he approved of the measure as a whole, and thought it would completely put an end to many abuses in the Scotch Burghs, but it needed extension. He was of opinion that the Burgesses should elect their own Magistrates, as was in fact well stated in the preamble to the Bill. The first clause, however, in opposition to the preamble, stated, that the Magistrates were to be elected by the town councils, and that clause had given universal dissatisfaction in Scotland. He did not know why the Magistrates should not be elected by the people, instead of being elected by the intermediate body of the town council. That method would prevent the Burgesses from having a voice even in choosing those who were to manage their pecuniary affairs. He was sure that confiding that important trust to the town councils would occasion amongst them a multitude of cabals. In the borough which he represented the Magistrates had been chosen by the inhabitants at large, for the last seventy years, without any inconvenience, and he certainly should wish to see the same privilege extended to all the Boroughs of Scotland. He would therefore move as an Amendment to insert the words "Provost, Baillies, Treasurer, Town Clerks, and Town Councillors, each individually, and directly, by way of open poll, by which
1244
the electors would have the direct choice of their Magistrates by poll, instead of their being elected by the Town Councillors." He thought his Amendment of so much importance that he would divide the House upon it.
Mr. Gillonseconded the Amendment. He believed its adoption would put an end to an extensive system of jobbing in the election of the Magistrates of the Royal Burghs.
The Lord Advocatesaid, that the substance of the Amendment which had just been moved had been referred to a select Committee up-stairs, and after being discussed had been rejected. The framers of the present measure had acted on this decision, and they were chiefly influenced by this consideration: It was proved before them that in many of the Royal Burghs of Scotland the Magistrates have large power, both civil and criminal; and it was felt that it would be very injudicious to consign into the hands of the people the power of electing those whose office it was to keep wrong-doers in order. It would be hazardous in the extreme to run the risk of men being placed in the Magistry by inflaming the popular passions. On this single ground he should resist the Amendment.
Mr. Humesaid, he was at a loss to know why the people who elected the Town Council, which Town Council afterwards elected the Magistrates, could not at once elect the Magistrates themselves. He could not help thinking that the learned Lord was not acting in the present instance up to his former professed principles with regard to conceding to popular opinion.
Mr. Robert Steuarthoped that what could not be conceded to expediency would not be conceded to a desire for popularity. He thought it was not safe to make the road to the Magistracy lead through the gratification of the popular sentiments. The Magistrates should be above, not dependent on, the vox populi. He meant to oppose the Amendment.
Mr. Robert Fergusonsaid, he supported the Bill, because he conceived it would form a good foundation for any future enactment on the subject. He was opposed to any alteration before further inquiry. He understood that a Royal Commission had been issued with full powers to collect evidence, and report on the subject before the House, and until that report were made he thought he was bound to support

1245
the present Bill. While he meant to do that he was, however, of opinion that the sooner the self-elective system was put an end to the better. He was satisfied though the political power of those close bodies was now gone, that some dangerous influences were still lurking in them which he trusted to the commission to get rid of.
Mr. Bannermanexpressed a wish that the Amendment might be withdrawn, because the people of Scotland, in his opinion, cared nothing about it.
Sir John Haythought, that since a commission was appointed, the discussion on the present measure would in some degree forestal its labours, and relieve it from a great deal of drudgery. It was the duty of the House to make the Bill as perfect as they could.
The Committee divided on the Amendment—Ayes 27; Noes 46: Majority 19.

List of the AYES.

ENGLAND.

Warburton, Henry

Aglionby, Henry

Williams, George

Attwood, T.

SCOTLAND.

Brotherton, Joseph

Gillon, W. D.

Buller, Charles

Maxwell, Sir John

Faithful, George

Oswald, Richard A.

Fenton, John

Sharpe, Matthew

Handley, Major B.

Stewart, Sir M. S.

Hume, Joseph

IRELAND.

Molesworth, Sir W.

Blake, Martin

Parrott, Jasper

Finn, W. F.

Philips, Mark

Roe, James

Potter, Richard

Sheil, Richard L.

Scholefield, Joshua

Vigors, Nicholas

Stavely, T. K.

TEILERS.

Thicknesse, Ralph

Wallace, R.

Sir John Hay Sir John Hay moved the following Amendment: "That in all burghs contained in Schedule A annexed to the Bill, the qualification of electors, in respect of property or occupancy, should be the same as is required for electors by Act 2 and 3 William 4th, c.65, intituled 'An Act to amend the representations of the people of Scotland;' but that in order to afford a sufficient constituency in the other burghs not contained in that schedule, it should be a sufficient qualification for electors, in respect to property or occupancy, that the House or other premises belonging to or occupied by them, shall be of the yearly value of 5l. or upwards." The hon. Member said, that if the right of voting were limited to 10 l. householders, as proposed by the Bill, the number of electors in some of the smaller boroughs would be so small that the election would be a mere mockery as far as regarded the expression of popular
1246
opinion. For example in the sixty-one smaller burghs the whole population of which amounted to 260,000 there would not be above 8,500 electors. The population of the five largo burghs, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Perth, Aberdeen, and Dundee, the population was 700,000 and in them the number of electors would not be more than 26,000. In none of the burghs would the electors amount to five per cent of the population and in some of the smaller burghs it would not be above one per cent. He could also tell the learned Lord that in many of the smaller burghs the persons who had generally filled the situation of Town Councillors and Magistrates did not possess the 10 l. qualification. If this Bill passed as at present, it would place the control of the Magistracy in the hands of any body except those of the great bulk of the burgesses and citizens. He knew that the Amendment he proposed met the wishes of the people in Scotland, and, therefore, he should persevere in it. Indeed he believed, that many of them would rather that the Bill should be thrown out than passed in its present shape.
Mr. John Maxwellseconded the Amendment, although he could not admit, that the people of Scotland did not regard this Bill as a great benefit. He thought the learned Lord had framed his Bill in conformity to English notions of wealth.
The Lord Advocatesaid, that the principle involved in the hon. Member's pro-position had been repeatedly urged during the progress of the Reform Bill, but the House had always decided against it. It was necessary to make a stand somewhere, and he thought the Committee could not do better than adhere to the franchise established by the Reform Act. If they allowed 5l. householders to vote for the election of Magistrates, they would soon claim to vote for Members of Parliament, and he knew not on what principle the Legislature could refuse them.
Mr. Oswaldsupported the Amendment, and thought, that no harm would arise from extending the franchise to 5l. householders.
Sir Alexander Hopewas opposed to the extension of the franchise. He would have consented when the Reform Bill was under discussion, to have a different franchise for different places, but as a uniformity of franchise was then insisted on, he thought it right now to adhere to that principle.
Mr. Andrew Johnstonapproved of the

1247
Amendment. He recollected, that the learned Lord in the Committee promised, that there should be three classes of voters, 10 l. householders, ancient burgesses, and for the smaller burghs simple burgesses.
Mr. Abercrombyopposed the Amendment, on the ground, that it would destroy that uniformity of qualification between the municipal rate of franchise and that for a Member of Parliament, which so much promoted their common interests. He saw no reason why the rate of qualification should be lower for voting for municipal officers than for the Representatives of the people. He admitted, that there was a difficulty as to the small burghs, but the Commission alluded to was to inquire into that case, and he owned that he thought it would be advantageous to those burghs and to the public generally, if the exclusive privilege of those burghs were done away with and they were thrown into the county. Till that was decided, he thought it was no use legislating on the subject, particularly when it was considered, that a uniformity of franchise was on the whole most convenient.
Mr. Wallacewas convinced, that a 5l. qualification would ensure, on the whole, as intelligent and respectable a constituency, both municipal and representative, as the present 10 l rate.
Sir John Haywould press his Amendment to a division, as he had heard no reason against its adoption which could satisfy the just expectations of the people of Scotland.
Mr. Murraywas friendly to the principle of extending the franchise in municipal towns, but feared the present was an objectionable mode of effecting it. He supported the Bill in its present shape, because he thought it would do good, though he wished for an extension of the franchise, but he would trust to the inquiries of the Commissioners giving the Burghs that extension hereafter.
Mr. Aglionbythought, it would be an injury to the small boroughs to have a uniform franchise at so high a rate, he, therefore, would support the Amendment.
Mr. Kennedywould vote against the Amendment, as he conceived it highly expedient, that there should be an identity of qualification between the municipal and the representative franchise. If the former was lowered to 5l. there would be no reason for keeping up the latter at 10 l.
The Committee divided on the Amendment—Ayes 53: Noes 54; Majority 1.

List of the AYES.

ENGLAND.

Gillon, W. D.

Aglionby, H. A.

Hay, Colonel

Attwood, T.

Johnston, A.

Beauclerk, Major

Maxwell, Sir J.

Brotherton, J.

Maxwell, J.

Buller, C.

Oswald, R. A.

Ellis, Wynn

Oswald, J.

Faithful, G.

Sharp, General

Fryer, R.

Steuart, R.

Hume, J.

Wallace, Robert

Kennedy, J.

IRELAND.

Parrott, J.

Baldwin, Dr.

Pease, J.

Barry, G. S.

Plumptre, J. P.

Blake, M. J.

Potter, R.

Butler, Hon. P.

Richards, J.

Evans, G.

Rider, T.

Finn, W. F.

Scholefield, J.

Galway, J. M.

Stavely, T. K.

Grattan, J.

Strutt, E.

Martin, J.

Tooke, W.

Nagle, Sir R.

Trelawney, W. L.

O'Connell, Dan

Warburton, H.

O'Connell, John

Whalley, Sir S.

Roche, W.

Williams, Colonel

Ronayne, D.

Wood, Alderman.

Vigors, N. A.

SCOTLAND.

TEILERS.

Dunlop, Captain

Hay, Sir John

Ewing, J.

Part of the NOES.

ENGLAND.

Smith, V.

Baring, F.

Thicknesse, R.

Barnard, E. G.

Wason, R.

Boiling, W.

Wedgwood, J.

Cornish J.

Williams, A. W.

Duffield, T.

Wood, C;

Fielden, W.

SCOTLAND.

Foster, C.

Abercromby, J.

Graham, Sir J.

Adams, Admiral

Handley, Major

Bannerman, A.

Hardy, J.

Bruce, C.

Hornby, E. G.

Dalmeny, Lord

Hulse, J.

Ferguson, G.

Littleton, E. J.

Haliburton, hon D. G.

Martin, J.

Jeffery, F.

Mosley, Sir O.

Loch, J.

Ord, W. H.

Murray, J. A.

Rickford, W.

Oliphant, L.

Sandon, Lord

Parnell, Sir H.

Seale, Colonel

Stewart, Sir M.

Philip, H.

Sturt, Captain

Shawe, R. N.

Trail, G.

Sheppard, T.

TEILERS.

Slaney, R. A.

Kennedy, T. F.

Mr. Gillonwished to state, that he objected to the exclusion to be perpetuated by this Bill, which would leave the Corporations in Scotland only the same farce of self-election hitherto carried on. The Bill nominally went to extend the rights of inhabitants in burghs, and that it might really do so, he would propose, as an

1249
Amendment on the clause before the House, "That all burgesses admitted for the period of not less than twelve months should have a right to vote on elections to municipal offices."
Mr. Humesupported the Amendment, on the ground that there was no reason why burgesses in Scotland should not be placed on an equal footing with freemen in England. They were certainly not inferior to that class in this country, who enjoyed the privilege of election of members to Parliament. If the burgesses were excluded from the power of choosing their officers, it would be not only gross injustice, but extremely bad policy.
The Lord Advocateobserved, that there was no exclusion of burgesses by this Bill—they were only not admitted. Those who contended for the rights of burgesses by reference to ancient history, ought to know, that burgesses in 1479 were a different class of persons from those who now assumed the name. The ancient burgesses were bonâ fide holders of burgage property—tenants holding immediately of the barony of each town, the general community of which held of the King in capile. At present they were parties admissible to this title on the payment of a very trifling fee, and to admit them to power in a new judicial system would put an end to every thing like respectability in the municipal bodies. Besides, the number of these burgesses was, in many cases, double, and in most four or five times the number of the 10 l. householders; and in addition, there was such a facility in their admission, that for a small expense, and to suit election purposes, such a number might at any time be thrown in as to cause constant innovation, and altogether change the face of things in these burghs; and at elections the whole power might thus fall to a rabble, excluding in toto the real respectability of the town.
Mr. Cumming Bruceagreed in the description given by the learned Lord, and was not therefore anxious for the Amendment as it now stood; but if it were modified, so as to confine the power sought to those who were now burgesses, and to such future burgesses as might be admitted on a higher qualification, then there could be no objection to the admission of the principle.
Mr. Jervisthought an infusion of new blood would be highly beneficial to the Scotch corportations, and would vote for the Amendment. The exclusion of this class
1250
of persons was highly impolitic, because the people felt a want of confidence in a magistracy which was self-elected. He would also oppose the principle of this clause on the ground of prudence, as it might be hereafter used as a precedent in England for depriving freemen in borough towns of their rights, although he did not see with what grace hon. Members could come forward to vote for the disfranchisement of those very persons who had sent them to that House.
Mr. Gillonsaid, that in compliance with the suggestions of his friends, he would modify his Amendment, and confine the: application of it to the burgesses now existing.
The Committee divided—Ayes 58; Noes 102: Majority 44.

List of the AYES.

ENGLAND.

Sinclair, G.

Attwood, T.

Steuart, R.

Beauclerk, Major

Stuart C.

Brotherton, J.

Wallace, R.

Bruce, Lord E.

IRELAND.

Buckingham, J. S.

Baldwin, Dr.

Dillwyn, L. W.

Barron, W.

Ellis, W.

Barry, G. S.

Faithful, G.

Blake Sir F.

Fryer, R.

Butler, H. P.

Gully, J.

Chapman, M.

Hume, J.

Evans, G.

Humphery, J.

Finn, W. F.

Jervis, J.

Fitzgerald, T.

Phillips, M.

Fitzsimon, C.

Richards, J.

O'Brien, C.

Trevor, hon. R.

O'Connell, D.

Tynte, C. J. K.

O'Connell, M.

Wason, R.

O'Connell, J.

Wood, Alderman

O'Connor, F.

SCOTLAND.

O'Dwyer, A. E.

Agnew, Sir A.

Rae, J.

Bruce, C.

Roche, W.

Hay, Sir John

Ronayne, D.

Hay, Colonel

Ruthven, E.

Johnston, A.

Shaw, F.

Maxwell, Sir J.

Shell, E. Z.

Maxwell, T.

Vigors, N. C.

Oliphant, L.

TEILERS.

Oswald, R.

Gillon, W. D.

Ross, H.

Mr. Cumming Bruce Mr. Cumming Bruce moved an Amendment to the effect that all persons in burghs having votes for the Magistracy, should also be burgesses, and produce proof that they had paid the fees.
The Lord Advocateopposed the Amendment, on the ground that it would bring hack the old system and was entirely opposed to the intention of the Bill.
The committee again divided on this

1251
Amendment—Ayes 17; Noes 108 Majority 91.

List of the AYES.

Agnew, Sir A.

Fryer, R.

Arbuthnot, hon. H.

Gordon, Hon. W.

Baring, A.

Hay, Sir J.

Baring, F.

Neeld, J.

Buckingham, J. S.

Ross, C.

Dare, R. W. H.

Tyrrell, Sir J. T.

Dick, Q.

Williams, G.

Ewing, J.

TEILERS.

Ferguson, G.

Bruce, C.

On Clause C being read,
General Sharpe General Sharpe moved an Amendment; to the effect that all voters—10 l.-voters as well as burgesses—be eligible to be Magistrates.
The Lord Advocatesaid, the clause as it stood was introduced by the Committee up stairs, and be saw no reason to alter it.
The Committee again divided—Ayes 60; Noes 75: Majority 15.
The House resumed.
The Report was brought up, and ordered to be taken into further consideration.

EMANCIPATION OF THE JEWS.
Mr. Robert Grant Mr. Robert Grant moved the Order of the Day for the House to resolve itself into a Committee on the Jews' Relief from Disabilities Bill.
Sir Robert Inglishoped that, at that late hour, one of the most important Bills ever discussed would not be pressed upon the House; if it was, he should take the sense of the House on the question of going into the Committee.
Mr. Robert Grantsaid, he should be extremely sorry to press the subject m the House at an inconvenient time, but his hon. friend would recollect the time that had been wasted, that expectations bad been suspended, that two debates bad already taken place on the principle of the Bill, and if there ever was a Bill in which the details were identified with the principle, this was such.
The Speaker put the question that the Order of the Day be read, when
Sir Charles Burrell Sir Charles Burrell moved, that the House do adjourn.
A Division took place cm the Amendment—Ayes 22; Noes 117: Majority 95.

List of the AYES.

Agnew, Sir A.

Forster, C S.

Bruce, C.

Gaskell, J. M.

Butler, E.

Gladstone, W. E.

Callander, J. H.

Henniker, Lord

Colquhoun, J.

Hughes, W. H.

1252

Johnstone, A.

Sinclair, G.

Lennox, Lord A.

Stormont, Viscount

Lowther, Colonel

Stuart, Captain

Martin, J.

Tyrell, C.

Maxwell, J.

Nicholl, J.

TEILERS.

Perceval, Colonel

Burrell, Sir C.

Plumptre, J.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

On the Question that the Speaker do leave the Chair,
Sir Robert Inglisopposed the Motion. He contended that the advantage gained by the parties who were the objects of the Bill was little, whilst the principle was a serious one With great respect to the majority from whom be differed, the principle was so important that be should not do just ice to himself or the country, if he did not take every opportunity of opposing this Bill. He should move that the debate be adjourned to this day six months.
Sir Charles Burrellseconded this Amendment.
Mr. Tookeremarked, that the hon. Baronet opposite might not be so alarmed at the awful consequences to be expected from this Bill, as such in measure had already existed as the law of the land for seven years; for by the 4th or 5th of George 1st, on account of the rebellion of 1715, the words now proposed to be omitted in the oath of abjuration were omitted for certain purposes during the period he bad already stated.
The House divided on the Amendment—Ayes 24; Noes 117: Majority 93.

List of the AYES.

Agnew, Sir A.

Lowther, Colonel

Biddulph, R. M.

Maxwell, J.

Bruce, C.

Mosley, Sir O.

Buller, K.

Perceval, Colonel

Callander, J. H.

Plumptre, J.

Fancourt, Major

Shaw, F.

Forster, C. S.

Sinclair, G.

Gladstone, W. E.

Stormont, Viscount

Hay, Sir J.

Stuart, C.

Henniker, Lord

Tyrell, C.

Hughes, W. H.

TEILERS.

Johnstone, A.

Burrell, Sir C.

Lennox, Lord A.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

On the question being again put that the Speaker do leave the Chair,
Mr. Hughes Hughessaid he would give all the opposition in his power to the measure. Many Members who were anxious to deliver their sentiments on it, were not aware that it would have come on that night. He, therefore, moved that the House do now adjourn.
Viscount Palmerstonput it to the hon.

1253
Member whether, after the House had already two discussions on the principle of the Bill, he would persist in such a Motion.
Lord Stormontwould support the Amendment on the ground stated by the hon. member for Oxford.
Mr. Sinclairsaid, that though he felt strongly opposed to the Bill, he would not certainly support the present Amendment. The Motion was not pressed, and the House went into a Committee on the Bill.
Sir Oswald Mosleyproposed, as an Amendment on the first Clause, which went to admit Jews to all the privileges to which Roman Catholics had been admitted, the introduction of the Words "save and except to scats in either House of Parliament."
The Committee divided—Ayes 23; Noes 118: Majority 95.

List of the AYES.

Agnew, Sir A.

Lennox, Lord A.

Biddulph, R.

Lowther, Col.

Bruce, C.

Martin, Thomas

Buller, Edward

Maxwell, John

Burrel, Sir C.

Perceval, Col.

Callander, J. H.

Plumptre, W.

Fancourt, Major

Sinclair, George

Forester, G. C. W.

Stormont, Lord

Hay, Sir John

Stuart, Captain

Henniker, Lord

Tyrrell, Charles

Hughes, Hughes

Inglis, Sir R. H.

TEILERS.

Johnston, Andrew

Mosley, Sir O.

Mr. Andrew Johnston, in reference to the oath, provided by the 1st Clause, to be taken by Jews on taking their seats in Parliament said, that in consequence of the interpretation which had been already put upon a similar oath inserted in the Catholic Bill, he did not see the use of having such an oath taken at all, and he, therefore, moved that the proviso in question be altogether omitted.
The Committee divided on the Amendment—Ayes 20; Noes 104: Majority 84.
The 1st Clause agreed to.
On the 2nd Clause being read,
Mr. Plumptresaid, that, with a view to nullify the measure, and, if possible, to defeat it, he would move the insertion of the words "in the true faith of a Christian," which had been omitted out of the oath.
The Chairmansuggested that the better way would be to move that the 2nd Clause should be expunged, which the hon. Member accordingly did, and the Committee divided—Ayes 19; Noes 110: Majority 91
The House resumed. The Report brought up, and ordered to be received.