means could be devised of improving the constitution of the tribunal before which contested elections were tried. With respect to the present case, he could not help comparing the decision of an Election Committee on a Petition from an Irish borough complaining of corruption with that of the Hertford Election Committee. In the former case the Committee decided, that the returned Member was duly returned, but they declared that bribery had prevailed, and recommended that the House should direct the prosecution of Mr. Lisle by the Attorney-General, as it appeared to the Committee, that that individual had been guilty of gross bribery and corruption. The other Committee recommended that a different rule should be applied in the case of Hertford, where it was admitted that bribery had prevailed only to a very limited extent. The law should be the same in all cases; and, he was sure, that it would excite a general sensation throughout the country, that such a gross case as Newry should be allowed to escape, while Hertford was punished. If the Election Committees did not act more consistently than in these two cases, all confidence would be lost in their decisions, and men would rather be tried by any other tribunal. Mr. Roebuck said, that the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) had alluded to the small sum given to each voter; but, although only 5s. it was a bribe. The law set its face against the practice, and declared it to be illegal, as it was an inducement to electors to vote with other than conscientious feelings. The right hon. Baronet also said, that it would be extremely hard to let the richest class of voters have their feasts, and to deprive the poorer class of a share in the enjoyment. He protested against that as a dangerous doctrine, calculated to destroy the independence of the poorer class of voters. He would not consent to treating in any case, and would punish the parties whether treating were given to the rich or the poor. To tolerate the system would be giving a most improper advantage to the rich man, and would often lead to the exclusion from Parliament of the more de serving candidate. If the House were really anxious to put down bribery and corruption, they would, at once, resort to the Vote by Ballot. The right hon. and gallant Officer (Sir Henry Hardinge) protested against the opinion expressed by the hon. member for the Tower Hamlets as to the question before the House being determined on the ground of political expediency, and said, that he considered such a doctrine to be extremely dangerous. But conferring or upholding political rights was altogether a matter of political expediency. He would ask what was the Reform Bill but a general and sweeping disfranchisement of a number of small boroughs for the purpose of political expediency? Political expediency was in that, as in other cases, the promotion of the general good. He was aware, that some hon. Members considered the term "political expediency" as most objectionable; but it appeared to him, that they did so because they did not understand it. The right hon. and gallant Officer said, that the Conservative party in that House was small in number as compared with that opposed to them, and that, therefore, there was almost a certainty to be a predominance of the latter in the selection of an Election Committee. The right hon. Gentleman said, that the party he was connected with was 150 or 160 in number; but he (Mr. Roebuck) was connected with a party, composed of much fewer Members. That however had no influence on his judgment, and he should be happy to see the functions of the Election Committee confined to a single Judge. He would rather have a single Judge to try the merits of an Election Petition than a tribunal composed of a hundred Members. He was satisfied, that the decisions of a single Judge would be much more satisfactory than those of the Election Committees. He was glad that the right hon. and gallant Officer, now that he was in the minority, entertained the opinions which he did in the constitution of an Election Committee, though he must express his regret, that those opinions were not entertained by the gallant Officer and his friends when they constituted the majority of the House. The House of Commons, from its nature, was not competent to perform a judicial office. He, therefore, thought it would be better if there was a single Judge for the trial of all cases of contested elections. He would not care from what party such a Judge was selected, as the eyes of the country would be on his proceedings, and he would not dare to be dishonest. He would not, however, allow the Judge to have a Jury, on which he might throw the responsibi Mr. Hardy said, that it had been solemnly decided by the Judges of the Court of Common Pleas, in a case brought before a Court of Law, that not only was treating between the teste and return of the writ illegal, but that treating at all, whether before or after those two events, was equally a violation of the provisions of the Act of Parliament. He must say, that he heard with surprise, the doctrine which had been laid down by the hon. and learned member for Norwich. That hon. and learned Gentleman said, that a distinction ought to be made between treating and bribery; but he defied the hon. and learned Gentleman to show him a single instance in which such a distinction was adopted by either the Legislature or any high legal authority in the country. It was true that such a distinction had been now and then made by Committees of that House; but no man who read the Statute of William 3rd (improperly, as he thought, called the Treating Act) could, for a moment, contend for such a distinction. The proposition was untenable; and, so far from admitting any distinction of the sort, the words of the Act were conclusive against it. The language of the Act was, that no voter should receive any reward, benefit, meat or drink, office, em lity of the decision off his own shoulders. Sir James Scarlett was astonished when he heard the hon. member for Bath say, that political expediency was founded on political rights. He (Sir James Scarlett) was not astonished that the hon. Member was connected with a very small party when he entertained such opinions. Such a principle went to the foundation of every right, and affected every legal privilege. The hon. Member, he had no doubt, confounded things. Political expediency might be acted on in reference to general rights, or as affecting a whole people; but if the principle of political expediency was to be acted upon as regarded the rights of a single individual, or of a few persons, it would be the most consummate tyranny. He really could not see any criminality on the part of those who participated in the festivities that took place in celebration of the triumph of the successful candidates at the election for this borough. If a man were to say, "I can't get a dinner from this candidate, and, therefore, I won't vote for him; but I can get a dinner from the other, and, consequently, I will vote for him," he would, most undoubtedly, be corrupt. But nothing of this kind had occurred, and, therefore, he could not, for his own part, conceive how any man could connect half-ployment, or other emolument, to induce a-crown that was given for a dinner on such an occasion with bribery. He was persuaded, that there was not a Member of that House who would grudge such a sum to each of his supporters for the pur-criminal, they were, according to his view pose of celebrating his return; and, therefore, some distinction ought to be drawn between a festivity in every way so moderate, and under the circumstances so natural, and actual downright bribery. As, however, they had consented to let the Bill go into Committee, it would only be a wasteing, no matter when it occurred, was of time to trouble the House with further illegal, and upon that ground they set the observations upon it at the present mo- election aside. But if it were not illegal, ment. He must, indeed, be permitted where was the necessity for observing seto say, that if this Bill were intended to crecy, or why were men of straw invariaestablish any such principle as that of bly chosen to distribute tickets, and pracrendering a person who happened to par- tise all the other acts of corruption, but take of a dinner that was given after the because it would be useless to sue persons election had terminated a criminal act, he of that description for penalties? The should feel it his duty to oppose it. A Act of Parliament declared that 300l. adinner so given before the election com- year was a sufficient qualification for the menced might deserve to be called "treat-representative of a borough; but how ing;" but he could not see upon what principle of justice they could punish those who participated in a festivity that took place subsequently to the close of an election. VOL. XXII. {ies} Third him to vote, from the day of the teste to the day of the return of the writ, without being deemed guilty of bribery; and if during the interval, such practices were of the matter, just as illegal, whether they occurred prior or subsequent to these events. In the case of the borough of Hertford, the Committee adopted the same view that he took of the law upon this question. They decided that treat could a man of 3007. a-year, no matter what his other pretensions might be, hope to compete with a noble Lord who could expend a sum of 9,000l. in carrying his E Sir James Scarlett, in explanation, said, that the hon. and learned Gentleman was in error, in supposing the election cost 9,0001. The whole of the expense, including 2,0007. disbursed by the noble Lord himself, and the costs of the proceedings on the petition, did not exceed between 6,000l. and 7,0007. election, as was the case in the present | very grave consequences that must necesinstance. In the Bill which he meant to sarily attend the introduction of his hon. bring forward provisions would be con- friend's Bill, he thought the House would tained for putting an end to the system of join with him in soliciting his hon. friend buying votes, and doing away with undue to withdraw the present Motion, in order influence of every description. "Treat- to give the Bill more mature consideration, ing" before or after elections he proposed and the better chance of passing in a more making illegal; for he thought the time useful and general form. He trusted his had arrived when the system of influen- hon. friend would not press his Motion, cing voters, no matter how, or by what but, if his hon. friend should persevere, he means it was done, should cease for ever. earnestly hoped that he would cause to be While the present practices existed the removed from the Bill many of its objecqualification of 300l. a-year was a per- tionable parts, in order to make it prove fect mockery. The evil was one that re- more palatable to the people of Scotland, quired the remedy which he proposed ap- than it certainly would be if it were allowed plying to it. to pass in its present shape. If he opposed the Bill in its actual form, it was not because it proposed to remove the penalties from Catholic priests for celebrating marriages in Scotland, for, on that point, he agreed with his hon. friend; but he had yet to learn, why the Roman Catholic clergy should alone enjoy privileges so wide as those which were asked for them-privileges wider than were possessed by the respectable dissenting clergy. If his hon. friend should consent to remove the second clause of the proposed measure, which undoubtedly was the most objectionable one in it; and if he would extend it to the removal of all penalties from the general body of Dissenters for celebrating marriages-if his hon. friend would consent to do this, his Bill would be less objectionable than it was in its present form. The hon. and learned Member referred to the preamble of the old Bill, and said, that one Act was already virtually repealed by the Act of Parliament of the 10th of Anne, c. 7, by which Act the episcopal clergy obtained privileges such as these, and he considered they were well entitled to have these privileges. His hon. friend well knew, since it must be known to almost every body, that the Dissenters in Scotland had for a long series of years solemnized marriages without a question having been put to them on the point. Marriages differed in Scotland from what they were in this country, because they were there a civil act, not required to be celebrated by the clergy. He hoped to have seen more of his hon. friends present; and it was a matter of regret with him to see, that besides himself, there were but one or two Scotch Members present whilst a measure of such moment was being discussed. He must express his earnest hope that his hon. friend would withdraw Mr. Shaw said, there was a manifest distinction between treating and bribery, and that this was the only instance that could be shown, in which punishment was inflicted upon a borough, merely on account of treating. This measure could not be justified upon any principle that he knew of; and he entirely concurred in the opinion, that the expedience and right which hon. Members had talked of, were, to use the expression of the hon. and learned member for Bath, nothing more than a jingle of words without meaning. Bill read a second time; and the issue of the Writ ordered to be further suspended till March 20th. ROMAN CATHOLIC MARRIAGES (SCOTLAND). Mr. Murray moved the order of the day for the second reading of this Bill. Mr. Andrew Johnston said, that he hoped his hon. friend (Mr. Murray) would give some positive reasons why he introduced this measure, and mention his motives for bringing it forward at the present time. For his own part, he had expected that the bringing forward of the measure would have been delayed until after the general Bill for regulating the marriages of Dissenters in England had been intro duced. By waiting until after that time, an opportunity would be afforded of bringing forward the measure with far greater propriety. When they reflected on the his present Motion, and defer his Bill | until the general Bill relating to the marriages of Dissenters in England should be brought forward. Mr. Murray said, that the present Bill was founded on the principle of removing penalties respecting the celebration of marriages from Dissenters in general. He assured his hon. friend, that such was the case; and he was glad to perceive that upon that point they both in reality agreed. He begged his hon. friend not to object to the second reading of the Bill, but to allow it to go into Committee. His hon. friend could then make all the objections he thought fit to portions of the measure; and he begged to assure his hon. friend, that whatever objections, alterations, or amendments, he should be pleased to throw out, when the Bill arrived at that stage, they would receive on his (Mr. Murray's) part, the closest and most marked attention. He did not feel himself in any way called upon to delay the introduction of the present Bill until that relative to the marriages of Dissenters in England should be brought in, for marriages in that country, and in Scotland, stood on so different a footing, that in Scotland they could not at all avail themselves of what might be done in this country on the subject. What was the law in Scotland regulating marriages? Why, any two persons-no matter whether they were nailers, tinkers, or others might say in the presence of a witness of a similar sort, that they were married, and such a marriage would be valid in the face of the law. He was not asking to introduce a Bill in favour of the Roman Catholics exclusively; but he was asking for something to enable the Roman Catholics to do properly what they could not now do in a country where marriages were contracted so loosely-in a country where persons might write to one another, proposing marriage, and then go to bed; after which, such a mode of matrimony would be considered valid in the eye of the law. He considered that it was the duty of every moral person to remove those practices or laws which in any way tended to lead to difficulties or doubt. But his hon. friend said, that it was not necessary. He begged to call the attention of his hon. friend to what occurred in 1815, at the Judiciary Court of Inverness, respecting a marriage solemnized by a Roman Catholic clergyman. A part of the charge was, that this marriage was, This point besides, a clandestine one. was given up, and the Court held that a marriage solemnized by a Roman Catholic priest, subjected him to punishment and penalties, although the bans had been regularly published. He conceived that, under such circumstances, it was a duty that devolved both on him and his hon. friend, to support the present measure. If his hon. friend would afford him that support, he promised to pay every attention in Committee to any changes his hon. friend might then propose. Major Cumming Bruce must vindicate himself from the charges brought by his hon. friend, the member for St. Andrew's, (Mr. Johnston) against the Scotch Members generally, of being absent from their duty when a measure so important as the present was brought forward. He admitted its importance, and being aware of the interest his constituents felt in every Bill touching their Roman Catholic fellow subjects, he begged to inform his hon. friend, that he was now in his place to attend to it. He agreed in the views taken by his hon. friend of this measure. He concurred fully in his willingness to do away with every penal Statute affecting the Roman Catholics; but he thought the Bill should stop there, and not proceed to enactments, which seemed to place the Roman Catholics on a different and more favoured footing than other Dissenters in Scotland. His hon. friend, the member for Leith, (Mr. Murray) seemed to have misunderstood the ground of the objections stated by the member for St. Andrew's, than whom no one was averse to penal enactments on account of religious opinions. The hon. member for St. Andrew's, had stated his concurrence in that part of the Bill which went to sweep away all penalties; but he objected to the second principle involved in the Bill, which was a principle of preference of the Roman Catholic over other Dissenters from the Established Church. In all this he fully concurred. He thought that any attempt to show such a preference should be resisted by the House, because its tendency would be to awaken that feeling of religious animosity between Protestant and Roman Catholic, which was so wisely deprecated by several hon. Members in the debate of last night, when the hon. and learned member for Dublin submitted to the House his Motion respecting the oaths taken by the Roman more entertained, no vote of his last Session gave greater satisfaction to his constituents than that in favour of removing the civil disabilities now affecting the only persecuted class of his Majesty's subjects. With regard to the Bill before the House, to show the absurdity of the present law, he would beg to put a case. A man and woman might acknowledge a marriage before a Catholic priest and his clerk, and that acknowledgment, duly attested, would be valid in law, but if the priest ventured to bestow a nuptial benediction according to the rites of his Church upon the parties, he would be subject to the penal Statutes which his hon. friend, the member for Leith, sought by the present Bill to repeal. He trusted the House would at once consent to remove so preposterous a state of things as the present Statutes against the Catholic clergy in Scotland. Catholic Members of that House. This concessions to Catholics. He believed frequent introduction of questions affect- that, so far from such prejudices now being ing the Roman Catholics, might give countenance to the idea that the great measure of Catholic Emancipation was not intended to be final; and the minds of those conscientious Protestants-and they were very numerous-who had unwittingly acquiesced in that measure, but had acquiesced because such was the will of the Legislature, and because of the assurance that the question would, by its passing, be finally set at rest-would again be thrown into a state of alarm. He would assure the House that this anti-Catholic feeling of Scotland was far from being extinct; and it would, in his view, be the height of imprudence to do anything which might have a tendency to re-awaken it. In the district he had the honour to represent, two very numerous meetings were held in the course of last autumn, to promote the principles of the Reformation, and discountenance the growth of Popery. They were held in the town of Inverness, and were very numerously attended, and by persons of the first respectability. He had been requested to attend them, but had declined, and had even endeavoured to dissuade their promoters from holding them, because he feared their effect might be to re-awaken a spirit of religious animosity. He mentioned the circumstance to show that the anti-Catholic feeling was still prevalent in Scotland. From what had fallen, however, from the hon. member for Leith, he was glad to believe, that the hon. Member was willing in Committee to modify his Bill, so as to render it acceptable to all classes of conscientious Protestants, and, as he concurred in a desire that all penalties should be removed, he should not oppose the second reading. Mr. Robert Steuart said, although there might exist a law prohibiting Protestant dissenting clergymen from celebrating marriages similar to that against Catholic clergymen, there was no instance on record of its having been put in force; on the contrary, all Gentlemen connected with Scotland knew that the episcopal and dissenting clergy were daily in the habit of celebrating marriages among their congregations. He begged to disclaim, for those parts of the country with which he was connected, that illiberal feeling which the hon. member for Inverness stated to exist in the north of Scotland against the late Mr. Sinclair cordially supported the Bill. He thought that the Roman Catholics were peculiarly entitled to this relief, because they were differently circumstanced from other Dissenters in Scotland, who, in common with the members of the Established Church, hold, that marriage is a civil contract, whereas, it is, by the members of the Romish communion, deemed a Sacrament, and requires a religious ceremony for its completion. He was as anxious as his hon. friend, the member for St. Andrew's, to impede the progress of popery by all fair means, but wherever he could gratify the feelings, or show respect to the scruples of his Roman Catholic brethren, without any derogation to Protestant principles, he should deem it a privilege to act towards them in the spirit of courtesy and kindness. The Bill was read a second time. LIVERPOOL FREEMEN BILL.] On the Order of the Day for the House going into Committee on this Bill being read, Mr. Hodgson rose to move the instruction to the Committee of which he had given notice. The first object which he had in view was to inflict punishment not merely on those who had been guilty of receiving bribes, but on those who, in his opinion, and he was sure in the opinion of the House, were still more deserving of punishment-namely, those who had been guilty of giving bribes. His second object was to limit the punishment to those free |