On clause 22, justices may withdraw the services of two magistrates. In conlicences. sequence, however, of the objections which had been urged against the clause in its present shape, it was proposed to place the power of search in the hands of one stipendiary magistrate, or of two justices of the peace. Mr. Ross moved to insert the words "on account of any crime or misdemeanour connected with the use of arms." As the clause now stood a person guilty of a very trivial offence, a common assault for instance, might be arbitrarily deprived of his licence after having duly registered his arms. Lord Eliot contended that the clause was a mitigation of the existing law. The magistrates might now withdraw a license whenever they pleased. The clause did not make it imperative on the justices to withdraw licenses in the cases supposed, but merely provided that it "shall and may be lawful" for them so to do. Sir R. Ferguson suggested that the clause had better stand as at present; because, in cases of riot, it might be desirable to withdraw licenses to bear arms, although the parties had not been guilty of felony. He thought, however, that the magistrates ought to state in their notice of withdrawal the grounds on which they proceeded. The Attorney General admitted the propriety of this latter suggestion, otherwise the notice given by magistrates might be altogether illusory. Lord J. Russell supported the clause. If the magistrates had not the discretion of withdrawing arms from improper persons, they would show much greater unwillingness to grant licenses in the first instance. The committee divided on the question that the words be inserted; Ayes 46; Noes 95; Majority 49. to. Clause, with verbal amendments, agreed On clause 24, justices and constables to enter and search houses in which it is suspected that unregistered arms are kept, Mr. Bernal said, that this was a most important clause, and one great objection to it was that it conferred the power of search upon a single magistrate. He proposed, as an amendment, the insertion of words which would place this power in the hands of two magistrates; observing, that this alteration would tend to afford greater security to the rights and liberties of the subject. Lord Eliot said, that it had been proposed to place this power in the hands of a single justice of the peace because, in many parts of the country it would be a matter of considerable difficulty to obtain Mr. M. O'Ferrall complained that this clause would have the effect of delegating to constables the duties of magistrates. The greatest excitement and ill-feeling had been occasioned by searches for arms having been conducted during the night, and he hoped some means would be adopted to prevent such proceedings in ordinary cases for the future. Sir J. Graham suggested that the hon. and learned Member for Weymouth (Mr. Bernal) should withdraw his amendment, in order that an opportunity might be afforded for considering the amendments which the Government proposed to introduce in this clause. Amendment withdrawn. The House resumed. Committee to sit again. House adjourned at a quarter before one 'oclock. HOUSE OF LORDS, MINUTES.] BILLS. Public.-1. Bridges (Ireland). Reported.-Norfolk Island. 3a and passed :-Church of Scotland Benefices. Private.-1. Dundee Harbour. 2. Earl of Shrewsbury's Estate; Paisley Municipal Affairs; Hambro's Naturalization. Reported. Northampton Improvement; Londonderry Bridge. 3 and passed: Fox's Estate; Inchbelly (Glasgow) Roads. PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Lord Prudhoe, from the Clergy of Richmond, for establishing a Bishopric at Manchester. By Viscount Hawarden, from Donoughmore, against any further Grant to Maynooth College.-By the Marquess of Northampton, from Northampton, for fixing the Time of holding Borough Sessions.-By Lord Redesdale, from Tickhill, in favour of the Normal and Infant Schools.-From Gort, and Kilaraght, against the Irtsh Poor-Law. From Loughrea, for Relief from the Re-payment of the Money advanced by Government, and against the Poor-Law.-From Armagh, against Part of the Spirits (Ireland) Act. BREACH OF PRIVILEGE-KENDAL GAZETTE.] Lord Brougham said that, generally speaking, he was the last person who would complain of a breach of privilege. He had been between thirty and forty years in Parliament, and he had never taken this course on more than one or two occasions, but if such matters as he had now to mention were allowed to pass without notice, he did not see how it was possible fr Members of either House to bring forward CHURCH OF SCOTLAND BENEFICES.] On the motion of the Earl of Aberdeen, the Church of Scotland Benefices Bill was read a third time. of which he had given notice, to omit in the first clause the word "declared," so as to render it merely an enacting meaThe declaratory word to which he objected, stated that to be the law of Scotland which was not in fact the law. Lord Cottenham moved the amendment sure. The Lord Chancellor considered it a very extraordinary circumstance that the noble and learned Lord had never discussed the bill on its merits. The object of the bill was to put an end to disputes and discussions on points of form. It had been said that this bill was an encroachment upon the rights of patrons; but he denied it. On the contrary, the bill would place the rights of patrons on a better foundation than ever. He hoped, for the sake of putting an end to the agi measures which they conscientiously breach of privilege, be brought to the bar thought were for the public good. It of the House. appeared that a person of the name of William Brown was the printer of the Kendal Gazette, and he gave notice that on this day week he would move that this person be brought to their Lordships' bar. At the suggestion of the Master of the Rolls, he had lately presented the Declaratory Suits Bill, the object of which was to introduce into the law of this country a principle laid down by successive judges in Scotland; and the writer in the newspaper in question had asserted that his motive in propounding this measure was, that he might favour his own personal interests in an action about to be tried at the next assizes for Cumberland. This was what the writer had had the face to state, when the fact was that the bill was of a diametrically opposite character, as might be known to all the world, since it had been published in various newspapers. The charge was, that he had sought to introduce into the law of England the Scotch law of prescription, as regarded a possession of forty years (the term was, in fact, sixty years, but that was quite imma-tation in the Scottish Church, their Lordterial), which might be very convenient for those who had obtained possession of the estates of other people. As he and his ancestors had been in possession for centuries, he did not see how a prescription of forty years could be of much value, but, in fact, that provision had originated with a noble Friend while he sat on the woolsack. [Lord Cottenham: I am answerable for that.] That act gave the right after a much shorter term-forty years in one case, and twenty years in another and nothing more erroneous could have entered into an ignorant or a malicious person's brain. The Declaratory Suits Bill had nothing in the world to do with length of possession, and it applied to a totally different flaw in the title, with which time had no connection, but would be as beneficial to a person out of possession as in possession. He would only add, that if Members of either House, in introducing measures on general principles and of a most extended nature, were actuated by the base and despicable motive of private and personal interest, they would be utterly unfit for their situations, and their measures unworthy of a moment's consideration. On this day week he would move that the printer of this scandalous libel, which was a gross ships would pass the bill. There could be no doubt that the congregation had a right to object to the presentee, and that the presbytery had a right to decide upon that objection. That had been the general opinion as long as he could remember. He believed there was no foundation whatever for the objections of his noble and learned Friend, and he, therefore, felt compelled to oppose the amendment. Lord Campbell supported the amendment. The noble and learned Lord appeared to think that this measure would introduce harmony, contentment, and happiness among the Members of the Church of Scotland, whereas it was his opinion that it would produce discord and discontent, and would do great prejudice to that venerable establishment. He felt it his duty to declare solemnly his opinion of the measure which would injure the establishment in England as well as Scotland, and instead of making the latter more popular and more respected, it would make a church which had heretofore been that of the whole population, the Church only of the minority, and induce those consequences which had been seen in another part of the United Kingdom. All he could at present do was in the most solemn manner to protest against the measure, and wash his hands from all participation in it. The Earl of Aberdeen said, that when three years ago he had introduced this measure, the noble and learned Lord then on the Woolsack (Lord Cottenham) although opposing the bill, had never hinted that it contravened the judgment in the Auchterarder case, and consequently he had not thought the measure open to such an objection. He was surprised that the noble and learned Lord should lately, for the first time, have started it. It could not be supposed that any political object was connected with the measure. He had the consolation of knowing that the unmitigable opposition of the noble and learned Lords had greatly commended the measure to the people of Scotland. When the measure was first introduced, he had heard comparatively but little of it; but since the opposition of the noble and learned Lords, he had received, from all parts of Scotland, letters of encouragement and approbation. Although he did not expect that the bill would bring back those Members who had already seceded from the Church, some of whom had returned, he felt certain that it would retain in the Church those who were waiting until the bill should pass into law. He contended that, if the opinions of the noble and learned Lords were acted upon, the Church of Scotland would be disestablished. Every precaution, he thought, was taken in the bill to ensure a conscientious and honest judgment being given by the presbytery. As to the apprehensions which the noble and learned Lord entertained with respect to the ecclesiastical tyranny which he thought would grow out of the measure, he confessed that he did not share them. Practically, nothing new was ordained in the bill; its principles had now been acted on for ten years, and had received the sanction of a law of the Assembly. If any presbytery should exceed its powers and reject a presentee on the ground of any objections not personal to the candidate or relating to his Ministerial gifts, the civil courts would give a remedy. In the present state of the Church, he was unwilling to anticipate the fate of that portion of it which had not seceded, but he hoped that the wise and moderate course pursued by the late General Assembly would preserve the Church from those evils which would follow on any increase of the secession. The noble and learned Lord asked who approved of this bill; but he rejoiced to know that it had the sanction of one of the most active and distinguished leaders of the Church (Dr. Cook), and that 400 other ministers had signified their approbation of it. He could not but express a sanguine hope that, supported as the bill was by the General Assembly, unanimously, and by the presbyteries, in only one of which had there been any disapprobation of the bill expressed, and then only by an individual, it would confer a signal benefit on the Church of Scotland. The Marquess of Breadalbane, taking great interest in the religious question which had so much agitated Scotland, and being intimately acquainted with the sentiments of the people of that country in relation to it, should hardly think that he discharged his duty if he did not rise in his place and declare, that he conceived noble Lords to have fallen into a very gross error, if they supposed this bill could have the least tendency to allay irritation and pacify the Church of Scotland, or to satisfy the Presbyterians of that country. Even if it had been calculated to do good, the time for it was gone the occasion was already past; it was too late to attempt remedies after the evil had been permitted to take its course. As a Presbyterian, he had thought it his duty to secede from the Established Church, and having done so, the bill could have no personal effect on him, or on those who thought with him. They were of opinion, that the course taken by the Government in imposing conditions on the Church was hostile to the fundamental principles of its constitution; and, therefore, 500 ministers with 1,000,000 of the people of Scotland, had thought it their duty to secede from the Established Church. As one of the patrons of churches in Scotland, he felt bound to protest against the bill on general grounds, because he conceived it to be a direct transfer of the patronage of Scotland from those who held it to the Church, placing an irresponsible power in that body. Could there be a greater clerical domi nation than would now exist under this bill? It was not a measure constructed on the principle of non-intrusion, to enact that no minister should be appointed to a parish contrary to the will of the people, but to enact that no one should be appointed contrary to the will of the Pres bytery. He maintained that to be the real effect of the bill, and, therefore, he should certainly give it his most determined opposition. Lord Cottenham said, noble Lords had entirely omitted to discuss the only question before the House, whether the word "declared" should stand, and the measure should or should not be one of enactment. By the act of the General Assembly in 1833, which the noble Earl told them was the foundation of this bill, the rights of the patrons were quite as much invaded, as by the Veto Act. The act of 1833 gave power to the people to object to a presentee on any general ground, not confined to his ministerial qualifications, and to the Presbytery to judge of the objection, and to reject him if they thought him unfit; so that, in fact, any objections might be made, and any judgment pronounced on them. The Auchterarder case decided that the rights of patrons should be respected, and if they were violated, it was immaterial whether the Veto Act, or the act of 1833 was made the instrument of doing so. If that act were valid, the General Assembly might, in fact, repeal an act of Parliament; because the act of Anne secured the rights of patrons, and the Assembly's act of 1833, with the resolutions of 1843, destroyed those rights. Was the House to be asked to pass this bill merely because the General Assembly in 1833 had thought it proper to pass an act transferring the right of patronage from the patrons to the Presbytery? If their Lordships rejected his amendment, then the question would be put on the bill passing, and he should move that the debate be adjourned to that day three months, merely to record his opinion that the bill should not pass. Amendment negatived. Lord Cottenham moved to omit words from the second clause, giving the Presbytery power to have regard to the whole circumstances and condition of the parish to the spiritual welfare and edification of the people, and to the character and number of persons by whom the objections shall be referred. Amendment negatived. In the fifth clause, the noble and learned Lord moved to add a proviso, reserving to the presentee objected to, "all remedies now competent by application to the civil courts.'. Amendment negatived. Additional reasons by the Marquess of Breadalbane : "Because this act interferes with the concerns of the Church in a way that is inconsistent with its spiritual independence; it being unconstitutional for the Legislature to make any alteration in the government and disciof the procedure of its courts, without the pline of the Church, or to prescribe the forms co-operation and sanction of the Church itself. "Because it is a fundamental principle of the Church of Scotland, that no minister be intruded on a parish contrary to the will of the congregation; whereas, by the present bill, this principle is wholly set aside, and another, viz., that no minister be appointed to a parish contrary to the will of the Presbytery and other Church Courts, is established in its place, thus subverting an essential article of the Presbyterian Church. "Because by this act, both the Crown and lay patronage will be substantially transferred into the hands of the Presbyterians of the nation, subversive of the principles of civil Church, thus creating an ecclesiastical domiliberty, and wholly repugnant to the principles of the Presbyterian Church. “Breadalbane." Reported.-Rochdale and Manchester Road; Cromford and Belper Road; Burry, etc., Navigation, and Llanelly Harbour; North Esk Reservoir; Jackson's Divorce. 3o and passed :-Dundee Harbour; Marquess of Aber corn's Estate. PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Sir John Easthope, from Leicester, against the Warrants of Attorney Act.-By put down bribery; and if they allowed a case of this nature to pass unnoticed, they would be open to the charge of professing to condemn bribery, while they winked at its commission. When he had gone Mr. Forster, from Berwick-upon-Tweed, Mr. J. Heath-through the evidence, he should be precoat, from Tiverton, and Sir J. Easthope, from Leicester, against the Coroners Bill.-By Mr. Muntz, from Birmingham, for Relief from Present Distress, and a fixed Standard of Value.-By Lord John Russell, from the Landowners and others in the Vale of Clwyd, for a low Fixed Duty on Corn.-From Croydon, and Castle Cary, in favour of the County Courts Bill, and from Prisoners in Gloucester Gaol, against the Prison Discipline.-By Mr. V. Smith, from Northampton, for Fixing the time of Borough Sessions.--By Mr. W. S. O'Brien, from Dublin, for Reclaiming the Waste Lands of Ireland.From Cavan, in favour of the Arms (Ireland) Bill.From Liverpool, against the Liverpool Fire' Prevention Bill.-From Glasgow, for Inquiry into the Causes of the Prevailing Distress.-From Waterford, for the Abolition of Army and Navy, and all Military Defence.-From James Baker, and others, for the use of a Prison for the Tower Hamlets Court of Requests. DURHAM CITY-NEW WRIT.] Mr. Hodgson Hinde moved, that the Speaker be directed to issue his warrant to the clerk of the Crown to make out a new writ for the election of a citizen to serve in Parliament for the city of Durham, in the room of Viscount Dungannon, whose election has been determined to be void. Mr. Hume objected to the issue of a writ until an opportunity had been af forded to hon. Members of becoming acquainted with the nature and extent of the bribery committed at the late election. The evidence taken before the committee had only been placed in the hands of Members that morning; and it was well known, that the committee had not taken more evidence than was necessary to enable them to declare the election void, and consequently the extent to which bribery had been carried by the payment of headmoney had not been ascertained. He believed, that nearly all the electors who voted for the noble Lord who had just been unseated received 17.; and he was also informed that, at the last general election, when a Whig and a Tory were returned, both the successful candidates paid half a guinea, or half a sovereign to each voter. He thought, that the House ought, by every means in its power, to discourage such practices; and the question was, whether the unseating of a Member was sufficient, or whether the House ought not to institute an inquiry to ascertain the extent of the bribery which had been carried on in this city during the last two or three general elections. The House had expressed a determination to pared to say whether he would move for the appointment of a committee to inquire into the case; and he hoped the hon. Member would postpone his motion for two or three days, in order that hon. Gentlemen might be enabled to make themselves acquainted with the proceedings before the committee. As the hon. Member did not accede to his suggestion, he would move that the debate be adjourned until Thursday next. Mr. Barnard hoped, that the issue of the writ would be postponed. He had not been able to peruse the evidence, and he understood that extensive bribery had taken place at the late election. Mr. Hodgson Hinde said, that if before the committee there had been any evidence of extensive bribery, he would at once have consented to a postponement; but it appeared from the minutes of evidence that only three persons admitted having received one sovereign each at the late election. If the evidence had not been placed in the hands of hon. Members that morning, he would not now have proposed the issue of a writ; but he thought, an opportunity had been afforded to hon. Gentlemen of considering whether the evidence sustained such a charge against the constituency of Durham as ought to induce them to postpone the writ. Because three individuals had received the sum of one sovereign each for their votes, the whole constituency of Durham ought not to be deprived of a representative in that House; and if the hon. Member for Montrose pressed his amendment, he would take the sense of the House on his motion. Mr. T. Duncombe thought, his hon. Friend, the Member for Montrose had made out no case for the suspension of the writ. The issue of the writ would not preclude future inquiry into any bribery which might have taken place at the last election. The exercise of the franchise was a right of too much importance to be suspended without strong and sufficient grounds. The noble Lord had been deprived of his seat in consequence of headmoney having been paid by his agents, and he hoped that example would have a |