The Sun.
London, England, 1852-05-18 00:00:00

TUESDAY

r Mr. OSWALD also supported the proviso.
The Committee then divided, when there appeared—
For Mr. Wakley's proviso 77
Against it 167
Majority against the proviso 90
Mr. PETO moved the addition of a proviso at the
end of the clause, that members of the Society of
Friends called Quakers should not be liable to serve in
the militia.
that under the 42d of George 111.,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
c. 90, the deputy lieu-
tenants were empowered to provide substitutes for
Quakers. The Government had considered the subject
long before it had been submitted by the Hon. Gentle-
man opposite, and they did not see any reason why
Quakers should be exempted from the necessity of sup-
plying substitutes. But at the same time they consi-
dered that that part of the clause of the Act of George
111 , by which defaulters under it were committed to
prison, was not in accordance with the spirit of the pre-
sent age, and they therefore meant to do away with it,
and to free Quakers by means of a proviso inserted in
the Bill from the liability of imprisonment. He trusted,
therefore, the Hon. Gentleman would not press his
amendment.
Mr. BRIGHT had prepared a proviso on the subject,
which would have had the effect of exempting Quakers
from the obnoxious portions of that clause.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
that their object was that Quakers should not be placed
in a worse position than others.
The proviso was not pressed.
Mr. M. GIBSON moved the following proviso to this
clause:—" Provided always, that notwithstanding the
first recited Act, or any other Act, no private man cho-
sen by ballot to serve in the militia shall be compelled
to take any oath that he will faithfully serve in the
militia for the term of five years, or until he be sooner
discharged." He considered it little better than blas-
phemy to compel a man to take an oath which he
might not intend to observe if he could possibly escape
from it.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER hoped
the Committee would not be led away into the discus-
sion of considerations which applied to all oaths, and was
not by any means peculiar to the militia oath.
Mr. BRIGHT denied that there was any resemblance
between the case of a witness in a court ofjustice and a
militiaman. This was an infamous measure, violating
the first principles of morality.—(oh, ob.)
Sir P. WOOD hoped great advances had been made
on the subject of oaths since 1802.—(Hear, hear.) Since
then four thousand Custom-house oaths had been abo-
lished, and compulsory oaths altogether had been done
away with. If the militiaman could say he was a
Quaker, or Separatist, or had been (although now an
Infidel), he need not take the oath; but if he were an
Independent, he must take the oath.—(Hear, hear.) A
person had been imprisoned four years on account of an
objection to take the oath. There were numbers con-
stantly increasing who objected to oaths. The decla-
rations required were really absurd. The King's trum-
peter King's chimney-sweeper had been called
upon
n atonddetchle
ar
declare
that they would not use their offices
against the Church of England.—(A. laugh.)
The Committee then divided--
For the clause as it stood ... 156
Against it ... 79
Majority ... 77
Mr. WAKLEY said it was admitted the compulsory
clauses could not be operaiee this year. He therefore
moved that the Chairman should report progress.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thought
the Hon. Gentleman hardly dealt fairly with the House.
The clause had been discussed before, and the Com-
mittee had decided on it. The principle also had been
discussed several times. Reiterated appeals were con-
stantly made from Hon. Gentlemen on the other aide of
the House to expedite the business of the country, and
under these circumstances he could not help saying that
a motion like this almost partook of the character of
vexatious.--(Hear.) If the Hon. Member persisted in
so unseasonable a motion, therefore, he (the Chancellor
of the Exchequer) should divide the Committee.
Mr. BRIGHT said the House had not been dis-
cussing the clause, as the Right Hon. Gentleman stated,
but the exemptions. The division was hurried on in the
early part of the evening, and there was only a majority
of 17. As it was necessary, therefore, to take another
division on the ballot, it would be better to take it on
that clause. It was not intended to adopt factious pro-
ceedings—(oh!)—but to take a discussion when the
House was fresh.
The Committee then divided—
For the motion ... 40
Against it ..• ••• ••• 179
Majority ...-139
The announcement was received with cheers.
Mr. WILLIAMS begged to appeal once more to the
Government not to proceed further. He moved that the
Chairman do now leave the chair.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said,
after the unmistakeable manner in which the sense of the
Committee had been expressed, he confessed he was as-
tonished at the course pursued by the Hon. Gentleman.
If he thought he could defeat the Bill by such a course
he was mistaken. He might inconvenience the Govern-
ment—he might prevent important business being pro-
secuted, and he might protract the duration of the ses-
sion, but the Bill would become law.—(Cheers.) He
was always anxious to defer to the wishes of a majority,
or any considerable party, but he felt he bad in this case
only one duty, and that was to persevere.—(Cheers.)
Mr. GRENVILLE BERKELEY said be had
throughout opposed the Bill, but he would not be a party
to any factious opposition like the presee.
The gallery was agiin cleared, but no division took
place.
. _ _

The clause (16), es amended, was agreed to, and
The CHAIRMAN then reported progress, and ob-
tained leave to sit again on Thursday next- The Ecclesiastical Courts Criminal Jurisdiction Bill
went through Committee pro forma.
The Apprehension of Deserters Bill was read a third
time.

The Further Extension County Courts Bill went
through Committee, previous to which some conversa-
tion occurred between Mr. Walpole and Mr. Fitzroy re-
lative to a clause which had been inserted and consented
to inadvertently by Mr. Walpole, the effect ,of which
was said to be to raise the salaries of the county court
judges from 1,0001. to 1,2001. per annum. Mr. Walpole
intimated his intention to oppose the further progress of
this clause until assurance had bean obtained of the con-
sent of the Crown.