The Sun.
London, England, 1853-04-20 00:00:00

r ; from authority when he said that, in the town of Glas-
* ei-rttr
sgtewepe
adl o nteil e
m3soe,lovoe
s 0 pin e r swohniss k eve rayn S
laatiudr d aby night
1 perfect state of insensibility Ltil Monday nyrning‘.
How was this to be corrected 1 Certainly not by the
Legislature, but by the common sense. of the higher
classes putting no faith in these absurd superstitions,
and by giving an example of common sense to the people,
who would readily follow them, and by finding some
better way of managing their Sunday than tithing anise
and cummin, and forgetting matters of law. (Hear.)
Mr. A. HASTIE agreed that Scotchmen consumed a
great deal of whisky, but they were not much worse in
that respect than the people of many towns in England.
He did not think the bill would do much good, but in
deference to the feelings of the people in Scotland, he
would give it his assent.
Sir H. F. DAVIE said as the opinion of the house was '
against him, he would not put it to the trouble of a
division.

The amendment was then withdrawn, and the clause
with some verbal alterations was agreed to.
Clauses 2,3, 4, and 5 were agreed to. Clauses 6,7,
and 8 were postponed. Clauses 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14,
15. 16, 17, and 18 were agreed to.
In schedule A,
Mr. MACKENZIE then moved a clause, by which
hotels were prohibited from selling spirits off their pre-
mises on Sundays, and all other public houses should be
closed altogether on Sundays.
Mr. HUME said he had no objection to try the ex-
periment, although he doubted whether it would succeed.
Sir J. ANDERSON thought that the claims of public-
houses on Sundays would be acceptable to all classes in
Scotland.
Mr. COWAN supported the clause ; which was agreed
to.

Mr. HASTIE moved a clause giving a magistrate in
Parliamentary boroughs the same powers as those pos-
sessed by magistrates in Royal boroughs.
Mr. F. MACKENZIE opposed the clause.
The committee then divided, and the numbers were—
For the clause 93
Against it Bl
Majority for the clause —l2
The remaining clauses were then agreed to, and the
house resumed.
Sir T. TROLLOPE reported from the general com-
mittee of elections that they had nominated the commit-
tees to try and determine the Berwick-on-Tweed and
Hereford petitions.

MAYO ELECTION.
Lord H. VANE reported from the Mayo election
committee that G. H. Moore, Esq., and G. G. 0.
Higgins, Esq., were duly elected, and that it appeared
from the evidence given that there had been great abuse
of the spiritual influence on the part of the great body of
the Roman Catholic priesthood at the last election.
JUDGES EXCLUSION BILL.
On the motion that the Speaker do leave the chair
for going into committee on this bill,
Mr H. DRUMMOND said it had been his intention
to move that the Speaker do not leave the chair until
this day six months. (A laugh.) That was, that the
bill be not committed until this day six months ; but he
should reserve his opposition for the third reading.
The house then went into committee on the bill, and
the clauses were agreed to.
Mr. HUME said he wished to make a proviso to the
effect that, provided always that the Recorder of the
city of London, after the present Parliament, shall
during his continuance in office as such recorder be in-
capable of being elected or sitting as a member of the
House of Commons. He wished this proviso to apply
only to future recorders, not to the present right hon.
gentleman who held the office.
The RECORDER of LONDON was much obliged to
the honourable gentleman for the exception he
wished to make in his favour, but the committee
should remember that there was a great distinction
between the position of the offices under discussion, and
that of the judges contemplated by this bill. The Re-
corder of London did not hold his office under the Crown,
nor had he any jurisdictiou beyond the limits of the
City. The office conferred no title or distinction on the
holder, while the duties attached to it, which consisted
of acting as law adviser to the Corporation—
acting as its mouthpiece on State occasions, and
officiating as Speaker with the Lord Mayor,
could in no way prevent the holder from fulfil-
ling the functions of a legislator. True he had to at-
tend for a week in every month in the Central Criminal
Court, but in that respect his situation was only ana-
logous to that of .an hon. member who attended quarter
sessions as a magistrate. There was in fact a wide differ-
ence between the Recorder of London and a judge who
held his appointment from the Crown, and who was
considered to hold too exalted a position, or to be too
much occupied with his public duties, to be able to per-
form the duties of a member of Parliament. In his
own case or that of the Speaker of the House, there was
no humiliation in being called upon to take part in the
turmoil of a contested election, and though he should
abstain from voting on the question, he could assure
the house that, inasmuch as it was part of his duty to
be constantly on the spot in the metropolis, he expe-
rienced tio difficulty whatever in performing the public
duties which were demanded of him as a legislator.
(Cheers.)
Mr. HUME argued that the duties of the Recorder
of the City of London were by far too onerous and mul-
tifarious to admit of his being an efficient member of
Parliament, and he must therefore por.uvort, with -hl-=
proviso.
Sir G. GREY entirely disapproved of the spirit and
principle of the bill ; but with regard to the amendment
under discussion, lie could see no reason for excluding
the Recorder for the City of London from Parliament
any more than for excluding the Recorder of Bristol,
Liverpool, or any other large town.
Mr. WHITESIDE also opposed the proviso.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL believed that the
amendment, if carried, would be pushing the principle
of the bill too far, and he must, therefore, resist its
introduction.
Mr. LABOUCHERE contended that this question
ought to be left to the decision of the constituencies
themselves. They were the best judges of who
should represent them, and it was unjust to
push this bill to the extent that was now demanded.
Already they had excluded two men of talent and emi-
nence from the house, and the house should now draw
the line where these exclusions should stop.
Mr. ATHERTON insisted that the exclusion from
Parliament ought only to extend to judges of the superior
courts, and he should therfore oppose the amendment.
Viscount MONCK opposed the amendment.
, Mr. HENLEY suggested that the amendment should
I be deferred until the bringing up of the report, as if it
it were inserted now it might endanger the passing of
the bill by strengthening the hands of its opponents.
Sir H. H. INGIS was opposed alike to the bill and
the amendment.
Mr. HUME announced his intention to accede to the
proposal of the right hon. gentleman the member for Ox-
fordshire, and withdrew his amendment on the under-
standing that he should move it again upon the bring-
ing up of the report.
After a few words from Lord HoTHAM, Mr. VERNON,
Mr. Sergeant MURPHY, and Mr. MALINS, the amend-
ment was withdrawn.
The whole of the clauses in the schedule were then
agreed to, and the house having resumed, the Chairman
reported the bill. The report was ordered to be received
this day week.