The Sun.
London, England, 1836-08-05 00:00:00

TION BILL.

The Marquis of CLANRICARDE moved the second
reading of this Bill. No one could doubt that there had
losen the most flagrant bribery and corruption in the borough.
This was a poor punishment for such an offence. Their
Lordships, however, had decided otherwise, and he now
offered this Bill entirely out of respect to their Lordships ;
because if it went to the public, that when such a case as
this was established, they were not disposed to put a stop
to the practices disclosed in it—if they did this, it would
give great room for those who were found inclined to attack
their Lordships, to declare that that House was not disposed
to put an end to bribery and corruption.—(Hear, hear.)
The Bill proposed to disfranchise the burgesses ; at the
same time regulations were made, as many of them were
householders, to enable them to register in that capacity,
before another election could take place. Of the 850 bur-
gesses of Stafford, it was admitted that 700 were distinctly
proved to have been bribed. This occurred in the elections
of 1831, 1832, and 1835. He moved that the Bill be read
a second time. . .

The Earl of DEVON moved, as an amendment, that
the Bill be read this day three months.
The Duke of WELLINGTON thought that the Bill
before the House was brought forward upon some very cu-
rious circumstances. First of all, after reciting that cor-
ruption existed in the borough, it did not propose what
would be fair, that those who received bribes should be
punished ; no, but that the burgesses and freemen should be
disfranchised. These were the burgesses and freemen un-
der old charters, and not those enrolled under the Corpo-
ration Act. Now there. was no proof of bribery against
some of the former, and there was distinct proof of bribery
against many of the latter. Another curious circumstance
was, that those disfranchised as burgesses and freemen, on
the ground of bribery, were permitted to register as house-
holders, and would thus be again open to corruption. This
was the Noble Marquis's cure for corruptiot;. Now he
(the Duke of Wellington) had brought in a Bill, which
would really put down corruption, but this Bill was thrown
out in another place.
The Bishop of GLOUCESTER wished, in connection
with this subject, to notice a very gross misrepresentation
respecting the conduct of the prelates on the Stafford Dis-
franchisement Bill the other night. This misrepresenta-
tion appeared in The Morning Chronicle, as to the conduct
of the prelates on the second reading of this Bill. It was
asserted that this Bill was. rejected, and that in its rejection
the prelates took a part, for that the whole bench of bishops
had voted against it. Had this been true, he was not
aware that there would have been any discredit in their 50
voting, though the Morning Chronicle built upon it a Iva"
lignant invective against the prelates, and charged the
with encouraging every case of profligacy and every bag
measure. Now their Lordships would recollect that upon
the occasion of that division taking place, though all the
prelates were present, on account of a Bill in which theY
were peculiarly interested, yet all but three left the House,
and out of thirty no more than that number voted. The
Right Rev. Prelate concluded by saying that he thought
this Bill was not one sufficient for the purposes it proposed
to effect. It appeared to him to be a one-sided measure.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE considered this one of the
many attempts that had been made since the passing of the
Reform Bill to disfranchise the freemen. Let them disfrae"
chise those who were proved to have received bribes, aria
by doing so they would prevent them from ever voting to.
10/. householders.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE remarked, that
when he brought forward one measure he was told it vats
too sweeping and too extensive, and now he was told this
was a partial measure. If they went into Committee, they
might insert a clause excepting those who were not bribed,
and this would leave not more than 1.50 of the freemen who
would come under the operation of such an exTeption.
Lord LYNDHURST remarked, that amongst those
who were called Tories, there was no disposition to pro-.
teat bribery. It was proved with respect to Stafford that
in the election for 1826 the persons who bribed were
Spooner, a Whig; Beaumont, a Whig; in 1832, Chet'
wynd, a Whig, Gronow, a Whig, Blount, a Whig, were
guilty of bribery—no bribery on the part of the Toriet
In 1831 the person who bribed was Campbell—he belieYe6
a Whig—(Laughter)—and at the next election the briber
was Gronow, a well-known Whig.—(Laughter.)
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE had said noth'ieg
about Whigs or Tories. There had been Whig borongili
mongers, and, unfortunately for the country, there ba
been more Tories than Whigs who were boroughmongers•
Lord STRAFFORD should support the present Bill.
The Marquis of SALISBURY thought it better than
adopting a Bill of this kind to move for an address to his
Majesty to direct the Attorney-General to prosecute all the
parties proved to be guilty of bribery.
The Lord CHANCELLOR would ask their Lordships.
then, whether by rejecting this Bill they would say tlie
there was to be no remedy at all for that which all admitte
to be a great evil ? He begged to suggest to their Lord-
ships the propriety of, at all events, reaing the Bill a 0
cond time, and in the Committee they might endeavour to
ascertain the mode by which justice could be done to 0
individuals.
The Earl of FALMOUTH objected to his side of the
House having been alluded to as being averse to the pu-
nishment of bribery and corruption.
After a few words in explanation from Lord WoAltr
CLIFFE and the Marquis Of CLANRICARDE,
Their Lordships divided on the amendment, when the
numbers were—

-
Contents
Non-contents
Majority in favour of the amendment _l6
The Bill is consequently lost. 00,
Mr. WAKLEY, and other Members from the Comm° to
brought up the Medical Witnesses Bill and two Pri°
Bills, all of which were forwarded a stage.
CHARITABLE TRUSTEES BILL.
The LORD CHANCELLOR, in moving the sec°,,i6
readily-, of the Charitable Trustees Bill, regretted that t"..
Bill had not come up sooner to their Lordships' 11°135,:a
but considering the number of persons who were interes'to
in the subject, he trusted their Lordships would consent
°n,
'
pass the Bill. The Noble and Learned Lord, in coneltisi°,
alluded to some proceedings in the Corporation of rrrur
as evidence of the necessity for the measure.
The Earl of FALMOUTH defended the Corporation
of Truro.
The Duke of WELLINGTON said that a Noble - fochla
Learned Lord (Lord Brougham), whose absence be Inuca..
regretted, and it was the more to be regretted on this. °cos.
sion, because if he had been present the pain of this cl 5 the
sion would have been avoided, introduced a clause iowhioli
Municipal Corporations Reform Bill of last Session, eed
provided that those persons who heretofore had adniinis tine
the charitable funds were to continue in the admieistra eof
We
of them up to the Ist of August in this year. The 13`'.1 e to
tiro
the Noble and Leortivd Lord was, to give himself

'eansi
ger
regulation asure to propose to this House, for the future I
belie "`mnat the trusts. With that understandinghe, andhe 7
tom,,:"eeth er Noble Lords, consented to the arrange-
ItUSt be admitted that no one was more capable
wmg .up a general measnre on the subject than the
fertllne and Learned Lord of whom he was speaking. Un-
zeue atelY, they had not had the advantage of the pre-
year of that Noble and Learned Lord in this House this
of t`h; and that being the case, this House did, in the course
the p'3 session, on the question of certain amendments of
-orporation Reform Act, insert a clause in the Bill
now under the consideration of the other House, which
it;"..mcl continue the trustees for another year, that was to
tii/e'N) to the end of next session, in order to give time to
Aoble Lord to come into his place in this. House, and
trrr°4BPtesse a measure for the future administration of those_
IA his ;, °T. if he should unfortunately not be able to attend
P4lee, some other Noble Lord come forward
and e m
this such a proposition to their Lordships. Now
tea o part of the question to which the Noble and.
Therri Lord on the woolsack totally omitted to advert
Bill °use stood at this moment on that clause in the
Ho lately sent down for the consideration of the other
thee% and thus they were precisely in the situation in which
A.,f'st°od, as regarded these trusts, at the end of last ses-
• That was to say, a provision was made up to next
gti.igltinSt: and the close f next session, for. the temporary
_ ist.ration of these trusts. The question was not only
to. the keeping of the accounts, but also as to the ad-
Ikea nistration of thepatrona e—( H ear, h ear—and he wold
,Y that heg
was not prepared to give the patronage to
Zlle:" Party in
to 'those Corporations. He r9commended,
done .1 their Lordships to adhere to that which they had
ae a
" readY• Under these circumstances he should move,
day
six that this Bill be read a second time this
Y BiX months.
711 e a-
v. wendment having been put,
I;7tlseo.unt MELBOURNE submitted to their Lordships
neither of the reasons stated by tbe Noble Du e was
unicient rrr
~eanted ound for the proposed delay. His Noble and
taini . Friend, whose absence be deeply regretted,. cer-
gen 3' (141 undertake to bring in a Bill to provide for the
elapse era'
superintendence of charitable funds, and that
with to Which allusion had been made was introduced
,Au 't a vievv to the settlement being left open till the Ist of
thgust ;
.n the present year. It was also true that in
meate"ill sent up from the other House for the amend-
v of the Municipal Corporations Reform Act a clause
1)::, introduced, continuing that arrangement till the same
Reiti°4 next year. But he begged to call the attention of the
the Se to the fact, that when an objection was taken to-
fsi.eelauses in question that they would be likely to inter-
wouldwith the course of' legislation, it was said that they
411tath have effect till Parliament should otherwise direct,
said et they were not to be of themselves any bar to the
(liee cootir
olsideration of measures thqt might come up from
House in the course of the present session.—
elapsesa "ear.) He was, therefore, of opinion that these
*bi could not be pleaded as a reason why their Lord
sh°uld not proceed with the second reading of thisd
Learned But it was said that the Bill which his Noble an
eeed: Friend intended to introduce was a bar to pro-
ng'
Ivas itng• What his Noble and Learned Friend intended,
atrittioonintroduce a Bill to provide for. the general admini-
eas of charities, and more particularly to give a more
olinYisV.expeditious remedy in cases of fraud in such ad-
court atlon, than the tedious and expensive process in
trusts of law 'afforded against persons who abused their
Friers s• It was not' the intention of his Noble and Learned
ties,to supersede the local management of these chart-
did not intend to provide for the appointment of a
rang °I Trustees, who would undertake the local ar-
.lo.o;oMs ents in all their details. He conceived that the now
I
ed measure was universally calculated
.to secure a
trusts honest, and an impartial administration of these
Is and he hoped, therefore, that the House would
4400 it
to Lord
LVNDHURST said it was out of the question
Pe 'Paso that justice could be done to this subject at this
ti tied et,
e the Session. A Noble and Learned Lord had.,
cilvar4ll,4 Pledge to bring in a Bill upon the whole subject of
thar,-‘a,hle trusts, and no one was more competent to do so
it:mit Noble and Learned Lord. As to the present.
for "etaing could be more mischievous than its provisions,
in nder it the charity trusts would be inevitably placed
management of a party. Another objection to the
ffit, ',as that it would inevitably put the control over trusts
sialleeelesiastical purposes, of which there were a great
lie„).' into the hands of Dissenters, and he
put it to the
per:se whether the Dissenting body were the most proper
tstlas to administer funds intended for the benefit of the
eid arillished Church ?—(Hear, hear.) He should most de-
°Ppose the second reading of the Bill.
iv a LORD CHANCELLOR trusted the House
A°IO:PA reject the Bill, for supposing the Municipal Act
heers,"‘,Enent Bill to be lost in the other House, what wouldd
of tile,,e of the charity trusts throughout the kingdom,. an
till'ajsPecms Whose existence depended on them, if this
e,,,xisteetwer,o lost ? Every borough in which charity funds
Court
ofvZti have no other remedy than to apply to the
„ After f"allee cave
to appoint trustees.
'4le aew word f the Marquis of LANSDOWNE
House s rom
For the
Bill
Against it 39
The
13:„ 111ajority • —l7
itoNo was consequently lost.
The Ni'N CATHOLIC MARRIAGES BILL.
s'eeond rf,-eir,quia of CLANRICARDE then moved the.
The
lia",Mg of this Bill.
read a ,„ renbiShOP of ARMAGH moved that this Bill be
Lere,e)ond time that day six months.
The I,4III\IKET supported the motion.
aPpliDuke of WELLINGTON said that a measure
.iket to Ireland, of the same nature as the Marriage
kar:„i-u'ugland, should have been introduced by the Noble
publicitand if such a Bill, the object of which was to give
Yto In •
have marriages, were introduced
Lora'
,isuPport.
to the 'l, ()LLAND thought the statute law with respect
that smetnnization of marriages ought to be repealed, and
actuation should be left to the common law, and in the same
Se ntlal in which they were placed by the excellent law of
Aft.n: •
'Altbe,,ew words from the Marquis of CLANRI-
Lae
was cleared for a division—
C.,ontents
s. . 19
............
"on-contents 39
Majority against the Bill —2o
Th. ,ESTABLISHED CHURCH BILL.
'arch4.:;FPort of the Committee on the Established.
remin,tll was received, and the Bill ordered for a third
RGL,-morrow.
b Lord Tti,S,TRATIO N OF MARRIAGES BILL.
'egist 7'.4LBOURNE moved the third reading of the
Thera&ll of Marriages Bill.
t.iau of n."),lsll°P of GLOUCESTER proposed the inser-
'egistra- r'noviso, to the effect that when the superintendent
Poiser
4r,,refused a license, the parties should be allowed the
After aPPealing to the Registrar-General.
Lome ~,!?rxle conversation the proviso was agreed to.
lave diet LVNKET said that as the 43d clause contained
erent provisions for legalising the marriages he
enofing....content himself by saying that the time should be
ch t° one year for voiding the marriage, a measure
Was c„.`Yas in conformity with the Irish Marriage Bill. It
tied Vzite necessary that there should be some definite pe-
would ~,e,cl for determining the validity of marriages. He
Lertrte motion to that effect.
ttoa MANSFIELD said the Noble Lord's proposi-
hy tittilml° have a tendency to render marriages voidable
The
Lordtri‘otion was negatived without a division.
iit tooside • Mien
said that the Bill deserved more
p •rat ion than it had met with. He should object to
IvoniTneiPle, and he was sure their Lordships ere long
Th.te the evil tendency of the measure.
l was then read a third time and passed.
the ste• M marquis of SALISBURY presented a Report on
Afte Carriages Bill.
tialf. el.
St Some
e routine business the House adjourned at
P 4 Elven.

-.....,--
The $O USE OF COMMONS, AUGUST 4.
'r--- 'PzAxER took the Chair at five o'clock.
, k IiTTREAIEFoRM OF THE LORDS.
,1
1.!: t Che (after laying upon the table a petition
:1,14, ster for the removal of disabilities affecting the
Uol2' Presented a petition from the Glasgow Political
lleek ' PraYing the House to take such measures as were
to ssarY for the reform of the House of Lords, in order
Itelnder it responsible.
teecr• SHAW doubted whether the petition ought
ittowbaes hot ll'ed, as t
prayed the House to undertake what_
Lords
of ic"Vetent to do viz reform of the House of
is own 'll "
Alr, wi •
1./... • HIME referred to the prayer, which was that the
I.erse would take the necessary measures to produce a
doZ in the House of Lords. He hoped that it would
betirt9rd J. RUSSELL thought it unfair to infer that the
it..e.Y)ners wished the House of Commons to take upon
',.!f.' the reform of the House of Lords.
Mr sti , .
porttsu .IAW laid upon the table several petitions in
of the Church of Ireland.
ferenl J. RUSSELL presented some petitions from dif-
bodies of Dissenters for the abolition of church-rates.
m SOUTH WARWICK ELECTION.
I. m
ing a ai• PHILLIPS wished to set himself right respect-
it).._
_statement he had made on a preceding day, respect-
4tthe conduct of the curate of Long Itchingliam in eon-
t":‘l,Con with the last election for South Warwickshire.
,I,.!!,atement had been denied by an Hon. Baronet (Sir
tfl2vl.llmot), and still more emphatically by the Hon.
.Q.Nb.c:r
.for North Durham (Mr. A. Trevor), but he (Mr.
fourrOlps) had since made the necessary inquiries, and he
bY correspondence with the parties, that what he

Tad asserted was correct. The under-sheriff having heard
hat the curate of Long Itchingham had been active in
ordering the preparation of bludgeons, as he apprehended,
to be employed for the breach of the peace at the election
of South Warwickshire, had, waited upon the Reverend
Gentleman, and inquired of him if such was the fact ?
The curate gave it a distinct denial. The under-sheriff
afterwards called upon the parish clerk, and in his pos-
session saw a number of bludgeons. Asking by whose
orders they had been prepared, he admitted the instru-
mentality of the curate. At this time the curate hap-
pened to be coming by, and being again questioned,
he admitted that he had some knowledge of the
bludgeons, but added that he meant them to be used
as staves to escort Mr. Shirley's voters to the poll. The
under-sheriff took possession of them and carried them
away, as the clergyman, not being a magistrate, could have
no power to order the manufacture of the staves. These
facts were detailed in a letter from the under-sheriff, and
he (Mr. M. Phillips) believed that they had been stated on
the hustings, although not in his hearing, so great was the
confusion.

Sir E. WILMOT had not pretended to contradict the
Hon. Member of his own knowledge, but from information,
and that information led him conscientiously to believe that
there was no truth in the story. The question depended
upon the word " bludgeon," and as he had seen the instru-
ments in question, he could say that some of them were
seven feet long, and not larger than his thumb. Such, he
apprehended, was the exact state of the case ; for to have
employed anybody to make bludgeons for the purpose of
the election would have been illegal and unjustifiable.
Mr. E. SHIRLEY confirmed the statement of the Hon.
Baronet the Member for North Warwickshire.

After a few words from an HON. MEMBER (name un-
known) the conversation dropped.

METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY.
In reply to a question from Mr. HUME as to the pe-
riod when the charter of the Metropolitan University might
be expected,

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER stated
that it would now very soon be ready. No delay had
taken place on the part of the Government in the furthe-
rance of this object that had not for its object the making
of the contemplated establishment such a one as might
prove satisfactory to the just expectation of the people.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS ACT AMEND-
MENT BILL.
On the motion of Lord J. RUSSELL a message was
ordered to be sent to the House of Lords, and requesting
a conference on the subject of the amendments made by
that House on the Bill for the Amendment of the Muni-
cipal Corporations Act.
The conference having been agreed to by their Lord-
ships, Lord J. Russell and several other Managers proceeded
to the appointed place.
The Managers having returned, reported that lists of the
reasons had been interchanged between the two Houses.
LONDON AND DUBLIN ROADS.
Lord Viscount CLIVE moved that an address be pre-
sented to the King, in pursuance of the report from the
Select Committee on the London and Dublin Roads.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER ex-
pressed readiness on the part of Government to have the
surveys recommended by the Select Committee made forth-
with ; but suggested, that as the adoption of the motion of
the Noble Lord would give rise to expectations which fur-
ther inquiry might tend to overthrow, it would be better
not to go through the form of passing resolutions on the
subject.

Mr. SHAW recommended his Noble Friend to adopt
the suggestion of the Right Hon. Gentleman the Chancel-
lor of the Exchequer, and withdraw his resolution for the
present.

Lord CLIVE having consented, the motion was by leave
withdrawn.

The Customs Duties Bill was read a third time, and
passed.

The Court of Chancery (Ireland) Bill was read a third
time, and passed.

The committal of the Benefices Plurality Bill was de-
ferred till Tuesday next.
On the bringing up of the Report of the Committee on
the Post-office Bill,
Colonel SIBTHORP moved that the sth clause be
omitted.

After a short discussion the House divided—
For the amendment lO
Against it 63
Majority

The report was then received.
In answer to a question from Mr. CHARLTON,

Lord J. RUSELL stated that he would move the
consideration of the Lords' amendments to the Municipal
Corporations Amendment Act to-morrow.

REGISTRY OF VOTERS BILL.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL, in moving the further consi-
deration of the report of the Committee on this Bill, stated
that he had asked his Noble and Learned Friend the Lord
Chancellor to suggest the names of a certain number of
barristers whom he should think qualified to act as revising
barristers, and that his Noble and Learned Friend had in
consequence returned- him the names of ten gentlemen.
The list'so made out by the Lord Chancellor he (Lord J.
Russell) had submitted to the consideration of the Hon.
and Learned Member for Huntingdon (Sir F. Pollock),
and to the Hon. and Learned Member for Exeter (Sir W.
Follett), the Attorney and Solicitor-General under the late
administration, by whom a few alterations were suggested,
which bad been complied with. The names, therefore, that
he now proposed to insert in the Bill were as follow :—The
Right Hon. Thomas Erskine, chief of the court, but with
the same amount of salary as the rest of the revising bar-
risters ; Mr. Fraser, Mr. Rogers, Mr. Long, Mr. Robinson,
Mr. Maltby, Mr. Praed, Mr. West, Mr. O'Grady, Mr.
Reynell, and, Mr. Alexander.
Sir J. GRAHAM thought it would be better to allow
the clause as proposed by the Noble Lord now to be in•
serted in the Bill, and printed, and if afterwards there should
appear to be any serious objection to it, it might be altered
or rejected in a subsequent stage of the Bill.
Mr. MACLEAN would put it to the Noble Lord whe-
ther it would not be better to postpone the Bill until the
next session, in order that the subject might he maturely
considered in the mean time, and a better Bill be intro-
duced.

Lord J. RUSSELL had first proceeded to consider
the present scheme on the suggestion of the Right Hon.
Baronet the Member for Tamworth. The House was the
best judge whether he had acted fairly in proposing those
appointments ; if not, then let the Bill be postponed until
next session.—(Cheers from the Ministerial benches.) If
be had supposed that there was any chance of such a propo-
sition being carried, he should certainly not have under-
taken so disagreeable a step.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL defended the appoint-
ments.

Sir THOMAS FREMANTLE should certainly divide
the House on the third reading.
Mr. HUME objected to giving to Mr. Erskine another
1,0001. a year, in addition to the 3,0001. he had so long
derived from an almost sinecure place. The Noble- Lord
was a great deal too good natured. He had endeavoured
to consult the wishes of the opposite side of the House,
and the opposition be now received after all, would, he
hoped, teach him a lesson for the future.
Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET advocated the
postponement of the Bill.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL defended the addi-

tional salary to Mr. Erskine. After holding a high judicial
situation for many years, it would be-beneath his honour
and dignity to accept another post without some honorarium.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM objected to the Bill generally.
With regard to Mr. Erskine, the additional emolument was
a point of feeling for his own consideration. If he demanded
it, he did not see how the Noble Lord could refuse it.
Mr. C. BULLER requested the Speaker, in putting the
question, to stop at the name of Mr. Thomas Erskine, as
be meant to take the sense of the House on that gentleman
being designated " Chief Revising Barrister of England
and Wales."

On the suggestion of Mr. HUME, however, the Hon.
Gentleman forbore to press the amendment at that moment.
The clause was then agreed to.
A clause was then put, providing that no revising bar-
rister, " except the chief," should be allowed to hold any
other office, or practise in any other Court.
Mr. CHARLES BULLER, considering that this ex-
ception endangered the independence of the person whose
independence it was most desirable to secure, moved that it
be struck out.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL defended the excep-
tion on the ground that the duties of the chief barrister
were very different from those to be discharged by the
other barristers.
After a short conversation, in which Mr. Aglionby, Mr.
Maclean, and others took part, Mr. C. Buller withdrew his
amendment, and the clause was agreed to.
The other clauses were then arced to, and the Bill was
ordered to be read a third time on some future day, but we
could not catch it.
On the motion of Lord HO WICK, the Militia Ballot
Suspension Bill was read a second time.
SPIRITS (EXCISE) BILL.

The House went into Committee on this Bill.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
that a clause had been introduced into the Spirit Licenses
(Ireland) Bill, on the motion of the Hon. and Learned
Member for the University of Dublin, respecting the grant-
ing of spirit licenses to grocers in Ireland. Without ex-
pressing any opinion as to the propriety of such a clause
being finally adopted, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer)
wished that the operation of it should be for the present
suspended, in order that the question might be brought in
a substantive shape before the Legislature. He therefore
begged to move the insertion of a clause into the present
Bill which would effect that purpose.

Colonel PERCEVAL and Mr. SHAW said that they
would not object to the proposition.
The clause was accordingly agreed to.

The other clauses were then agreed to, the House re-
sumed, and the report was ordered to be received to-

morrow.

GOLD AND SILVEp. PLATE (SCOTLAND)

RILL.

On the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EX-
CHEQUER, this Bill was read a third time.
Mr. HUME objected to the Bill.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER ad-
mitted the general rule, but he thought that this Bill was
a just exception from the general rule. The public had a
right to some authentic stamp by which they might know
that articles of plate they purchased were authentic.
Dr. BOWRING contended that all legislative interfer-
ence with commerce and manufactures were pernicious.

Mr. CHISHOLM opposed the measure.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL thought that a mea-
sure of the kind was called for both by the trade in Scot-
land and by the purchasers of plate, as it was calculated to
prevent fraud.
The House then divided—
For the third reading 66
Against it 8
Majority 5B
The Bill was then read a third time, and passed.
THE ECCLESIASTICAL APPOINTMENTS