The Statesman.
London, England, 1823-06-19 00:00:00

Mr. BANKES, jun. could not iet*this Bill even go to
a second reading, without entering bis protest against it.
He would even oppose any measure that bad for its ob-
ject the granting a further extension of privileges to
Ro-
man Catholics, to whom he felt that no elective franchise
whatever ought to have been given. He should, there-
fore, object to the Bill altogether.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said this was a Bill to
relieve all classes of Dissenters from taking the Oath of
Supremacy, .and was not peculiarly applicable to Roman
Catholics. He did not approve of the Bill, and be should
oppose it in a future stage.
Mr.PERL said hecould never agree to an unqualified
repeal of the Oath of Supremacy, as was proposed by this
Bill. He was willing to give the elective franchise gene-
rally to all, and to remove the Oath of Supremacy, so far
as regarded the elective franchise, but he would not al-
low that to be repealed iä order to qualify Dissenter, to
bold offices in the State. _ _

Mr. BANKES, seri. said this Bill might be considered
,as a step to do away the 'feat Acts, which had long been
densidered as the bulwark of the British Constitution.—
What did the Noble Lord mean by the word franchise?
I Was it right to enjoy every privilege which men could
receive? Did he mean that the Test and Corporation
Acts should be done sway? Did be mean that the oaths
required to be taken by persons entering into offices
should be repealed ? Did he meals that Dissenters should I
take no oath at all? The Irish Act only gave the elective
franchise to Roman Catholics; but did the Noble Lord
mean to. propose that the highest offices should be open•
to all persons professing a religion different from that of
the State? It would be most anomalous to admit such
persons into any degree of political power, more than they
possessed already. He had no objection to let this Bill
go to a second reading, because the Noble Lord might be
able to explain the nature of the Bill more clearly than it
appeared to be at present. But he would object to any
further extension of political power to the parries alluded
to in this MIL
IMr. WETHERELL said that when the Bill went into
a Committee, he should oppose every clause of it. It
had been stated that there was no intention of attacking
the Test and Corporation Acts, but that intestion bad
not been satisfactorily expressed.
The Bill was then read a second time.
Lord NUGENT said be should not enter into any ge-
neral observations on this measure, bat merely notice
some points that bad been stated by Hoo. Gentlemen on
the other side of the Hogue. His Bill did not at all in-
terfere with the Act of Queen Anne. There was no in-
tention here of repealing the tests so far as regarded the
Roman Catholics. The Member for Code Castle Lad
pot several questions to him respecting the admissioa of
Roman Catholics to the e4ective franchise, which that
Hon. Gentleman considered a very dangerous thing.
Bat did not the Hon. Gentleman know that there were
other means of returning Members to Parliament besides
the elective franchise? Did he not know that many men
Were returned to that House by nomination instead of
election? And suppose the Hon. Gentleman should at
any time think proper to sell his own borough, for
which he had nominated himself a Member of that
House, would be think it necessary to oblige the pur-
chaser to take ao oath against popery?—(Load laughter
land bear, hear) if he did not do so, would he not, sc.
cording to his own doctrine, be selling the security of
his country ?
Mr. BANKES replied that beitas Sot obliged to ea:
swer a question that carried so mach personality with it
as this. Ile would, however, observe that no person
who sold property bad any power to pot an oath to the
purchaser. But if be were disposed to sell his interest
in the Borough alluded to, anloing so convey po-
litical power to another, he should think be deserted his
duty if he placed that power in the hands of any oat
who ea ht not to posses* it--(Hear, hear.)
The Bill was then ordered to be committed on Monday.
DISTILLIMES BILL.
The CHANCELLOR of the 'XCHEQUER moved
the second reading of the Distillery Bill.
Lbrd A. HAMILTON complained that the Commissa-
ries of Scotland Bill had not bees brought ander discus-
sion. The Noble Lord moved as an amendment, that
the Bill to which he alluded, be read a second time.
The LORD ADVOCATE said he was ready to bring
on the Bill this night, if the business of the House
would permit.
Mr. J: P. GRANT supported the Amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY expressed himself anxious for the
discussion of the Bill.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, it
the Amendment had not been moved, the Noble Lord
would have been nearer to the discouion of the Bill.
The Distilleries Bill was as important to Scotland as any
other Bill.
Lord A. HAMILTON explained.
The Amendment was then negatived.
Mr. S. RICE expressed& hope the Bill might not be hur-
ried through the House.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said a Depu-
tattoo from the Distillers in Ireland was in London, sod they
would have abundant opportunities of expressing their sea-
timents before the Bill passed.
The Bill was read a second time, and committed for W-
morrow.
On the Order of the Day for the second reading of the Cein-
niesaries of Scotland Bill—
Mr. KENNEDY said, he would fie Friday for the discus-
sion. If the Bill was brought on forthwith, he should move
as adjournment.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, h
should have no objection if the discussion was brought me
early on Friday.
Mr. KENNEDY said, he should endeavour to bring it on
as early as possible.
The LORD ADVOCATE moved the third reading of the
Scotch Confirmation Bill.
_After • few observations from Mr. J. P. °SANT. Mr.
Rassimer, end Lord A. Hann roe, the Bill was read a third
one; and passed.
The LORD ADVOCATE then moved the third reading of
:dos Scotch Commissaries' Bill.
lord A. HAMILTON opposed the third reading, in copse-
*sou of the lateness of the hour.
, The House divided—
For the third reading, 38—Against it, 21—Majority 33.
Lor A. HAMILTON again opposed the Bill, and moved
the Adjournment of the House.
The motion was not seconded.
Mr. KENNEDY moved the Bill be rest this day six
months.
Mr. GRANT Immediately after moved the House do ad-
jam.
Mr. J. SMITH expressed a hope that the question of
adjournment might not be carried, as it would tend to :re-
lay public business.
Mr, HUME wished the Noble Lord to withdraw the
motion for the third reading of the Bill.
The LORD ADVOCATE thought be bad been met
with vexatious opposition to the Bill.
Sir G. CLERK said much time had been lost iS de-
bate quite useless. He thought the Bill might have bees
discussed.
The Marquess of TITCHPIELD, before the House di-
vided, complained that the Beer Bill was carried yester-
day contrary to ao uoderstasdinK entered into by his
Majesty's Ministers. It was understood no public bu-
siness was to come on before the motion respecting the
Chief Baron of Ireland. He came down to the House at 4
o'clock, and found that the Bill bad been passed.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER disclaim-
ed all intention taking the Noble Lord by surprise. Half-
past four o'clock had arrived, and there being no public
business before the House, he moved the third raiding of
the Bill. He was no party to any ouderstaadisg at the
subiect.
7 he House then divided—
Fur the adjournment, 9 Against it, 44; 1111,101141, 3$

-

_ ..