was desirous of calling the attention of the House to a mistake of considerable importance which had been suffered to creep into the Marriage Bill which had recently passed through that House. That Bill contained a proviso that a declaration should be made by the parties about to have the marriage solemnly performed before the civil authorities to the following effect:—" I have a conscientious scruple against being married in church or chapel, or by a religious ceremony." In the votes of that House it appeared that a question had been raised to leave out the clause containing this declaration, and the motion was made that the words left out do stand part of the Bill. On which the House divided, when there appeared, ayes 67, noes 108. This decision determined that the proviso should be left out, and it was with very great surprise that he (Mr. Wilks) found that his proviso formed part of the Bill in the other House, and was in the printed orders of the Lords. This discovery excited great dismay and alarm among all the Dissenters, who held a meeting yesterday, at which he attended, and the alarm excited was indescribable. They resolved to petition Parliament on the subject, as rather than have the Bill passed with such an obnoxious clause they would abandon it altogether. On inquiry he ascertained, that on engrossing the Bill, the proviso was inserted through mistake. He would, therefore, move that a message be sent to the Lords requesting to have the Dissenters' Marriage Bill returned, to have objectionable parts expunged.

thought that a precedent would be necessary before adopting the resolution of the hon. Member.

said, that no doubt those who had the engrossing of the Bill acted wrong in not exercising more diligence in a matter of such importance, and affecting the religious sentiments of such a large and respectable body as the Dissenters of Eng gland; but so many alterations had been made in it, that there were ample grounds for palliation of the error. It would, how ever, be for the House to decide how the difficulty could be removed, and the Bill altered to the state in which it had passed that House.

thought an under standing might be come to, and the mistake rectified. There was a precedent, he believed, for the returning of Bills from the Lords under nearly similar circumstances. It would, then, be the best way to send a message, and at the same time to be pre pared with a precedent.

would not then press his motion, but renew it to-morraw.

wished to know whether it was the intention of the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Morrison) to proceed this Session with his Bill for the periodical revision of the tolls upon railways. There was a strong impression out of the House that this was a very extraordinary interference with property, and he therefore wished to know whether it was the intention of the hon. Member to proceed with his Bill, feeling, as he must feel, that the Bill was not approved of either in the House or out of the House.

had no hesitation in saying that it was his present intention to proceed with his Bill to the second reading. He would, however, move that the second reading be postponed till Monday, in order to give hon. Members, whose constituents felt an anxiety on the subject, an opportunity of consulting them. If he thought that his Bill could not be passed this Session be would withdraw it; but he knew that it was the wish of a great number of persons in the House, and out of it, that this Bill should pass. One part of this Bill was much misunderstood, and he had been asked by some friends whether it was his intention to introduce a Bill to the effect that tolls on railroads should here after be altogether abolished. Now, the word "abolition" occurred in the Bill, but it was by no means necessary, and he had not the slightest objection to strike out the word. It was certainly not his intention that persons who engaged in great public undertakings should not be remunerated— it was, in his opinion, the duty of the House to encourage persons who engaged in works of this kind, and his Bill would not have the effect of discouraging—if it had, he would be very reluctant to proceed with it; but he was very sure it would have a contrary effect, and he was equally sure that no persons ought to feel more interested in the Bill than the proprietors of railroads themselves. The hon. Member concluded by moving that the Bill be postponed till Monday.

seeing the noble Lord, the Chief Secretary for Ireland, in his place, would take that opportunity of asking a question relating to a man named John Conway, who was taken up under a writ of rebellion, and committed to the county of Limerick gaol, where he was confined for a month, and obliged to break stones like the common felons of the prison, by the governor of the prison, against whom he would not be supposed to offer any censure. He was subsequently sent to Dublin handcuffed, and under an escort; and having been brought before the Barons of the Exchequer it was decided that he had been illegally detained, and was order ed to be discharged. There were many circumstances in the case to make it one of an oppressive nature against Conway, who had not been in possession of the farm for nearly two years before; and although the sum claimed under the Tithe Com mutation Bill amounted to 10l., he offered the clergyman 9l. 10s. and costs. Now the question he had to ask was, whether Conway, who, under the existing laws was a tithe debtor, was to be treated as a felon and a criminal? and if not, whether any report had been made to the Government on the subject, or any inquiry instituted in reference to the treatment he experienced while in the gaol of the county of Limerick?

replied, that no official communication had been made on the subject, and all he knew of it was from what appeared in the papers. As for the con. duct of the gaoler, the Government had nothing to do with him; he was the officer of the High Sheriff of the county, and was only accountable to him.

expressed his strong objection to the clause, as tending to entail upon the public a great and unnecessary expense, inasmuch as there were already four clerks of Session, receiving 1,000l. a year each, and having little or nothing to do. Why these two officers, with monstrous salaries, should be added, very greatly excited his curiosity and astonishment. Formerly, the business was so heavy that an increase of officers was required, but at present a reduction, ought to take place in consequence of the decrease of the business. He moved the omission of the clause.

reminded the right hon. Baronet, that he had himself when in office appointed four clerks or extractors, whose salaries amounted to 450l. a year each, making a total of 1,800l. per annum, drawn from the public money. Now he the (Lord Advocate) proposed to remove those four extractors, and to establish these two new officers in their stead, by which means a saving of 1,000l. a year would be effected.

said, that when he came into office he found six clerks, and, on account of the decrease in the business, he reduced the number to four. Since that time, by means of many improvements which had been introduced in the proceedings of the Court, the business was still further decreased, so that it could be easily per formed by the clerks of Session, whose duty it originally was. He thought, the whole of these officers might now be removed, and on this point he expected the support of the hon. Member for Middlesex.

said, he would support the Lord Advocate upon the principle of economy, because he was going to effect a saving of 1,000l. a year.

wondered why the hon. Member would not go further, and join his right hon. Friend in omitting the clause and getting rid of the expense altogether.

said the principal reason why he supported the clause in its present shape was, because it was founded on the recommendation of the Commissioners.

said, he wished to ex plain the grounds upon which he should support the amendment proposed by the right hon. Baronet. It appeared that originally it was the duty of the clerks of Session to prepare the proceedings of the Court, they being officers perfectly con versant with all the forms and practices thereof. At that time the documents and extracts to be so prepared were exceedingly voluminous, and assistants were provided. The labour, however, having been reduced, his right hon. Friend reduced the number of extractors; the question now was, whether the business was so reduced as to come within the capabilities of the clerks of Session, and to justify a further reduction in the number of these extractors, or their total removal. It was admitted on all sides that those clerks were not over worked, and that they were well paid. And it also appeared that they were sufficient to perform the duty. A stronger case must therefore be made out to induce him to support the appointment of two new officers.

rose to move a clause, of which he had given notice, the object of which was to disable Judges of the Court of Session from sitting in the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, and also to provide that those learned persons be not members of any mercantile company, There were, he observed, several objections to their occupying seats in the General Assembly; one of these was, that they there met on terms of perfect equality with the youngest advocate belonging to the profession, and they were thus exposed to frequent collisions with persons junior to them in age, and much inferior in rank; but a still stronger reason was this, that in the Court of Session they might be, and indeed often were called upon to revise the proceedings of the General Assembly, and to decide upon them.

did not see any reason why a subject of that sort need be made the subject of a legislative enactment. It must be well known to many hon. Members then present, that Judges had often had seats in that House without its being found to interfere with their judicial duties. At present there was but one Judge of the Court of Session who be longed to the General Assembly; for that learned individual he entertained the highest respect, and he was quite sure that the performance of one class of his duties never interfered with that of the other. With only one Judge, then, in the General Assembly, it was hardly worth while to found on that a Parliamentary proceeding. Doing so would seem to imply that the Judges of the Court of Session did not so far defer to public opinion as to abstain from connexion with matters inconsistent with their judicial situations.

rose to move, that the Order of the Day for going into Committee on the Poole Corporation Bill be read.

objected to the House adopting this course. He understood from what fell from the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) at an earlier part of the evening, that the whole of the Bills relating to subjects connected with Scotland, that stood on the orders for that day, should be gone through, before any other business was proceeded with. Discussion on business relating to Scotland was very rare, and he thought it would be very hard on the Members from that part of the country, if they were not allowed to be proceeded with. He trusted that the House would act upon the understanding which had been come to, and proceed with those Bills which the Lord Advocate had expressed his de termination of getting through during the present Session.

said, the noble Lord, the Secretary of State, and leader of that House, had distinctly told him that he (Mr. Poulter) should be permitted to proceed with the Poole Corporation Bill, when the Scotch Bills, which had been under consideration, were disposed of, that being the rotation in which the Bill in question stood on the orders. He must say, that he considered it rather strange that those hon. Gentlemen opposite, who expressed such a strong anxiety with regard to those Scotch Bills, had themselves endeavoured to prevent the House proceeding with them, by having the House counted, as it had been, at an earlier period of the evening, although it did so turn out that there were more than forty Members present. He should persevere in his motion.

was quite sure that the counting of the House did not originate with those who wished to proceed with these Bills; neither he nor those around him participated in that motion, and surely it was going rather too far to charge that side of the House with a wish to obstruct the progress of the public business. He did not know who the hon. Member was who had moved that the House be counted, but it was too much to impute to those Members for Scotland who wished these Bills to be proceeded with, that they had any desire to impede the public business, to get through which they had attended under the express understanding which had been come to with respect to these measures. The Members on the Opposition side of the House could know nothing of what passed privately between the hon. Member for Shaftesbury and the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell). The noble Lord had said, the Scotch Bills were to be proceeded with first; and on his way down to the House, he had met several hon. Members, who had told him that such was the case.

had understood that he was to proceed with his two first Bills. With regard to his other Bills, whether they should come on or not, in preference to that of the hon. Member for Shaftesbury, he should leave for the right hon. the Speaker to decide. He should wish to insist on his right to go on, if he was in titled to do so.

certainly under stood that the whole of the Scotch Bills were to be proceeded with; and he must say, it would be rather hard upon Scotch Members, who had been awaiting the discussion of these measures nearly the whole of the Session, if that understanding was not to be adhered to. His understanding was, that the previous discussion related to what question should come on when the Scotch Bills were disposed of.

said, the rule was, that Orders of the Day were completely within the control of the House. At the same time the practice had been, that on one day in the week, the orders were to be taken in the rotation in which they stood in the paper, but on the others that the Government should have the priority in bringing on any business connected with the legislation of the country generally. He must complain of the injustice of the House being led to believe that business of a particular description should come on, and then that they should be told that there was a private understanding between an hon. Member and the leader of the House, that other business was to be proceeded with. He thought the House had also a right to complain that notice had not been given, that it was not intended to give the preference to any Government measure that evening.

said, that the object of the hon. Member for Shaftesbury was to further the Poole Corporation Bill a stage. The proceeding would be almost a matter of form, because they were not called upon to rediscuss the principle of the Bill.

had understood that the Scotch business was to come on that evening; and he had met several hon. Members who had left the House under that impression. He thought it would be most unfair to the Scotch Members to take any other business.

said, the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in the early part of the evening, had stated distinctly, that the Government had the right to take their orders first, but they had waived that right in favour of the hon. Member for Shaftesbury.

said, that the under standing certainly was, that if the remaining Scotch Bills on the list were not gone into, they would be abandoned for the present Session. Such was his impression upon putting questions to the Lord Advocate in the early part of the evening.

contended, that if the Scotch Bills were not proceeded with on that evening, the Scotch Members would be very ill-used.

said, he had stopped in town in order to be present to take a share in the discussion on the Scotch Bills; he had made inquiry at the Board of Trade, and had been assured that the Committee on the Lighthouses Bill would be deferred, in order to give precedence to the Scotch business.

moved, that the Order of the Day for the House to resolve itself into a Committee on the Poole Corporation Bill he read.

moved as an amendment, the Order of the Day for the further consideration of the Report on the Small Debts (Scotland) Bill.

said, he should oppose it, as he considered the Bill most arbitrary and unjust. If it were wished to remedy any defects in the municipal system of Poole, why had not advantage been taken of the Corporation Act Amendment Bill for that purpose? He moved that the first clause of the Bill be expunged.

supported the motion. He believed that if the municipal elections in Poole had turned out satisfactorily to the gentlemen on the Ministerial side of the House, the present Bill would never have been heard of. It was a most unjust measure, because the case was about to undergo investigation in a court of law.

maintained that Parliamentary interference was required, for the ordinary courts of justice could afford no remedy in the case, because, whatever might be their decision, it would not suffice to undo all the mischief which had already been done. Besides, two years might elapse before the judgment of a court of law could be obtained. By the undue election of two councillors, a particular party had obtained the majority in the Corporation of Poole, and had given to the officers employed by them what ever compensation they pleased. If it could be shown him that that grievance might be remedied by a court of law, he would then be ready to vote against the Bill.

had strong objections to the principle of the Bill, and also to the manner in which the Committee of Inquiry on the subject was conducted, for he ventured to say, that every rule which had hitherto governed Committees with regard to the reception of evidence had been violated. He did not understand what useful object the hon. Members opposite had in view in pressing forward the pre sent Bill, for, considering the late period of the Session, and the certainty that in this case the other House would require to hear evidence at the bar, it was impossible for any person to believe that there was any chance of the Bill passing into law before the prorogation. The present Bill was a Bill of pains and penal ties, having for its object to set aside the elections of certain members of the common-council of Poole, who possessed an undoubted right at common law to have their case tried by the Court of King's Bench. The operation of the Bill was not limited to the two individuals with respect to whom evidence had been received by the Committee of Inquiry, but by one sweeping enactment it affected the election of all the members of the council. Moreover, it set aside all the acts of the council, and all elections which it made of officers. Was this a fair course of pro- ceeding? When the present Parliament first assembled, the choice of the Speaker was decided, in the fullest House ever remembered, by a majority of ten votes. Now, supposing that, with respect to the first five seats vacated in consequence of the Reports of Election Committees, Conservative Members had been substituted in the place of Gentlemen who gave their support to the Ministry, would it ever have been allowed that that circumstance should have the effect of nullifying all the previous proceedings of the House? And yet it was proposed in the case of the Poole Corporation, that all its acts should be set aside in consequence of the undue election of two of its members. The Committee stated in their Report, that the petitioners in the present case had made every effort to obtain redress from the courts of law; but there was not a syllable of evidence to that effect in the Re port. In point of fact, the case would, as he understood, be tried at the assizes in the course of a fortnight; and he conceived that nothing could be more inconvenient than to have a verdict pronounced on it at the same time by that House; which, like that in a recent proceeding, might be at direct variance with the judgment of a court of law delivered after hearing evidence on oath. As he felt it to be impossible the Bill should ever pass into law, he would advise hon. Gentlemen on his side of the House not to enter into a discussion of the elections which were alleged to be undue, because what was said in that House would be read out of it, and might have some effect in influencing the decision of the jury before which the case would be tried. He did not think that much attention ought to be paid to the Report of the Committee, because every rule of Parliament had been violated by the admission of affidavits. Those affidavits were not contained in the body of the Report, but they were referred to, so that it was evident they had influenced the conclusions of the Committee. They had been, however, prudently enough separated from the Report, because it was well known that the Report must have been rejected by the House had the affidavits been contained in it. The right hon. Gentleman then referred to the opinion given as to the Bill by the only legal adviser of the Crown who could speak on the subject—namely, the Solicitor-Ge- neral. (The Attorney-General having been counsel in the case could not offer any opinion on it.) That hon. and learned Gentleman (the Solicitor-General) had stated, that he felt it his duty to object to the Bill, as unusual in practice, dangerous in principle, and tending to establish a very bad precedent, and on those grounds he had protested against it. The events to which the Bill referred had taken place last December, and there was then a trial pending in the Court of King's Bench respecting them. Witnesses would be examined on oath, and there was every chance of having the whole truth as to the case elicited. A court of law, he added, was the proper tribunal to which to refer the case. The course proposed by the Bill would be a direct interference of the Legislature with the judicial functions of our law courts. Now, after the declaration of the only legal adviser of the Crown who could speak on the measure, he would ask hon. Members opposite whether they could vote for the Bill.

said., a greater quantity of misconception, of unfair and inaccurate reasoning, was never before presented to the consideration of the House, than was brought before it by the right hon. Gentle man. There had been such a mass of un reasonable arguments that he really was in a dilemma as to what he should begin with. In the first place he would refer to the allusion which had been made to the speech of the Solicitor-General; and here he must say, that he did not know where the right hon. Gentleman had got the speech, but it was certainly an inaccurate version that he gave the House. The Solicitor-General admitted that this was a perfect case for legislation. The fact was undeniable that gross fraud had been practised at the election of the councillors, who had been referred to. The reason why they had not called the eighty-eight witnesses was, because the Committee wished to avoid expense, but no limit was set as to the time when they might be called. Then, as regarded the affidavits not appearing in the appendix, that omission was an error of the printer. The great recommendation of this Bill was, that it provided what the law of the country could not give. If this Bill did not pass, the people would be left for sis years in the hands of those in whose election they had no concern whatever. The Committee had so many gross cases of fraud proved to them, that they felt themselves called on to declare the whole election void. And on the subject of the Report he begged to remind the House that it was unanimous. The utmost that was said by one or two of the Committee was, that they did not like to legislate on this subject. The House should consider that, by a gross falsification, a Corporation had been established that never had been elected by the people. He contended that this Bill was unobjectionable on any constitutional ground.

would ask if any one act of illegality appeared on the face of the Report.

referred to the case of G. Morris, who, having voted on one paper, a second was received by the mayor. Then there was another person whose name was not on the list of voters, but who was allowed to vote because he had the impudence to say that he was the person. James Parker was brought to personate his father, in the case of another person there was perjury.

replied in the affirmative; and, in answer to another question from the same hon. Member, added, that it was impossible that the decision of a jury could be any other than against the defendant.

said, every body who had heard the statement of the hon. Gentleman must feel assured as to the impartiality with which he had acted in the chair of the Committee. Of course, the hon. Gentleman had not exhibited any thing of the advocate in the inquiry which had taken place. He found it stated, that the Report had been framed on certain affidavits. Now, he thought it unfair for any such proceedings to be founded on affidavits, when there was strong political excitement or feeling, parties were often tempted to put that on paper which they would not say if they apprehended a cross examination. He remembered that Lord Lyndhurst when at the bar said—" who shall transfer the blush of bribery to paper?" He observed that there was a reference to the affidavits in the appendix, but on examining it he found no affidavits there. This the hon. Gentleman said was the omission of the printer, but be the fault i whose it might, he would ask the House would they vote away the rights of the people without evidence? He regretted the absence of the learned Solicitor-General, because he wished to know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman maintained his opinion. This appeared to him to be a Bill founded on injustice. He called on the House to reflect on what their position would be if the judgment of the court, at the assizes, should be in direct opposition to the opinion of this House.

defended the conduct of the Committee, and denied that the Chairman had put questions unfairly to any of the witnesses. The Committee was a very fair one, and was attended daily by three or four gentlemen on one side, and three or four on the other side.

could not see how hon. Gentlemen opposite could support the Bill, after the Solicitor-General had described it as a dangerous precedent. For himself, he should give it his decided opposition.

must totally deny that the Committee was satisfied with the evidence, or that they were unanimous in their decision. This was evident from the fact that some members of the Committee voted against the Bill. On the trial also which took place, some of those who had been condemned by the Committee were declared innocent by a court of law. He believed DO enlargement of the rule, as it was stated, Had taken place, and that the case stood for hearing this month. Let them look at the inconvenience which might arise if this matter should be brought before the House of Lords, where it was not the practice to examine witnesses upon affidavit. There was no sufficient reason shown why the House should now prematurely decide upon a question which would be far more satisfactorily decided upon by a court of law.

rose, amidst cries of "Question." He was sitting there, he said, judicially, and he trusted the House would hear him. He was not present upon a former occasion when the Solicitor-General delivered his opinion upon this Bill. In this he was unfortunate, but the Solicitor General himself was equally unfortunate in not having heard his (Mr. Praed's) opinion. He did not deny that this might be a case for Parliamentary decision, but not under present circumstances, because it was pending in a court of law. If the Solicitor-General were now present, he felt confident that, after the opinion before ex pressed by his hon. and learned Friend, the Bill would not be allowed to proceed further. He contended that the case of Great Yarmouth was a case in point. There, two witnesses were dismissed by a Committee of the House of Commons, as blameless and without reproach, who, however, were after wards visited with the strongly marked condemnation of a jury. The House of Commons, a political tribunal, was here called upon to legislate upon a political crime. Such a course was pregnant with mischief, and he would oppose the Bill in every stage.