JEWS’ CIVIL DISABILITIES REMOVAL BILL.
During this session, Mr. Divett, one of the members for Exeter, introduced a bill, the object of which was to do away with the declaration required by the municipal corporations act from all persons taking corporate offices, by reason of which members of the Jewish persuasion had been debarred from holding civic magistracies. This bill was opposed on the second reading by Sir R. Inglis; but on a division it was carried by a majority of one hundred and thirteen against twenty-four. On the third reading Mr. Gladstone moved that it be read that day six months; a motion which was seconded by Mr. Pringle; both objecting to the principle of the bill, as hostile to the constitution and repugnant to the feelings of Christians. Mr. Macauley and Lord Sandon supported, and Mr. Goulburn and Sir R. Inglis opposed the measure. The third reading was carried in the commons by a majority of one hundred and eight against thirty-one; but the bill experienced a different fate in the house of lords. It passed a second reading; but on the third reading its rejection was moved by the Bishop of Llandaff, which was carried by ninety-eight against sixty-four: the bill was consequently lost.
CHURCH OF SCOTLAND: NON-INTRUSION QUESTION, ETC.
On the 1st of May, the Duke of Argyle introduced a measure with reference to the right of patronage in the church of Scotland: a question which had been long the subject of controversy. In introducing his bill, the noble duke, after referring to the history of the various acts of the legislature affecting the right of patronage in the church of Scotland, proceeded to read some letters from Drs. Gordon and Chalmers, and others of the dominant party in the church, with the view of showing that the total abolition of patronage, as by law established, was not the means by which this party desired the settlement of the existing differences. The object of the bill proposed, the noble duke subsequently explained, was to give effect to the principle of non-intrusion on the right of the congregation to give their approval or dissent to the appointment of any presentee that might be offered them by the patron. He felt convinced, he said, that unless some measure to this effect were passed, the most lamentable consequences to the church of Scotland would ensue, and there can be no doubt but a secession of a large number of the members of the church would take place; while, if the principle of non-intrusion were conceded, the surest means would be taken to put an end to the agitation of those who were opposed to patronage. Lord Aberdeen said that he wished to give full expression to the genuine and honest feelings and wishes of the people in these matters, but he could not give his support to a measure which might lead to the monstrous consequence of compelling the presbytery to reject a presentee, though he were objected to for no other reason than because he had been presented, or because he had been compelled to take the oath of allegiance. Lord Dunfermline and the earl of Haddington opposed, and the marquess of Breadalbane supported the measure, and it was read a first time. On the 27th of May, the general assembly of the church of Scotland deposed seven clergymen of the presbytery of Strathbogie, and these seven ministers appealed to parliament. A petition was presented from them on the 15th of June, by Lord Aberdeen, in which they called upon the house to save them, by its interference, from the consequences of the sentence which had been pronounced. This petition gave rise to a discussion in the house of lords, but no step was taken for the restoration of the deposed ministers.
LAW-REFORM.
During this session there was a further mitigation of the criminal code. Two bills were introduced for this purpose in the house of commons. The first of these was introduced by Mr. Kelly, who proposed to abolish the punishment of death for all the crimes still capital, except murder and treason. This motion was seconded by Mr. Ewart, and the bill was brought in; but shortly afterwards a measure was introduced on the part of government, by Lord John Russell, which proposed to abolish the punishment of death in certain cases of embezzlement; for the offence of returning from transportation; for burning ships, where the act involved no treasonable intent; and for the crime of rape. Mr. Kelly approved of this measure as far as it went, but contended for the superiority of his own more comprehensive measure. He particularly objected to leaving the offence of setting fire to ships in the royal dockyards capital, and to retaining the punishment of death for attempts to murder. Mr. Kelly’s bill went first into committee; but he experienced so many defeats that he was induced to leave government to deal with their own measures on the same subject. The result was, that near the close of the session a bill was passed, whereby the punishment of transportation for life is substituted for death in all cases of forgery and embezzlement, which had before remained capital, and the crime of rape is made subject to the same mitigated penalty.