Commons Sitting of 26 April 1819

MARRIAGE ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
Dr. Phillimorehaving moved the order of the day for the further consideration of the report of this bill,
The Kings Advocate(sir C. Robinson) rose, and opposed the further progress of the measure, which he thought not at all called for by the present state of things. He contended, that the House was not yet in a state of information to enable it to proceed upon a matter of so much importance. It was true, that some very hard terms had been employed in the attack made by the learned doctor on a former night, but none of them were warranted by the fact. The learned doctor had contented himself with broad assertions, and had formed his law according to his own notions, but it was by no means calculated to produce any beneficial effect. He then entered into an examination of the origin of the marriage laws, and into the necessity of affording a protection to the young and inexperienced persons who might be made the dupes of designing individuals. He did not deny that there were some defects in the existing law, which it might be fit, at a proper time and with proper lights, to remedy; but not in the general and sweeping manner proposed by the measure now under consideration. He was convinced that
[1462
the bill suggested was liable to many of the principal objections that had been made to the law as it stood; and in order to establish this point, he read to the House several of the clauses, commenting as he proceeded upon the manner in which they were worded. He particularly directed his observations against those provisions that related to the period within which it should be permitted, to those who had married during their minority to set aside the union. He resisted also those sections that referred to the residence of the parties in the parish where the bans were published, for a certain time before such publication. On the whole. he saw no important benefit that could result from the measure, while it would be attended with many practical inconveniences. Under these circumstances, and with these objections, he thought that the law ought not to be altered. He should, therefore move, as an amendment to his hon. and learned friend's proposition, "that the report be taken into further consideration upon this day six months."
Mr. SerjeantOnslow contended, that the principle of the bill was good, but thought that there were some of the provisions which might be advantageously omitted, and that there were some deficiencies which might be advantageously supplied.
The Solicitor Generalopposed the bill upon the grounds that it was completely contradictory in its spirit and tendency to the general marriage act. It would be impossible to support the present measure unless the clause by which the marriage of minors without the consent of their parents was declared null and void, should be observed. By the present bill, a principle totally unknown to the English law would be introduced, and unless the House intended to destroy the vital principle of the marriage act, the amendment must be carried.
Sir James Mackintoshconceived that this was as important a subject as any that had recently come before them, inasmuch as it was one upon which the happiness of society in a great measure depended. He therefore thought himself justified in saying a few words to the House upon the objections which had been urged against the measure of his hon. and learned friend. The first objection adduced against it was, that it would be a departure from the law itself. To this charge he must plead guilty, because

1463
he did not See how any amendment to a law could entirely agree with the law itself. He wished to draw the attention of the House to the manner in which the marriage act had been originally passed. It was not an act of deliberation, but an act of the utmost rashness. Mr. Pulteney, in attending some Scotch appeals, was struck by the harshness of the then existing law. He drew up a bill, which was referred fire different times to the judges. After it had been so referred, lord Hardwicke remoulded it, and, driven perhaps by personal altercation into a zeal for the law which he proposed, employed his talents and his influence in procuring its enactment. In two lines of that act, five capital felonies were created. One of its most revolting features was, that it visited with the most severe punishment individuals utterly innocent of crime; that it inflicted a less severe, although still a severe, punishment on individuals who were the least guilty; and that it not only allowed the most guilty individuals to escape with impunity, but in many instances gave them a reward for their treachery and cruelty. The unfortunate children of the marriages against which the act was directed, were declared illegitimate: the unhappy wife was sent back into the world, deprived of her name and her reputation, while the husband, who in many cases might have devised this plan of unmanly triumph over innocence, was rewarded for his guilt, by a liberation from those sacred engagements into which he had basely entered, with the knowledge that he had the power of freeing himself from them at his own pleasure. By that act, passed by the legislature hastily and intemperately, and contradicting in its character the principles by which the great body of the English law had been rendered so venerable—those guards which had been set round the more defenceless part of the community—those protections which justice had afforded to woman against the power and violence, and oppression of man, were weakened, and in many cases wholly withdrawn. After having proceeded at some length in answer to the various objections which had been urged against the bill, the hon. and learned gentleman concluded, by observing, that if they trusted more to immutable nature, and less to the stern operation of law, the intended effect would be more fully and completely produced than it could be by a multiplicity of severe enactments on the subject.
Dr. Phillimoresaid, that agreeing as he did in most of the statements which had been so forcibly urged by his hon. and learned friend who had immediately preceded him, be could not however concur with him in the sweeping condemnation which he had pronounced against the marriage act. The foundation of that act was, that the marriages of minors should be solemnized either with the consent of their parents and guardians, or under such circumstances of publicity and previous notice as should afford to all who had an interest in opposing the union which was about to take place, an opportunity of so doing. Was this objectionable in principle? Surely it was adviseable that minors who, by the policy of the law, were protected in all other contracts, should be protected also in the most important and solemn contract which they could form,—the one, too, in which, from the passions and temptations incident to their time of life, they are most likely to be deceived. The objections to the act— the evils he was anxious to remedy, arose, in one branch of it (i. e. with respect to marriages by licence) from the sanctions and penalties by which the provisions of the act were enforced,—sanctions holding out such encouragement to fraud, and a lure to perfidy, that they were a disgrace to the statute book—penalties so tremendous, breathing such vengeance, as it were, against posterity, that eminent judges in expounding the law, had been compelled to admit that it was intended to operate against the innocent. In the other branch of it (i. e. with respect to marriages by bans), to the facilities by which the provisions of it were evaded. The arguments urged against the bill by the solicitor general were if analysed entirely of a technical nature; those of the king's advocate were resolvable into this, that the House ought never to think of altering a measure which nearly 70 years ago was introduced into parliament by the twelve judges and lord Hardwicke. In the first place, the twelve judges could not introduce any measure into parliament; and in the next, the bill which was submitted to their consideration, never obtained the sanction of the legislature: and with respect to lord Hardwicke it happened most unfortunately for those who wished to shelter their opposition to the present measure under the authority of his venerable name, that he was well aware of the evils of the bill as it finally passed the legislature, and looked

1465
forward to future times to remedy them. Of this there exists most authentic evidence; for in the Hardwicke papers there is a letter from a clergyman (Dr. Birch), who states himself to have been present in the House of Lords when the marriage act was returned with its amendments from the Commons, and who gives lord Hardwicke's opinion in the following words: "The lord chancellor declared his concurrence with all the amendments, though some of them evidently weakened the bill as sent down from that House, since the substance of it was of so much moment to the nation, and these defects might be supplied by a subsequent one." Nay, so strongly did he feel the necessity of revision and reconsideration of the measure, that Dr. Birch reports him to have thus illustrated his ideas on the subject: "He hoped their lordships would act as their predecessors had done in the case of the act of settlement under king William, when the Commons, who were generally thought ill affected to it, clogged it with many impracticable limitations, in order to prevent their lordships from passing it, who, on the other hand, wisely consented to the whole, for the sake of securing the succession itself, resolving to wait for some favourable opportunity to retrench the exceptionable clauses connected with it."✶ It had been said, that the evils arising from the operation of the law in its present state were of rare occurrence, and he had been called upon to produce examples; he felt considerable surprise at the nature of this demand, and at the quarter from which it was made; for his hon. and learned friend, the king's advocate, could not be so ignorant of all that was passing in the ecclesiastical courts as not to know that those evils were monstrous, and almost of daily occurrence. In the case of Wattle v. Hathaway, decided by the delegates in 1789, the woman was a minor at the time of the marriage; the husband obtained the licence, swearing that she was of age—four children were the fruit of their union; being in great poverty, he went to the East Indies, where he amassed considerable wealth; he returned to this country, and 27 years from the date of his marriage instituted proceedings to annul it, on the ground of his wife having been a minor at the time he swore she was of age, and he succeeded in his suit.
* See Parliamentary History of England, vol. 15, p. 84.
[1466
In Hewitt v. Bratcher, the marriage was set aside on account of the minority of the wife, at the suit of the husband, after a cohabitation of 25 years. In Peyton v. Salmon, the parties had been married several years—two children were born to them; the man read one of the nullity cases in the newspapers—he knew himself not to have been of age at the time he procured his licence; he instituted a suit to annul his marriage in the Consistory court in 1808; failing in his proof there, he, in 1809, commenced proceedings in the court of Peculiars, and the marriage was declared null and void. In Watson v. Little, the marriage took place in 1787; the issue of it were six children; the man obtained the licence on the wife's assuring him she was of age—as she was, within a very few months;—eighteen years afterwards she formed an adulterous intercourse with another man, and then annulled her marriage, and bastardized her children. Walker v. Longstaff, before the Consistory in 1812; Balfour v. Carpenter before the Arches in 1811; Jeffries v. Foster before the Consistory in 1813; Day v. Jarvis 1814; Potter v. Potter 1814, are all cases of the same description; and there is at this moment a cause pending, in which the cohabitation has Subsisted for 22 years; there are 5 or 6 children, and the husband is proceeding to annul the marriage on the ground of his having been a minor at the time it was contracted, he having then sworn himself to be of age, and being within six weeks of 21 years. If this fact is established, the court will have no option but to set aside the marriage. The operation of the law with respect to illegitimate minors is, if possible, more harsh and severe; for in their case it has been held absolutely necessary that there shall have been the previous consent of a guardian appointed by the high court of chancery. Lydiard's case in 1799 is a striking illustration of this. Harriet Lydiard was the natural daughter of Mr. Whitelock and Sarah Lydiard; he recognized her as his daughter, bequeathed to her property by his will, and left her mother and another person his executors and her guardians. She married Mr. Homer at the age of 20, with the consent of her mother and guardian, and it was stated in the licence that she had that consent; three years afterward Mr. Homer set aside this marriage because it had not the sanction of a guardian appointed by the

1467
court of chancery. In Priestley v. Hughes, John Wynne married Jane Hughes, an illegitimate child, with the consent of her mother; the issue of that marriage was a daughter; the father died first; the grandfather died in 1796, and at his death considerable property descended to the granddaughter, which was wrested from her in 1809, on proof being made by the heir at law, that Jane Hughes was married without the consent of a guardian appointed by the high court of chancery.—Such is the operation of the law which has been characterized in the course of the discussions this sight, by the appropriate epithet of merciful, and such are the amendments of it, which have been stigmatized as unwise and impolitic! Neither the House nor the Country can have been aware of the extent and enormity of the evil, or it could not have been so long tolerated and endured. A poet, who well understood human nature, and who had looked deep into the foundations of civil society, described that period as the commencement of civilization and refinement when persons began to cohabit together in marriage and issue was born from such union—
Tam mulier conjuncta viro concessit in unam
Castaque privatæ Veneris connubia læta
Cognita sunt, prolemque ex se videre creatam.
But now the whole order of civilization 6eemed inverted,—in this our England in the 19th century, it seemed as if it were competent to a husband when sated with enjoyment, to discard his wife,—when elated with prosperity, to get rid of her with whom he had been united and associated in the days of adversity. It was competent to a father, when he was too indolent to maintain his children, to rend asunder all the tender charities of life, and to turn them loose upon society as outcasts and vagabonds.—As to the second branch of the bill, it certainly was most extraordinary, that while the law was so stern and severe with respect to marriages of minors by licence, no protection whatever was afforded to the minor who is married by bans. Bans undoubtedly were the ancient mode by which matrimony was solemnized; and in the simpler stages of society, when the parish minister was acquainted with all his parishioners, no more admirable mode could be devised. The marriage act enjoins, that all bans of matrimony shall be published in an audible manner in the parish church where the parties reside; but by a subsequent clause, it forbids all
[1468
inquiry after the marriage has been celebrated, into the residence of the parties.; the consequence of this is, that banns have ceased to be a publication or notice to parents or guardians; and in the populous cities of this kingdom, the banns are daily published of persons who have no connexion with the places; and the marriage act in this respect is reduced to an entire nullity;—for example, in the three last months of 1817, the banns of 284 couple were published in the parish church of Marylebone; of these 568 persons, all but two were described as belonging to the parish, whereas the fact was notoriously otherwise.—In the case of Paget v. Tomkins, William Peter Paget, a boy of 17, married his mother's maid; the banns were published in the parish church of St. Andrew's, Holborn, in which both the parties were utter strangers; — fortunately, the name of Peter was omitted in the publication, and for this omission, the court felt itself authorized to set aside the marriage, which, had the name of Peter been mentioned, must have been indissoluble. In a more recent case, a boy of 17, greatly connected, the son indeed of a member of this House in the last parliament, was in the interval between Eton and College married to the daughter of a huntsman, in a church in the Borough; in this parish the parties had never resided. During the performance of the ceremony the clergyman, struck with the youthful appearance of the young man, interrupted the ceremony to question the parties as to their residence in the parish, and the consent of their parents; all these questions were satisfactorily answered by the mother of the woman, and in spite of this unblushing falsehood, the marriage was so valid that it was feared it would be impossible to annul it. These were anomalies in the law which called loudly for redress—the object was, to render the matrimonial law equal and uniform in its operation, and to strip it of the unjust and unnecessary severity by which it was now enforced.—The hon. member concluded with stating, that his sense and experience of the evils and injustice resulting from the actual operation of the law, had alike induced him to attempt the amendment of it, and that he was anxious to submit this bill to the calm and unbiassed judgment, and consideration of the House.
The question being put, "That the words proposed to be left out, stand part of

1469
the question," the House divided; Ayes, 98; Noes, 27.

List of the Minority.

Arbuthnot, rt. hon. C.

Maconochie, A.

Bathurst, rt. hon. C.

M'Naghten, A.

Brownlow, W.

Montgomery, sir J.

Castleresgh, visct.

Pole, rt. hon. W. W.

Clerk, sir G.

Robertson, A.

Cockburne, sir G.

Robinson, rt. hon. F.

Clive, H.

Shepherd, sir S.

Collett, E.

Scott, right hon. W.

Evans, capt.

Shepherd, H.

Foster, right hon. J.

Stewart, A.

Foster, J. L.

Wallace, rt. hon. W.

Grant, R.

TELLERS.

Holford, G.

Gifford, sir R.

Houston, A.

Robinson, sir C.

Joliffe, H.

SCOTCH POOR RELIEF REGULATION BILL.
Mr. Kennedyrose to move the order of the day, for the House resolving itself into a committee on this bill, and said, that the House had hitherto indulged him by permitting the bill to advance to the present stage, without any statement of its object or of the principles upon which ' it was founded. He had abstained from saying any thing from the state of the House, when it was read a second time, but he had now some cause to regret the course he had followed, because the subject was one of a most delicate nature, and such as could not fail to excite great interest in that part of the empire to which it immediately related. It was a subject on which it was of peculiar importance, that any one who ventured to make a proposition to the House should not be misunderstood. It was essential that a true view of the intentions in which the measure originated should go forth to the public,—that the public mind should not be permitted to remain in error. He hoped the House would bear with him While he stated as briefly as he could, the object and the bearings of the measure which he had presumed to introduce to their consideration; and which he hoped might not be altogether uninteresting in reference to the difficulties which the same subject presented in England. The measure had been in his contemplation for some time, and about two years ago, when he had not the honour of a seat in that House, an hon. and learned friend of his had given notice of his intention to bring it forward; but the committee on the poor laws had then been appointed, and in deference to that committee, not from any change of opinion, that hon.
[1470
friend had been induced for a time to abandon it. He felt the responsibility he incurred, and perhaps the presumption which attached to his now bringing it forward, and would have shrunk from the undertaking, but from a conviction that the measure was called for,—that the present was a most critical moment, and that a measure which would now be efficacious, might in a short time come too late. He had resolved, therefore, to run any risk which might be personal to himself, hoping to carry a safe, simple, and efficacious remedy for many evils,—a measure he was happy to say which had received such a sanction from persons Connected with Scotland, and from names possessing a weight of authority which could scarcely fail to secure the ultimate success of the bill, without the utmost probability of which it would not be justifiable to call the attention of parliament to the subject.
It would be unnecessary to set out, by stating any very general principles; such views he considered as settled, that it did not remain for him to argue the disadvantages of poor-rates, or the policy of guarding against them, where they yet existed in a mild form. If there were persons who disputed such propositions, who were of opinion, that poor-rates were beneficial to a people, he could not hope to convince them, where others had failed. He should not discharge his duty to the House, in an acceptable way, were he to do more than detail the peculiarities of Scotland: to make as short and simple a statement, as would justify the measure, which he had ventured to introduce into the House. The hon. member wished, in the first place, to advert to the old law and practice of Scotland, respecting the poor, but that, only, as affecting their maintenance. The ancient statute law of Scotland was loaded by regulating enactments, but, amid all its variety, one principle was discernible throughout, and palpably declared: that parochial aid was applicable only to those who from age and infirmity, from personal inability, were unable to maintain themselves. For this purpose, which was so distinctly recognized, various funds had been provided, but always in such scanty degree, as to be invariably somewhat short of the sop-ply which the wants of nature might require. The great fund relied on was, the collection at the church doors, by the parishioners; some other small contingent

1471
funds were also provided; and, last of all, a power was given to raise an aid from the landed property in the parish, by assessment, but it was always looked to as a last resource; and it is believed, that centuries elapsed, during which such aid was, in practice, almost unknown, although recognized in the statute law at an early period. The idea of right, in the poor, was of recent origin, and, for a very long period, was understood and acted upon, and limited by the principle, that every individual was bound to maintain himself by his own labour, while capable so to do, in respect of bodily health and age, and the parish was only called upon to make up that portion of maintenance which he could not earn by labour, or other lawful means. Unfortunately, that happy and primitive state was nearly gone by; the pride which upheld it, humbled, and that independence of spirit, for which Scotland was so much distinguished, greatly broken. In that respect, the country might be considered as divided into three districts. In the mountainous, and thinly peopled parts, the ancient pride was unimpaired, and nothing better than its present condition could be desired. To such districts the measure contemplated would not apply, excepting as a defence, if ever threatened by a different system. Another condition, was, that of the populous districts and towns, which, almost without exception were struggling against the calamity. To such places the bill would afford the means of arresting its progress, and of a gradual return to a natural state. In the southern part of that kingdom, and in the manufacturing districts, their condition, in respect of poor-rates, was less bad than England only in degree, and the amount was most rapidly on the increase. In such places, the operation of the measure would be, to stop the evil where it now was, and thereby give time for a gradual and safe amendment. The state of Scotland must not be mistaken. The House could not, he hoped, impute to him a disposition to unnecessary complaint; but he was aware, that an opinion had of late arisen in the southern part of the empire, that Scotland in respect of poor-laws had nothing to wish for, that she was fit to be held up as a model in respect of system, and of administration under it. The comparison with England was, no doubt most advantageous, but too much confidence, and an indiffer-
[1472
ence to progressive change, would rapidly alter the condition of that country. No one would go farther in acknowledging generally the admirable management respecting the affairs of the poor, for which the country was chiefly indebted to the clergy. In the law of the two countries, the difference was not great, but its administration had been for long most opposite; and the assiduity of the clergy in this duty, could pot be too highly appreciated.
But in the modern practice under the law, the threatening calamity had its origin. Courts of law had interfered, and had perverted the spirit and practice of the old law. A new class of persons, as poor;, had been introduced, by some denominated "the industrious poor;" those persons who, from other causes than bodily incapacity, could not, or alleged they could not, earn their subsistence. Such were those from whom the whole calamity of poor-rates arose, and for whom the law was not destined to provide, in its original spirit, and long continued practice. They were the only class from whom calamity was to be dreaded because their increase was indefinite; those to whom bodily infirmity gave their claim to aid, nature limited in number, and from them, the country never could have cause of apprehension. For a long period, such was the admirable spirit in which the law was administered, that the country was indebted, for an absence of poor-rates, to an ignorance almost of the law that there was law which could be tortured to the purpose of a mischievous relief, where nature did not demand, and policy did not sanction it. Where a relaxation took place, and knowledge was diffused, that knowledge was speedily followed by a disposition to use its powers. He would not enlarge upon the evil of poor-rates, where completely established; the point of importance was, where they were not yet confirmed, and in such cases the evil was, that relief was given where it ought not, exertion supplanted by relaxed efforts of industry. A habit of expenditure was induced, and once having gained ground, could not be laid aside. Such was the objection to voluntary contribution made to avoid assessments; for, although voluntary, if withheld, assessment would be substituted. Those who administer, and, with all anxiety to discharge their duty faithfully, act upon a principle of compromise, admit rather than contest doubtful claims.

1473
Cheaper to compromise for a sum less than demanded, than resist by law, even successfully, demands, which are made only because something may be gained, and nothing lost. Such the state, that those, with the best intentions, act under an apprehension of the law, yield to importunity where every dictate of policy and real humanity would impel to a steady and inflexible denial of relief. Such the state, that compromise is more prudent, because the recent practice of the law has habituated the courts to a profuse administration of funds, for the wise application of which they are the most unfit and incapable sources of authority. And here it was necessary to advert to a peculiarity in the law of Scotland, that a person claiming relief, was entitled to sue for it in formâ pauperis, that he could be subjected to no costs in the event of his claim being unsuccessful and vexatious; but whether that claim were vexatious or well founded, the parish was subjected in great expense; unless it yielded instantly to the demand, it could not be avoided, but by unconditional acquiescence. He could state, that in some parts of the country, this grievance had risen to such a height, that there were persons calling themselves "agents for the poor," who busied themselves in inciting the lower orders to make demands in formâ pauperis. Every chance was in favour of the applicant, and this most mischievous instigator; the latter recovered his expenses against the parish; and in this consisted the temptation to him that he might gain a good deal while he incurred no risk under cover of the claim in formâ pauperis. Besides, the dreadful evil of poor-rates was, that all classes receiving aid were blended under the name of poor; the really necessitous, with the idle and capable; the modest, humble, and in offending, with the profligate, undeserving, and presumptuous, charity was suppressed; it ought to be excited and regenerated. He hoped that parliament would not refuse by a timely interference to infuse a healthful action into the system of that country [Hear, hear!]—It was necessary to advert to the provisions of the law in respect of jurisdiction. It had established a local or parochial jurisdiction composed of heritors and kirksessions in country parishes; of kirksessions and magistrates in towns. kirksessions, somewhat resembling English vestries. This body acted as a jury on
[1474
the parochial subject of relief to the poor, and this applicable to funds such as might be termed ordinary as well as where assessments had obtained; but it was an important peculiarity that assessment was imposed by this local body chiefly composed of those who paid it, thus nearly amounting to a self-assessment, and it was most important to observe, that such was the fundamental provision of the law, and those who best knew the interests of the country, and understood this subject, would be most zealous, that this principle should be preserved and fortified. The great evil felt was the control of that local jurisdiction; it was, in some instances, an actual and direct control and interference of judicial authority; in some instances less direct, but in all apprehended if not actual, and such apprehended interference had all the baneful consequences of positive control. Local jurisdiction, acted upon a know-ledge of local circumstances and rights, tempered by justice; on a knowledge of wants and interests of individuals, and of the community. When such jurisdiction ceased to be local, it ceased to be wise. A superior judicatory must act upon a strict rule of law and right, each judge interpreting the law by his own discretion; however, vicious the practice to which he might appeal, necessarily disregarding all dictates of discretion, of policy, or original intent in the law. The public mind was enlightened on this subject, but unhappily such an impulse had been given to pauperism, that the most profound views could not, unaided, impose any restraint upon the counteracting force of demands, made under the perverted practice of the law, which all joined in condemning. The progress of truth could not operate, because still there was a quarter into which it could not be heard, because courts of law could not listen to it [Hear!]. Thus a disgraceful conflict between an enlightened public opinion and a strict judicial duty, acted against the spirit of the old law, and while this conflict proceeded, pauperism and profligacy would step in; and it would be vain to say after that they should ever be extirpated [Hear!]. It was his object to prevent such conflict, to reconcile public opinion and the law, and to relieve the administrators of the law from such an odious duty; to provide that they should cease to be the instruments of inflicting a calamity on the country abhorrent to their sacred stations. Therefore take

1475
away control of local jurisdiction, say that it never did exist in a sound interpretation of the law, and that it never should. As the local jurisdiction was the only sate one, make it final and absolute [Hear!].
This brought him to state precisely the import of the measure. A doubt had arisen how far the interference of a superior judicatory in control of the parochial judicatory was or was not authorized by law, whether justices of the peace, sheriffs, in the court of session could exercise a controlling power upon a sound construction of any statutory provision respecting the maintenance of the poor. There was no doubt that such a power had been exercised, but it had now been called in question, and different judges had acted upon a different estimate of the power residing in them. His object was to engraft a measure upon this doubt as to the existing law and to declare that no such control was founded in law, that no appeal from the parochial jurisdiction was legal, upon two points, 1st, the right to relief, 2nd, the amount of relief where it was granted. The measure would be an enabling statute, putting it in the power of those best qualified to act wisely, and in whom the law had already reposed confidence from the earliest periods, to act in a full exercise of their discretion founded upon the best opportunities of knowledge, and prompted by humane feelings. The existing law and practice was disabling. If this bill ever became a statute, examples of signal benefit would speedily be seen, a happy contrast displayed, and he was persuaded that an universal triumph of genuine over supposed benevolence would be established. Charity would be revived, now almost unknown, liberality unfettered, and all the generous impulses of the human heart permitted to act with discrimination and wisdom [Hear! hear!]. The hon. member here enlarged with warmth upon the happy effects which he anticipated to the lower orders, showing how the measure was one of real humanity, and how superficial those views were which could attribute to it severity, or a disposition to injure or oppress, that the poor would not only be perfectly safe, but that those who deserved it would experience all the kindness which could result from a well directed and discriminating benevolence. He concluded by saying that it was impossible to hope that a perfect system could result from any measure where so
[1476
much suffering was inseparable from human nature, but it was of the utmost moment to gain the great general principle to which his anxious endeavours were directed, and there could be no doubt that wisdom and liberality acting under the protection of the law, and not as now, under the apprehension and dread of its impolitic interference, would speedily arrest the march of the existing evil, and mature a practice eminently beneficial to all ranks in the community, but in particular to the humbler classes, whose interests it ought to be the especial care of parliament at all times to guard [Hear! hear!].
The Lord Advocatesaid, he should not oppose the commitment of the bill, but it appeared to him that the measure would not be attended with that advantage which the hon. member supposed.
The bill was then committed, and several amendments were moved by Mr. Kennedy.

ROYAL BURGHS OF SCOTLAND Accounts BILL.
The Lord Advocate The Lord Advocate moved the order of the day for the second reading of this bill for the purpose of postponing it to Thursday next.
Mr. J. P. Grantsuggested the propriety of postponing the second reading to a later period. The bill introduced by the learned lord last session, to which the present bill was similar, had been almost universally disapproved of in Scotland. He wished that those who were interested in the measure might have time to consider it.
The Lord Advocatesaid, he had withdrawn the measure last session for the purpose of giving time to take it into consideration, and early in the present session he had given notice that he would bring it forward again. In all the petitions from the burghs of Scotland the principal grievance complained of was, the want of a check on the expenditure of the magistrates. A notice of a motion had been given for referring these petitions to a committee. Now, if this bill should pass into a law, one of the principal grievances of the petitioners would be removed. This was ostensibly the great object which they wished, but the true object was parliamentary reform.
Lord A. Hamiltonsaid, that in every one of the petitions, it was not the impossibility of forcing the magistrates to account, but the self-election of the ma-

1477
gistrates, of which they principally complained; If the learned lord's bill were as effectual as it would be the reverse for controlling the expenditure of the magistrates, he should still say, that the petitioners would not be satisfied. There never was a bill brought into that House more universally reprobated by those affected by it than the one in question.
Mr. Primrosesaid, he had received an application for the printed bill from the magistrates of Stirling, which he had sent down to them, but no answer had yet been returned to him. In that burgh auditors were appointed by the guildery and incorporated trades; the funds of the burgh were in a flourishing state, and they conceived the appointing auditors under the control of the persons interested in the expenditure the best remedy For the evil which it was the object of the learned lord's bill to guard against. He concluded with moving, as an amendment, that the bill be read a second time on the 10th of May.
Mr. Humesaid, he had also sent down the bill to his constituents, who had not had time to consider it,
Mr. W. Douglasagreed that the bill of last year was not considered in Scotland a sufficient remedy for the evil, and hoped that an opportunity would now be given to the persons interested to peruse the bill as rectified by the learned lord.
The Lord Advocatesaid, that the persons interested in this measure, after being enlightened by the discussion on the second reading, would be better able to judge of the alterations which might be necessary and which might be proposed in the committee.
Sir James Mackintoshobserved, that the object of the learned lord, in hurrying on the second reading, seemed to be, to deliver political lectures in that House for the benefit of the people of Scotland. He, for one, was not desirous of instructing the inhabitants of Stirling and Aberdeen in the best method of controlling their magistrates; he was desirous of receiving information from them, and not of conveying information to them.
Lord Castlereaghthought the information from Scotland might be more advantageously considered in the committee.
Mr. Forbesobserved, that this bill was a minor point with the burgesses of Scotland; their object was a certain reform of the burghs. He would not say whether such a reform might not be de-
[1478
sirable; but if the burghs of Scotland obtained all they desired, the burghs of England would also have a good right to come forward. The House ought not to excite hopes which could not be realized.
Mr. Finlaysaid, that no measure had been received in Scotland with more reprobation than the bill of the learned lord. The bill of last session was extremely unnecessary. The accounts of the Scots burghs were extremely correct.
The bill was ordered to be read a second time on the 10th of May.

FRIENDLY AND PAROCHIAL BENEFIT BILL.
Mr. T. Courtenay Mr. T. Courtenay moved the second reading of this bill.
Mr. F. Lewisobjected to several parts of the bill. As it was now worded, it would be impossible to say to what class of persons parochial relief might be granted or refused. It ought to be divided into two bills, that the House might have an opportunity of discussing the two distinct measures that it involved.
Sir R. Wilsonobjected to some of the clauses of the bill. The last clause made it imperative on the poor to subscribe to the funds of these societies, under the penalty of being refused parish relief, and being considered as improvident, extravagant, and undeserving persons. This would almost subject them to the penalties of the Vagrant act.
Mr. Courtenaywas sensible that the bill as it now stood was liable to objections; but he was persuaded that they might be remedied in the committee. The poor persons who refused to subscribe, were not subject to the penalties alluded to by the hon. general, but were to be considered as extravagant and improvident persons, in the sense of the act regarding the poor passed in the present session.
The bill was read a second time.

CONVENTION WITH AMERICA.
The House having resolved itself into a Committee on the Convention with America,
Mr. Robinsonsaid, that the measure he had to propose, was simple and short, and not liable to objection. The committee was aware, that by a Convention with the United States, the Americans possessed the right of fishing on the coasts of a considerable part of his majesty's North American possessions. This right they had, by the recent convention renounced. It so happened, however, that there was no municipal law to enforce this treaty, and

1479
if American vessels should be found carrying on the fishery in the harbour of Halifax, or on the coast of Labrador, or any other place from which the convention excluded them, they could not be condemned by any law now in existence. His object was, to give his majesty the power to enforce an observance of that treaty, as well as to issue regulations for the carrying on of the fishery in those parts of our coasts which remained open to the subjects of the United States. There was another subject, respecting which he should have to make a motion hereafter, viz. the renewal of the Commercial Convention of 1815, which made it necessary to continue the regulations under that treaty. The measure he should now propose was, to give his majesty's council power to issue instructions to his naval commanders, and other officers in that part of the world, to carry the provisions of the treaty respecting the fishery into effect: as the distance of place, and the intricacy of details required, would render a more distinct law ineffectual. — The chairman was then directed to move for leave to bring in a bill to regulate the taking of fish on the coast of Labrador, and other parts of North America.—Leave was given.