Commons Sitting of 24 August 1835

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a third time:—Letters Patent—Read a second time:—Slave Trade (Sardinia); and Slave Trade (Denmark).
Petitions presented. By Lord SANDON, from Coventry, for preserving the British Constitution entire.—By Colonel PERCEVAL, from Fintona, in favour of the Deserted Children (Ireland) Bill.—By Captain JONES, from Londonderry, for a Clause in the Irish Church Bill.—By Mr. MORGAN O'CONNELL, from Cavan, for Poor-Laws to Ireland.—By Mr. SCHOLEFIELD, from Birmingham, against the Letters' Patent Bill.—By Mr. RONAYNE, from Ardagh, for the Revaluation of Tithes.—By Colonel PERCEVAL, Colonel VERNER, and an HON. MEMBER, from several Places,—against the Irish Church Bill.—By Mr. JAMES OSWALD, from Glasgow, in favour of the Municipal Corporations' Bill; for the Repeal of the Duty on Newspaper Stamps; against the Proposed Alteration in the Bonding System.—By Mr. SINCLAIR, from Thurso, for Protection to the Church of Scotland; from Irvine, against the Glasgow University Bill; from Caithness, agninst the Aberdeen Universities' Bill.—By Mr. OSWALD and Mr. W. CRAWFORD, from London and Glasgow, for Allowing Bonded Wheat to be ground, and the Flour converted into Biscuit for Exportation.

CHURCH (SCOTLAND) PETITION.
Mr. Sinclair,in presenting a Petition from Thurso in favour of the Church of Scotland, could not help expressing his unqualified admiration of the intrepid and independent tone assumed at this crisis by the General Assembly. They had acted with a spirit worthy of the best ages of that Church, and had vindicated its honour with a cordiality of feeling, which nearly approached to unanimity—there having been only found three Members in opposition to 90, who ventured to defend such a nomination of Commissioners as his

937
Majesty's Ministers had deemed it convenient to make, accompanied, too, by the omission of several points to which it was understood that their attention should be directed. Dr. Macfarlane, a former moderator, had most clearly and eloquently pointed out how impossible it is that the Church can have any confidence in a commission, many members of which had expressed sentiments diametrically opposed to all establishments, whilst others were not qualified by their experience, or entitled by their public services, to assist in conducting this solemn and important inquiry. The Church of Scotland had shown that it was not to be intimidated from the path of duty by a dread of ministerial displeasure, and that they would not tamely, or without respectful remonstrance, endure such treatment as the sister Church would not, under similar circumstances, have experienced, in having its avowed enemies appointed to sit in judgment over its interests or its rights. A noble Lord in another place had expressed his disapprobation of the former Government having recommended from the throne a pecuniary grant for enlarging the efficiency of the Church of Scotland. It was not, however, difficult to account for such a recommendation. The late Government was sincerely attached to both the Established Churches of these realms. The late Government knew how much of the moral and religious feeling which characterised the people of Scotland was ascribable to the influence of their church—the evangelical purity of its doctrines, and the indefatigable zeal of its ministers; and that if those sentiments had in some measure been supplanted by others less in accordance with love of piety and good order, the change arose chiefly from the neglect, on the part of the Legislature, to increase the means of grace in proportion to the augmented population. The late Government was aware that the mere providing of accommodation in places of worship was by no means a sufficient criterion as to the adequacy of the provision made for the religious instruction of the people, and that it was equally necessary, that the population should be so subdivided as to be placed under the vigilant superintendence of pastors, who could warn them not only publicly, but from house to house, and not have so large a number of families under their care, as to render the dis-
938
charge of their important week-day duties, either extremely superficial, or utterly impracticable. He feared that all the Ecclesiastical Establishments were in jeopardy, but a sense of their common danger was drawing the bonds of union closer between them. He was aware that any allusions to the interests of vital godliness were very unpalatable in that House; but he had always thought that there is a wide difference between the worldly statesman and the Christian legislator; the former takes a political view of religion, the latter a religious view of politics; the former considers the gospel as a cunningly devised fable; or if he coldly admits its divine origin, disclaims or explains away its peculiar and fundamental doctrines. He may, perhaps, now and then, for the sake of example, impose upon himself the penance of visiting his parish church in the country, though he abstains from religious observance in London, where he passes unnoticed in a crowd; but he never troubles his head as to the mode in which any legislative enactments may affect the stability of the Church, or the progress of true religion. The latter is never ashamed of that gospel, of which he has himself experienced the power; his chief end is to promote the glory of God, and this is the test by which he desires to try every measure, whatever be the quarter from which it may emanate. The hon. Member concluded by moving for leave to bring up the petition.
Petition to lie on the Table.

MEETING IN DUBLIN—ORANGE LODGES.
Mr. Sergeant Jacksonhoped that he might be allowed to present the Petition which the counting out of the House on Saturday prevented. It was a petition from the undersigned bankers, &c, inhabitants of Dublin, complaining of the treatment they had received from a mob at the meeting in Coburg-gardens in Dublin, on the 12th inst.; also complaining of their meeting at the Hall of the Guild of Merchants having been disturbed by a similar mob, and praying for protection to the Protestants of Ireland in exercising the right of petition.
Mr. Ruthvensaid, this petition purported to come from the "bankers, merchants, &c," of Dublin, and yet the very first name on it was that of the notorious "Johnny M'Crea," as he was commonly called, and that was followed by the names

939
of a long list of obscure persons, amongst whom it would be difficult to find a single banker or respectable merchant of Dublin. He supposed, notwithstanding, that those petitions did not come within the designation of "scum of the earth," which the learned Sergeant had on a former occasion applied to the 20,000 persons who had assembled in the Coburg-gardens. The present petitioners had gone armed in a body to the meeting in the Coburg-gardens, and had endeavoured by violence to take possession of the hustings. A fight was the consequence. Their weapons were taken from them, they were well beaten, and deservedly driven from a meeting: they attempted to disturb.
Colonel Percevalwas instructed to state that this petition was numerously and most respectably signed, and he believed such to be the fact. The hon. Member would seem to insinuate that the respectability was all on one side. He would admit that the opposite petition had respectable signatures to it, but so had this. These parties had attended the meeting in the Coburg-gardens at the express invitation of the Trades' Union, who promised them that they should not be molested, and that each side should be heard. Instead of that, they were attacked by armed men, and treated as the petitioners described. He should state that they went totally unarmed to the meeting.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that the gallant Member's belief was indeed of a very extensive nature, or he would not credit a statement totally at variance with all the published evidence on the fact. The first name to this petition was that of the Rev. John M'Crea, "of Gurtnasheen,"—rather a queer designation for a resident inhabitant of Dublin, and this petition purported to come from the inhabitants of Dublin. The truth was, that this man, and a number of others of his party, preoccupied the room engaged for the holding of this meeting a couple of hours before that fixed for the taking of the chair, and when the requestionists arrived they found the place in the hands of their opponents. They then called a meeting for the purpose in the Coburg-gardens. Immediately the Orange party set to work; the Orange Lodges in Dublin and its vicinity, seventeen in number, were assembled; they marched 400 strong to this meeting; they forced their way into the middle of it; they then assaulted the
940
people with weapons, and endeavured to make a rush on the hustings. He (Mr. O'Connell) saw this statement confirmed in a letter from an English gentleman, wholly unconnected with Irish parties, who was present at the meeting. He also understood that a respectable English barrister, now in town, stated that he was present as a spectator at this meeting, and that he never witnessed anything more ruffianly than the assault of those 400 men on the people. They were well beaten and driven from the field, and now they resorted to that House with their complaints.
Mr. Humesaid, that the letter referred to had been addressed to him by an English gentleman, who stated that those men came in a body armed with bludgeons—that they penetrated to the middle of the meeting, and that they then began to use their weapons; whereupon the people attacked them, took their arms from them, and beat them severely, many having been driven from the field with broken heads. He had every confidence in the gentleman from whom this statement came. He hoped that his Majesty's Government would take measures to put down those Orange Lodges, the source of perpetual turmoil and disturbance in Ireland.
Mr. Sheilthought it right that the House and the public should know that there was an Orange Lodge established in, the 35th Regiment, at present quartered in Templemore, county of Tipperary. He had received a letter from Rev. Mr. Laffan, Roman Catholic clergyman of that place, stating that on a recent occasion the soldiers belonging to the Orange Lodge in that regiment had rushed into the streets with drawn bayonets, expressing their anxiety that they might meet with a Catholic priest to put him to death, and that they committed various outrages an the Roman Catholics of the town. He hoped that the Government would make immediate inquiry into this matter.
Petition to lie on the Table.

MINISTERIAL SUPPORT.
Mr. George F. Young: I wish to ask a question of the noble Lord opposite (Lord J. Russell.) In a discussion, a few nights ago, on the composition of the York Bribery Committee, the noble Lord, referring to my humble name, placed it erroneously among the ranks of his opponents, and said that in four divisions out of five, it would be

941
found registered among the opponents of Ministers. Certainly, if the fact were so, I could not make the statement any ground of reproach; but when it is directly the reverse, and when, for reasons with which I shall not trouble the House, the statement has been a source of pain, injury, and inconvenience to me, which I am quite sure was not the intention of the noble Lord, as I have submitted to him the best proof I could give upon the subject, I trust that with the frankness and candour which always characterize generous minds, he will not refuse me the reparation of expressing that he was in error. I therefore beg to ask the noble Lord if he is satisfied that he was mistaken, when he said that, in four divisions out of five, my name would be found in the list of his opponents.
Lord John Russell: I cannot but be exceedingly glad that the hon. Member is so anxious to be ranked among the supporters of Ministers.—[Mr. G. F. Young: I wish the fact to be stated, and nothing more.]—I spoke at the time what struck me at the moment, and I believe that my impression was derived from some divisions in which I had seen the hon. Member. One of those occurred at the commencement of the Session, and others upon some amendments of the Municipal Corporations Bill, and I therefore said on the sudden, as I supposed was the fact, that in four out of rive divisions, the hon. Member had voted against the Government. I by no means wish to say that on the whole he may not be reckoned one of our supporters; and I believe that, looking at all the divisions since we came into office, my statement will be found erroneous. To a certain extent, therefore, I beg to correct it, and I hope hereafter that I shall have to correct it still more. I hope that I shall have to say that of all the supporters of the present Government, the most steady, uniform, and constant, is the hon. Member for Tynemouth.
Mr. George F. Young: I have voted with the noble Lord with great pleasure, and I never separate myself from him without great regret.

LIFE ASSURANCES.
On the Order of the Day for bringing up the Report on the Stamps and Assessed Taxes' Acts,
The Chancellor of the Exchequerexpressed his regret that he had not been in his place on a former day, when the hon.
942
Member for Durham adverted to a subject which had occupied the attention both of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer and of Lord Althorp. He had only delayed it with the view of considering the whole question together; but he admitted the importance of giving relief to the lower class of Life Assurances, and he believed it could be done without any great sacrifice to the interests of the revenue. He looked upon life assurances of as much importance to the lower classes as benefit societies, operating as a premium upon industry, and enabling a man, especially in the manufacturing districts, where life was exposed to many casualties, to make a provision for his family. He had therefore taken the scale alluded to by the hon. Member for Durham, and meant to propose that on all policies of 50 l. and under, the duty should be 2s. 6d.; that on all policies of 100 l. it should be 5s.; and with policies of 500 l. and upwards he meant to do nothing. This would be the scale; but if he had wished to give relief to all classes it would be nearly impossible to guard against fraud, since insurers to the extent of 500 l. would split their policies into five of 100 l. each, and would thus injure the revenue. He had the greatest possible pleasure in declaring his intentions in this respect.
Report received.

THE REGISTRATION OF VOTERS (IRELAND.)
The House went into Committee on the Registration of Voters' (Ireland) Bill.
Several Clauses were agreed to.
On Clause 49 being proposed, which, as we collected, declares that the right of voting shall vest in 10 l. freeholders, having a beneficial interest to that amount in the produce of land,
Lord Clementsproposed, by way of Amendment, that the meaning of the words "beneficial interest" should be more clearly defined by the insertion of words to the effect, that such interest should be a beneficial interest to the value of 10 l. issuing out of the land beyond the payment of rent, tithe, and other outgoings.
Mr. Randall Plunkettthought the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord would not make the matter any better, and he moved that the Clause be expunged from the Bill.
Mr. O'Loghlensupported the Clause.
Sir William Follettsaid, that if this

943
Bill as it stood passed into a law, not merely 10 l. occupiers, or 40 s. tenants, but every person who held land in Ireland would be entitled to a vote. According to the clause, the question of qualification would rest on the solution of this point—how much the party made by occupying, how much he made by his pigs, his cows, milk, and potatoes. Now the object of the Bill professed to be, that freeholders in Ireland should be bonâ fide the same as freeholders in England, but the clause prevented this. It would produce very nearly universal suffrage in Ireland. In England, a person occupying premises rented at 100 l. a-year would probably make from 200 l. to 300 l. out of them, after paying the rent; but he had no vote as a freeholder, for he had no interest in the land. If, therefore, the Clause was not altered so as to assimilate the right of voting as freeholders in Ireland to the right as it existed in England, he should vote for the amendment of the hon. Member for Drogheda, that the Clause be wholly expunged.
Mr. O'Connellsupported the Clause, and contended that the beneficial interest intended by the Reform Bill was one of 10 l. coming in to the tenant out of the land over and above what he paid for it as rent.
Vicsount Morpethsaid, that the justification of the government in proposing this clause, and the object of the Bill was this—merely a declaration what the amount of the beneficial interest arising out of land should be. He had no objection to the amendment of his noble friend (Lord Clements) to define the meaning more strictly:
Some verbal amendments were made in the Clause. On the question that the Clause stand part of the bill,
The Committee divided: Ayes 69; Noes 27; Majority 42.

List of the AYES.

Adam, Admiral

Brocklehurst, J.

Attwood, J.

Buckingham, J. S.

Baines, E.

Callaghan, D.

Baring, F. T.

Carter, J. B.

Barry, F. S.

Chalmers, P.

Baldwin, Dr.

Chichester, J. B. P.

Bish, T.

Clements, Lord

Blake, M. J.

Crawford, S.

Blamire, W.

Crawford, W.

Brotherton, J.

Dillwyn, L. W.

Brady, D. C.

Divett, E.

Bridgman, H.

Dykes, F.

Bowring, Dr.

Etwall, R.

944

Ewart, W.

Potter, R.

Ferguson, Sir R.

Poulter, J. S.

Fielden, J.

Pryme, G.

French, F.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Hector, J. C.

Ronayne, D.

Hindley, C.

Russell, Lord J.

Hodges, T. L.

Ruthven, E. S.

Hoskins, K.

Scholefield, J.

Howard, P.

Smith, V.

Lennox, Lord

Tancred, H. W.

Lushington, Dr.

Thorneley, T.

Lushington, C.

Tooke, W.

Lynch, A. H.

Villiers, C. P.

Macleod, R.

Wallace, R.

Morpeth, Lord

Warburton, H.

Mullins, F. W.

Walker, C. A.

Murray, Rt. Hon. J. F.

Wakley, T.

Nagle, Sir R.

Williams, W.

O'Connell, D.

Williams, W. A.

Ord, W.

Young, G. F.

Parnell, Sir H.

TELLER.

Pease, J.

O'Loghlen, M.

List of the NOES.

Archdall, M.

Maxwell, H.

Bonham, F. R.

Perceval, Colonel

Boldero, Captain

Powell, Captain

Bruen, Colonel

Reid, Sir J. K.

Cole, Hon. A.

Sandon, Viscount

Codrington, R.

Trevor, Hon. A.

Damer, Hon. Colonel

Twiss, H.

Fancourt, Major

Vesey, Hon. T.

Follett, Sir W.

Vere, Sir C. Bart.

Grimston, Viscount

Wood, Colonel

Hamilton, Lord C.

Young, J.

Jones, Captain

TELLER.

Jackson, J. D.

Plunket, Hon. R.

Longfield, R.

Mr. O'Loghlenproposed a declaratory clause, giving power to adjourn the polling in case of violence.—Agreed to.
Mr. Fitzstephen Frenchsaid, he did not mean to press the first amendment of which he had given notice. The second Clause, however, by way of amendment, he felt bound to take the sense of the house upon, because he thought it of essential importance that the practice, as regarded polling places in Ireland, should be assimilated to that which prevailed in England. He had often discussed this subject before, therefore he should not now detain the house upon it; he would only say, that by reference to a Parliamentary Guide, published by Mr. Moss, a book that contained more valuable information on this subject than any he had seen, it would be found from the number of registered voters in the counties, that it would be impossible without increasing the number of polling places, to give all the voters an opportunity of exercising their franchise. The Clause he had to submit was—"And

945
whereas it is fit and expedient that convenient places should be appointed in each county for taking the poll, so that if possible no person shall have more than fifteen miles to travel from the property in respect of which he shall claim to vote. Be it enacted that it shall and may be lawful for the Lord-lieutenant or other chief governor or governors of Ireland for the time being, on or before the 1st day of January-next, after the passing of this act, to divide such county or counties or divisions of the counties as he shall think fit, into convenient districts for polling, not exceeding in number fifteen, and in each district shall be appointed a convenient place for taking the poll at all elections of a knight or knights of the shire to serve in any future Parliament; and such districts and places, when so settled and appointed, shall be notified in the Dublin Gazette, and to the clerk of the peace in each such county, who shall forthwith give notice of such places of polling by public advertisement in some paper published or circulated in such county.
Viscount Morpethobserved that he felt very well inclined to agree to the principle of the proposed clause, but he was not prepared to sanction its insertion in this Bill. There were a great many experiments introduced by this Act, and he considered it inexpedient to make any further changes which he was not quite sure could be effected with success. He admitted that if he found a great concurrence of opinion on the part of the Irish Members in favour of this clause, he should be disposed to waive his objection to it; but, on the contrary, if he found a great variety of opinions on this subject amongst the representatives of Irish counties and boroughs, and, if anything, a prevailing opinion against the adoption of the clause, he should resist its introduction.
Mr. O'Loghlenfelt great difficulty in agreeing to place the polling in Ireland under the control of a Sheriff's deputy, away from the presence of the Sheriff himself, which this Clause, if carried would do.
Mr. Wyseconsidered that by adopting this Amendment the House would only be following out the principle of the Reform Bill. It had been tried in England where it had answered exceedingly well, and he could see no objection to the introduction of the system into Ireland.
The Committee divided on the Amend-
946
ment; Ayes 29; Noes 60; Majority 31.
The Bill went through the Committee.
The House resumed.

INTIMIDATION.—KERRY ELECTION. ADJOURNED. DEBATE.
Mr. Morgan J. O'Connell,on the Motion that the debate on the Kerry Election Petition be resumed, rose to complain that the petition was a series of either misrepresentations or falsehoods. He denied altogether that the Knight of Kerry had lost the election through intimidation, either by himself, his political friends, or the priests in that county. That placards had been exhibited of a party nature was natural at a disputed election in Ireland, but that there had been any attempt to intimidate by affixing the emblem of a death's head and cross bones over the doors of those who chose to vote for his opponent was most untrue. As to the circumstances stated in the petition as having taken place upon the Sunday previous to the election in the chapel of Listowel, it was proved to be untrue even by the circumstance of its having never been mentioned as a charge against him or his friends during the heat of the election upon the hustings by any one opposed to him. The placard called "the Patriot's Curse," said to have been exhibited there, was a shameless forgery, and, strange to say, appeared in the London paper, The Times, first. Its authors were known, and the delusion attempted to be practised was dishonest and most unworthy. He denied that the Roman Catholic clergy had, to influence votes, threatened to refuse the rights of the Romish Church to, or had refused to christen the children of, such Catholics as should vote for his opponent, in conclusion he must say the petition contained phrases and expressions which he certainly thought highly indecorous, and such as the petitioners, who were men of property and character, ought never to have allowed themselves to subscribe their names to as sanctioning calumnies of so gross a nature against other respectable gentlemen. Upon the whole he assured the House the petition was replete with a variety of misrepresentations and unfounded assertions.
Mr. Mullins,thought he should neglect his duty were he not to defend his constituents against accusations like these. He could confirm all the statements of the

947
hon. Member who had just taken his se and could assure the House, that the electors were allowed the full, free, and conscientious exercise of their privilege.
Mr. O'Connellregretted that so much attention had been paid to such a piece of impudent mendacity—such an outrage of common sense. There had been in this case a petition under the Grenville Act, and in support of that witnesses might have been examined. If the petitioner spoke the truth he would now have been sitting in that House. Up to the last hour, even when the day of ballot came, he alleged that he could prove his allegations; but when the opportunity was afforded him he retired. Of another Knight it was said, that—
"He loves and he rides away;"
but of the Knight of Kerry it could truly be said—
"He hates and he rides away." Careless of the allegations set forth in his petitions, he neglected to avail himself of the only opportunity that could be offered for establishing the truth of them. The Patriot's Curse about which so much had been said, was a hoax, practised by some ti-patriot on the correspondent of The Times, and now amongst other falsehoods was introduced into the body of the petition—a petition so absurd in its structure as to be equally false and ridiculous. As to the attacks made upon himself he utterly despised them.
Mr. William Ordwished to say that he had not stated that the Knight of Kerry had brought the subject of the "Patriot's Curse" before the Committee—it was mentioned by a stipendiary magistrate.
Mr. Maurice O'Connellsaid, that the Knight of Kerry was a Member of that same Government which instituted the investigation into the subject just mentioned.
Colonel Percevalcontended that there were many reasons why the Knight of Kerry should not have taken any other course than that which he had adopted, and amongst the number was the expense attendant on any other proceeding. The conduct of the Roman Catholic clergy in Kerry had much influence upon the election adverse to Mr. Fitzgerald, and the language they used was of a most violent and inflammatory description, in some cases amounting to a threat of a denial of the rites of the church to any person voting in favour of Mr. Fitzgerald.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that the Bishop of the diocese would immediately punish such conduct on part of Catholic clergymen, and contended it could not have been practised.
Mr. Praedsaid, it could not be expected that Mr. Fitzgerald should himself have been at the expense of proving that intimidation which was quite a public concern, as much so as the Great Yarmouth and the York cases.
Petitions to lie upon the Table.

AMENDMENT OF THE MARRIAGE ACT.
The Report of the Marriage Act Amendment Bill was brought up, on the Question that the Amendments made by the Committee be agreed to,
Sir William Follettwished to make a few observations upon this occasion as to his intentions with regard to this Bill. Under the existing state of the law marriages, within a certain degree of consanguinity, were prohibited, and were by the Ecclesiastical Law declared void; but then the Ecclesiastical Courts did not act unless a suit were instituted in the lifetime of the parties. And what was the effect of that? Parties married within the prohibited degrees of consanguinity—lived together as husband and wife—and had children; it was at the option of any person, though in one particular mode of proceeding, to make that marriage invalid, and the children illegitimate! And worse than that, it was at the option of either of the parties, indirectly to get the marriage declared invalid. It was agreed on all hands that that was a state of the law which ought not to exist. Those marriages ought either to be declared void, or made valid altogether; and a contract of so solemn a nature ought not to be left at the mercy of the interest, or the temper of any other person. Now what did this Bill do? It made all such marriages for the future absolutely null and void, that was the main object of the Bill. Some hon. Members said that there were some particular degrees of affinity within which marriage should be permitted. Suppose that were the case, the object of the Bill was to prevent uncertainty in the Marriage Law; and the proper course, therefore, would be, to declare those marriages at once good and valid. This Bill made no such exception; though he was aware that the division the other night proceeded on the principle that there was one particular

949
degree of consanguinity within which marriage ought to be allowed, viz., the sister of a deceased wife. With respect to that particular relation, he (Sir W. Follett), believed it stood within the same degree as many other cases condemned by the Marriage Law, as the brother's wife, or the niece of the deceased wife. And although many hon. Members were of opinion that the case of the sister of a deceased wife came not within the prohibited degrees, he (Sir W. Follett) could not help thinking that, though undoubtedly many marriages of that kind had proved happy, it would lead to great evil were it to be understood that such marriages would be valid. He should be happy to offer his hon. and learned Friend (Dr. Lushington) any assistance he could give him if it were deemed advisable to alter the present prohibited degree? of consanguinity, but if it were deemed advisable to exempt one particular degree of relationship, such as that which be had just named, from those prohibitions, was it not the proper course to exempt it either by a clause in this, or by a subsequent and distinct Bill; and was it a wise system of legislation to leave the law in its present uncertain state, and yet pass a Bill making valid those marriages which had previously taken place? Now he asked his hon. Friend opposite, either to introduce the clause now, or give notice of a distinct Bill for next Session. The passing of this Bill would in no degree Obstruct such a Bill as he had described in the next Session. This Bill did not define the degrees of affinity; it only stated generally, that certain marriages should for the future be void, and did not preclude, on the contrary, it facilitated the introduction of any such Bill of exemption. He hoped, therefore, that his hon. Friend would not object to his Bill on that score. The object of the Bill was to settle the law of marriages, and prevent parties from flattering themselves with hopes of security for the future, while it contained a provision for by-gone days. And when he reflected on the condition of families at present under the uncertainty of the law, and the misery which its rejection would produce, he could not help feeling anxious that it should pass this Session, which he was afraid it would not if Clause 2 were left as amended by the Committee, and he therefore hoped the House would now give its assent to the Amendments made by the Committee on
950
that point, As the Bill stood originally, it would put the law on a sure foundation for the future, by declaring all those marriages perfectly void, leaving it at the same time in the power of any hon. Member who wished to introduce any particular exemptions to bring in a Bill for the purpose next Session. He should, under those circumstances, move that the Amendments in Clause 2 be disagreed to, which would have the effect of making all such marriages for the future absolutely null and void.
Mr. Poultercontended that it was impossible at present to deal adequately with the subject under all the present circumstances. In the month of August, to pronounce affirmatively all those marriages null and void, and then in the next Session to bring in a Bill declaring some exceptions to be absolutely good and valid, appeared so inconsistent, that he could only account for it on the supposition that the second Clause was inserted as a kind of set-off, to purchase the consent of some parties to the first. It was evident they did not proceed from the same mind, and he did not consider it was a good mode of legislation to purchase the remedial part of the Bill at the expense of the second Clause; it was well known that all those prohibited degrees of affinity arose out of a statute of Henry 7th., a more absurd law than which never existed. On the whole, he must again protest against the whole of the second Clause, unless his hon. and learned Friend would strike out all the words referring to degrees of consanguinity, thus leaving it open to them in the next Session to consider the whole subject with proper deliberation.
Dr. Lushingtonwas satisfied, from experience, that if they passed the Bill in its present form, and allowed marriages voidable for the future to continue, they would increase the number of these marriages between persons within the prohibited degrees at least tenfold. They insured to these parties all the rights appertaining to marriage, and held out an inducement to all men and women to place themselves in this state of uncertainty. It would be better on every account at once to declare such marriages void. He objected to proceeding with a general measure till they had had time to consider it in all its bearings on society. One of the great objects in a Marriage Law was to take care that it was recognised by all other

951
states; he feared, however, that many continental states would not be brought to acknowledge marriages contracted between parties within certain degrees of consanguinity. If once they threw a doubt on the state of the Marriage Law in this country, they would produce the greatest mischief. He thought that the suggestion of the hon. Member for Bridport should be acceded to, that all marriages of this nature, up to the day on which the Bill passed, should be valid; but that all such contracts entered into after that day should be void. The adoption of the former principle would put an end to a great many cruel cases of hardship. He hoped the wishes of the hon. Member for Bridport would be acceded to.
Mr. Divettcould not consent to alter the Clause with a view to prevent the Bill being thrown out in the other House. He considered it to be a most improper compromise, and could not conceive that they would discuss the Bill under more favourable circumstances hereafter than now. On the whole, as it was impossible at present to go into the consideration of the Marriage Law, so as to define accurately what should hereafter be the degrees of affinity, he could see no reason, nor justice in rejecting the Bill without that Clause; and in thus refusing to do an act of justice to the unfortunate persons now in a state of uncertainty and suspense. He should, therefore, resist the proposition of the hon. and learned Member for Exeter.
Dr. Bowringsaid, that when the rejection of a Clause would peril a Bill so beneficial, he could not make up his mind to do so, and thus sacrifice a certain good. With respect to what his hon. and learned Friend had said as to the law of marriage on the Continent, he must, with great respect, differ from him. Whatever might be the state of the Marriage Law in those states, he was sure that their usages were very much like those of England and that marriage, within the prohibited degrees of consanguinity, were almost universal. He considered that the Bill would introduce tranquillity where all had hitherto been anxiety and unhappiness; and inasmuch as it thus accomplished a certain good with respect to marriages already solemnised, he could not with reference to the uncertain future, reject so much real benefit as the Bill would certainly produce.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, the first Clause of
952
the bill rendered it a comprehensive measure of general relief with regard to the past. With respect to future marriages (which was then the only point remaining), was it not against every principle of legislation to leave the law as it was at present? and was it not much wiser to make their marriages void, than leave them voidable? If the hon. Member for Shaftesbury had proposed a Clause making them valid, he (Mr. Warburton) would have understood him; for he went with him in principle, however in expediency he might differ from him. But he, the hon. Member, had done no such thing; he left the law as uncertain as it was at present—and he should vote for the Bill in the manner proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman Sir W. Follett. Could his hon. Friend venture to predict that, in twenty years' time, he could bring round the right Rev.Prelates, in the other House, to consent to declare those marriages valid? And were they for that period to refuse an act of justice to those which had already been solemnized? He, therefore, hoped his hon. and learned Friend would see that it would be better to leave the law in a settled state, by declaring all those marriages void instead of leaving them only voidable, and that he would consent to the Bill.
Mr. Peasesaid, he could not think that marriage was such a contract as should be subject to a Clause like that proposed. He was as much against marriage between persons within the degrees of consanguinity as any one; but he was not prepared to say that, after a marriage had been solemnized, it ought to be done away, because the persons who had contracted it were within the prohibited degrees.
Mr. Lawdisagreed to the Amendment in the Committee. To throw a veil over the fact was beneficial to society; to make provision against future cases was equally so. He hoped the House would assent to the proposition of the hon. and learned Member for Exeter for restoring this Clause. Without prejudice to future legislation as to the degrees within which marriages might be contracted, he thought that, till that was done, it was charity and mercy to parties to say that these marriages should not be contracted, and should not depend on any caprice. The legislature pronounced them void to prevent injury to the parties.
Mr. Ewartcomplained of the inconsistency of making these marriages void at one time and legal at another. Though he considered the Bill as an act of partial legislation, his hon. Friend should be satisfied with having a partial good.
The House divided on the Question that the Amendment be omitted.
Ayes 75; Noes 17; Majority 58.
Amendment omitted—Report received—Bill to be read a third time.

List of the NOES.

Blamire, W.

O'Loghlen, M.

Brady, D. C.

Pease, J.

Bridgman, H.

Power, P.

Brown, Right Hon. D.

Poulter, J. S.

Blake, J. M.

Roche, W.

Crawford, S.

Ruthven, E. S.

D'Eynecourt, C. T.

Wakley, T.

Divett, E.

TELLERS.

Ewart, W.

Walker, C.

Lennox, Lord G.

Ronayne, D.

PUBLICATION OF LECTURES.
The Lord Advocate The Lord Advocate moved the second reading of the Lectures Publication Bill.
Mr. Wakleysaid, he knew very little of this Bill, which had passed the House of Lords without discussion, and had reached the second reading without observation in that House. If the Bill was intended to apply generally to England unless proper Amendments were introduced he should divide the House against the Motion, for it seemed to him that it was intended not only to prevent the publication of lectures but of criticisms on lectures. Again, if it were intended to apply only to private lectures it would be a proper protection, but if it were meant to shield public as well as private from public inspection he should consider that it ought not to receive the sanction of the House. In the present state of the law no such protection was needed; for it was laid down by Lord Eldon, that private lectures could be protected if it were proved there was a breach of implied contract between the lecturer and the individual hearers. In the case of Abernethy v. Hutchinson, an injunction was granted to restrain the publication of a lecture, even without any means of discovering whether it were an original or not. Subsequently, however, it was proved in the Court of Chancery that it was a public lecture delivered on a public occasion and the plaintiff in the suit thus finding he could not sustain his cause abandoned it altogether. This was
954
a distinction most worthy of attention for every public lecturer ought to allow the means of exhibiting the instruction which he dispensed, whenever the interests of the public required it; would it not be very improper, for instance, when a public lecturer delivered what was injurious to the peace, the health, or the morals of society, that he should be shielded from public observation? By such a law as that lecturing would be ten times more easy than it was at present; as it was, a great part of the public lectures were a mere farce, for it was absurd to suppose that any art could be taught by a lecture, when the great organ of information, the eye, was shut, not called into exercise. How much worse would they be if by such a law as this they were rendered secure from observation and animadversion. It was preposterous to see such a Bill as this passing the Lords without a word of discussion, and unless the Lord Advocate assured him that public lecturers were not to be shielded from public notice he should divide the House against the Bill.
The Lord Advocatesaid, the principle of the Bill was this, that every man had as much right to claim security for his lectures, as for his books, or any other fruit of his labours or his ingenuity. And that no man coming merely with the professed object of gaining instruction, should have the right of publishing those lectures which were (or ought to be) the lecturer's own property; some of them perhaps the result of the studies or the labour of a whole life, and worth often upwards of a 1,000 l. to their author.
Mr. Warburtonknew of no abstract right of property in those cases, the public good was the only test by which they could decide. The case of lectures was not the same as that of copyright in books for there was no monopoly exercised so as to exclude the publication of unpublished writings, but in lectures those who attended the professors in the different sciences had no option, in many cases pupils must attend the lectures, and if they failed in obtaining that information which they required, surely they ought not to be precluded from holding the lecturer up to public censure.
Bill read a second time.