Sitting of 3 September 1835

MINUTES.
Bill. Read a third time:—Militia Pay.
Petitions presented. By Mr. HUME, from Perth, against the Bankrupts' Estates' (Scotland) Bill; from Glenelg, in favour of the Church of Scotland; from South Shields, for the Repeal of the Stamp Duties on Newspapers.—liy an HON. MEMBER, from the Clergy of South Shields, against the Church of Ireland Bill.—By Mr. WILBRAHAM, from Stockport, against the Lords' Amendments to the Municipal Corporations' Bill.—By Mr. CALLAGHAN, from Cork, for reducing the Timber Duties.

TIMBER DUTIES.
Mr. Robinsonpresented Petitions from Montreal, and from persons in the City of London engaged in the Timber Trade, against any alteration of the Timber Duties. He said that the Timber Trade was almost the only trade enjoyed by Canada with the mother country, and that, therefore, the petitioners in Montreal and elsewhere had viewed with alarm propositions founded on the views of political economists to alter duties. They were also in favour of a measure that would check emigration—a check which he deemed by no means desirable. As to the alterations in the duties, the prospects in many cases with which they had been made had not been realised. Here, as upon the wine duties, the liberal system had failed. When Lord Althorpe proposed the alteration of the wine duties, he declared that they would not produce the calculated benefits; the result justified his observation, for from that period France had not taken the slightest notice of our reduction of duties. Therefore had there been not only decided loss to the revenue, but grievous injury to individuals who had embarked their capital in the particular trade. The same would be found to be the case as regarded the changes of the timber duties. He would not enter upon the remarks that he might otherwise have made, had the President of the Board of Trade been present; but as the change on the timber duties had been founded on the recommendations of a Committee, he trusted that before anything were done on the timber duties, the evidence might be allowed to be in the hands of Members. Not that he placed much value in the evidence received. Indeed, he could not but

1319
think that Committees on trade, commerce, &c, were mere farces, because they were always appointed by the Government of the day, and re-echoed their sentiments. He was sure that if any Member would examine the evidence given on this Question, he would see that it was in favour of the present scale of duties. He hoped that the House would not be led away by the vague theories of political economists on this important subject.
Mr. Villierssaid, that the people would set down the observations just made as mere vague declamation. Not one proof had been adduced. The petitioners and the hon. Member sought to perpetuate what he must deem a most mischievous system, and a most unjust tax. From the way in which the hon. Gentleman constantly talked about free trade and reciprocity, it was evident, that he knew not what he spoke about. He was not aware of the principles on which free trade and reciprocity duties were defended. It was a defensive principle that the people should be allowed to get, and ought to get, the products of their own and other countries as cheap as possible. As to other countries not following our example, if the duites were put on a proper footing of reciprocity, he apprehended that other countries would soon find it to their interest to follow our example.
Dr. Bowringdefended the principle of free trade and reciprocity duties, contending that the people ought to be allowed to find the best articles on the cheapest terms; and the application of that principle would be best calculated to effect the development of the greatest freedom of and improvement in trade.
Sir Frederick Trenchrose to request that his Majesty's Ministers would not take advantage of the interval between this and the meeting of Parliament, to begin, or to lay the foundation of any proceeding founded upon the resolutions of the Committee upon the timber duties, until that House should have had an opportunity of fully discussing them. He was obliged, by the desire of his constituents, to take this course, although he feared it might be interpreted into a suspicion of unfairness, which personally he did not entertain.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, the protection at present given to the ship-owners and others in that class of the community, was to an outrageous extent, and it was
1320
too much that those parties should still wish it to be perpetuated. What was really the proposition? In 1823, when the former Committee sat, the proposition was this—that whatever difference there was in freight between bringing timber from the Baltic and from Canada, to that extent they should give the Canadas protection. More than that, they said they would not only give protection to the extent of the difference of freight, but to the extent of fifty per cent. on the prime cost. The persons connected with the trade, however, were not satisfied with that, nor would they be quiet till they had complete exclusion.
Mr. Patrick M. Stewartthought there was nothing in the evidence justifying the conclusion to which the Committee on the timber duties had arrived. He did not mean to advocate the old-fashioned doctrines of exclusive trade, but he hoped the House would be cautious in meddling with subjects without the clearest demonstrations for the necessity of doing so. If hon. Members would only prove that the interests of the consumer would be consulted by the proposition of the Committee, it should have his warmest support. But in his opinion, there was no case made out to justify the proposition of the Committee.
Mr. Humesaid, if the hon. Member claimed the right of going to the cheapest butcher and baker, why should he deny the privilege of going to the cheapest timber merchant. The hon. Member for Worcester said, that no man could accuse him of ignorance. He would accuse that hon. Member of ignorance. The hon. Member warned the House against the visionary theories of political economists, such as himself. He would warn the House against the hon. Member as not being a political economist, or, at least, as being altogether ignorant of the subject. The hon. Member's arguments were as contrary to all rules of true political economy as they were to common sense. According to the hon. Member they must send ships to the Baltic, and from thence to Canada, so that instead of having that timber home in two months, the vessel would have to go all round the world, in order that the timber might be improved by doubling Cape Horn. Before the hon. Member accused him of being a visionary, let him be satisfied that he was quite correct himself. The trade of the country would not benefit by any of the extravagant propositions of

1321
the hon. Member. The way to promote the best interests of the country was to facilitate the exchange of commodities. The hon. Member relied upon the opinion of Mr. Huskisson; but the hon. Member should recollect that a protest was entered against that opinion, and what had then been foretold had since actually taken place. On these grounds, he had no hesitation in charging the hon. Member with being himself a theorist, and entirely ignorant of the true principles of political economy.
Petitions laid on the Table.

HOUSE OF LORDS.
The Attorney-Generalbrought up the Report of the Select Committee appointed to search the Journals of the House of Lords, to see what had become of two Bills, the Execution of Wills' Bill, and Administrator's Bill. He was sure that at all times he should be found exceedingly unwilling to give offence to that House, much more at this moment. He would, therefore, content himself with saying that it appeared that these two Bills had been read a second time on the 22nd of June, and referred to a Select Committee, and no further trace of them could be found.
Dr. Lushington: The proceedings that had been adopted elsewhere respecting those two measures required that they should be brought under the notice of that House, and he trusted that lie would not be thought impertinent, if he stated briefly the circumstances under which they were introduced, and the manner in which they had been treated elsewhere. They had been founded on the Report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, of whom two were Lord Chief Justices—the late Chief Justice, and the Chief Baron, and they had been produced with their unanimous assent. The propositions also underwent the discussion of the Commissioners of Real Property, and received their approbation. The Bills were then introduced by his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, and debated in that House and referred to a Select Committee up stairs; and as they were of great importance to the welfare of the community, as tending to remedy some of the greatest grievances the present state of the law inflicted upon his Majesty's subjects, the Bills were passed after great consideration. The Bills were then sent up to the House of Lords in the course of June; they were
1322
read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee; and though this was now the third day of September, the Journals of the Lords had been searched, and no further notice was taken of measures which so deeply affected the interests of the people. It was his duty, as the Representative of a large portion of that people, to see what had become of important legislative measures, involving no political consideration—exciting no strife between adverse parties—and that House would not do its duty to the public whom they represented if, upon similar conduct being adopted by the other House, they did not take all constitutional means in their power to carry into effect those measures which they deemed essential to the welfare of the people. Had this been an isolated case, he might be content to pass it by, after saying that it might accidentally have escaped notice; but it was only one of a great series of measures which had been neglected or rejected, and he thought that it was his duty to call the attention of the House to it.
Sir Edward Knatchbulldid not rise to underrate the importance of those measures; on the contrary, he felt, and admitted, they were measures of great importance, and deserved serious consideration. But he was not prepared to admit, that upon the footing of neglect of the interests of the people these measures had not progressed in the other House to the extent which the hon. Member anticipated. That delay was owing to the absence on the Circuit of certain learned Lords, whose legal experience was necessary to enable the House of Lords to come to a proper consideration of those Bills. If that was not sufficient, how, he would ask, did it happen that a noble individual in the other House, who was so forward to advocate the interests of the people, had not forced forward these Bills, if he thought them necessary? He believed it was generally understood that both those measures were to be brought forward at an early period of the next Session.
Report to be laid on the Table, and printed.

CONSOLIDATED FUND. (APPROPRIATION).
The Chancellor of the Exchequermoved the third reading of the Consolidated Fund, (Appropriation) Bill.
Mr. Humehoped that the right hon. Gentleman would not press the third read-

1323
ing, as the House had no right to be much satisfied with the proceedings in another place. If this Bill were passed, the House might let slip the opportunity of withholding the Supplies and discussing the measure just sent to the Lords again; and, without farther preface, he moved that it be read a third time on Monday.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerobjected to the Amendment, and if he stood alone would resist the postponement of the third reading. The hon. Member wished for an opportunity of discussing the Municipal Corporations' Bill, just sent up to the Lords again. He earnestly hoped that there might be no need to discuss it again; and that the measure would not be returned. This House had given it the most sedulous, candid, and conciliatory attention; and whoever was friendly to its provisions, and thought they were of any value, would wish that it might never come back to the Commons. If there were any decided enemy to its provisions, he could not do better than to promote its return. If it were returned, then indeed the opportunity of discussion which the hon. Member for Middlesex desired would be afforded; but at a moment like the present, pregnant with important interests, he entreated the House not, upon any imperfect and partial view, to take a step which would materially (and he spoke advisedly) most materially prevent the completion of its wishes. He did not resort to any obvious arguments founded upon the fact that to defer the Bill till Monday would necessarily prolong the Session for another week, but he relied upon the conviction, which he thought even the hon. Member for Middlesex must feel, that to adopt his Amendment would tend to defeat the very object he contemplated. He did not wish to avoid or to prevent discussion, should it become necessary by the return of the Bill from the Lords, but he trusted that the calm tone observed and the conciliatory spirit evinced by hon. Members—and which did them infinite honour, considering the strength of their convictions—would have its due effect, since a firm but respectful attitude and demeanour were not likely to be misinterpreted, and would recommend the measure to the serious attention of the other branch of the Legislature. He only asked hon. Members to persevere in this course, to be consistent with themselves, and, as friends to the Bill, to give it the best chance of being passed
1324
into a law. He, therefore, humbly entreated the House not to postpone the third reading of the Appropriation Bill, or rather he humbly entreated the hon. Member for Middlesex to withdraw his Amendment.
Mr. O'Connelltrusted that his hon. Friend would comply, since no reasonable advantage could be gained by insisting upon the Amendment. As to stopping the Supplies, that was out of the question: they had been voted by the House seriatim, and after having voted them, it ought never to be said that it had any ulterior thought of retracting them. He put it to the hon. Member for Middlesex, that whatever he could gain by his Amendment he would at all events gain equally when the Appropriation Bill had passed, if the Municipal Corporations' Bill were to be returned from the House of Lords. Nay, he would then have an additional advantage, for it would be seen that all had been done with temper and conciliation. If he were not afraid that his advocacy of the Bill would be injurious to its passing, he should say that he supported it heartily and unequivocally. If poor paltry considerations concerning this individual or that individual were allowed elsewhere to interfere with the sober consideration of a legislative enactment, it might be taken that the postponement of the third reading was an intended insult, and it might be urged as a reason for rejecting the Bill just sent to the Lords, that the Member for Middlesex had ventured to object to the Appropriation Clause. This might be taken as an indignity and the consequences might be most injurious. This country was come to an important and awful crisis, when it was to be ascertained, not in this Session, but in the next, whether every beneficial measure was to be checked and controlled by those over whom at present there was no check or control—whether measures of immense utility were to be stopped in their progress, not on the fair ground of their merits or defects, but on grounds that were too futile to be repeated. Let this House act so as to leave all the fault elsewhere, and abstain from anything like giving a pretext for a course which all dispassionate men must deprecate. He was sure that the country would not have less confidence in the hon. Member for Middlesex, who had followed one undeviating line of public conduct, because he forbore on this occasion, and allowed the Bill to pass.
Mr. Humewas desirous of being informed of the use of passing the Bill; he had been told that it was of no use. If, as was said, the money had been voted, and could not be recalled, what good could the Appropriation Bill accomplish? If he were wrong, he wished to be undeceived and to learn whether the measure before the House was necessary to give validity to its votes? He did not wish the Municipal Corporations' Bill to be rejected; on the contrary, he had done all that was consistent with his public duty to secure its adoption as a law; he had been as ready as any man to yield on many points, but he wished to be in a condition—if the other House rejected the Bill, and did not estimate properly the condescension that had been shown and concession that had been made—to object to the final granting of the public money. He could not help looking back to what had occurred last year, when men in full possession of the confidence of the country had been excluded from office; by whose advice it had been done he knew not, but certainly not the individual who had been principally responsible in the new Government, for he was at a distance of some thousands of miles. There must, however, have been some adviser, and, for ought he knew, what had happened last year might occur again. He considered it the duty of the House to guard against the possible recurrence of such a transaction. The House had the power—or if they had not they ought to possess it—of putting the supplies into any hands they pleased. They had voted these supplies to a liberal extent to his Majesty; and in his opinion, lest his Majesty should be led by evil counsellors to repeat the course of last year, they ought to place the dispensing of the supplies in hands on which they could depend. He could not indeed go so far as to say that he contemplated the dismissal of the present Administration in the same manner as that of last year was dismissed, but at the same time he thought that they ought to guard against the possibility of such a proceeding. He wished the House not to do anything for the purpose of offending the House of Lords, but simply to exercise the management of their affairs, and postpone for a little while the reading of a Bill before them—which, as he conceived, might easily be done without giving any such offence to that assembly—in order that they might be able to judge
1326
whether any such proceeding might be necessary in the case of the Bill which they had sent up to the House of Lords being rejected. He made this proposal not from any want of confidence in his Majesty's Ministers, for he was perfectly ready to place that confidence in them now which he had always placed in them during the previous part of the Session. He hoped, therefore, that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would explain further why he wished the Bill to be read at once.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid that the second speech of his hon. Friend rendered it still more necessary to pass the Bill at once. His hon. Friend would have the goodness to recollect that he was not asking the House to do anything extraordinary, but simply to do that which was in the usual course of proceeding. If the proposition of his hon. Friend were agreed to, he would put it to the House and his hon. Friend, as men of sense and understanding, whether an impression would not be created that they wished to keep in their hands a power over the supplies, to be exercised in the event of the rejection of the Municipal Corporations' Bill as sent amended from this House? Now, that was a course which, of all others, would be most pregnant with danger. As had been said by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin—do not let the debate in another place go off on a question of etiquette; let the discussion be one, and one only, on the merits of the Amendments we have made in the Bill. His hon. Friend had said that he entertained confidence in his Majesty's present Ministers. If such were the case, let him allow them, ledged as they were on the question of Municipal Reform, to fight their own battle, and take their own chance of success. The step which he proposed was eminently qualified to weaken the Government in the public opinion; and he called on the majority of the House, composing the friends f the Municipal Reform Bill, not to peril its success by crying out it was in danger. A very unfounded statement had been put forth out of doors, that he—the person charged with the superintendence of the finances of the country—had counselled, or taken a course which countenanced, he stopping of the supplies; and that had seen made an argument against the Government, and against himself individually, as a Member of it. It was scarcely

1327
necessary for him to say that he had never countenanced such a course.
Mr. Thomas Duncombewanted to know distinctly whether the House did or did not possess the power of stopping the supplies, [The Chancellor of the Exchequer: No!] There had been a great misapprehension existing out of doors that the House was in a situation to stop the supplies, and he himself had received a petition from a large portion of his constituents, with a request that he would vote for taking that course, in the event of the House of Lords rejecting or injuring the Municipal Corporations' Reform Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, it now appeared, told them that they could not stop the supplies; and such being the case, there would be no use in adopting the proposition of the hon. Member for Middlesex. As to its giving offence to the House of Lords, he could not see how the suspension of the third reading of one of their Bills could be fairly thought to have any such effect. He trusted that his right hon. Friend would state to the House the nature and operation of this Appropriation Clause; he himself had tried to explain it to his constituents, and had said to them, "Gentlemen, I believe it is too late to attempt to stop the supplies now." If they were indeed in a situation to stop the supplies by suspending the Appropriation Clause, he should give a vote in favour of the proposition of the hon. Member for Middlesex.
Mr. Warburtonobserved, that if the House possessed the power of inserting a Clause for placing the money voted in the bands of Commissioners, without the consent of the other House—if they could of themselves give final effect to any proposition of that nature, then they would be able to exercise the check alluded to; but if they did not possess it, it would appear that that mysterious power of which his hon. Friend talked was entirely imaginary. Any course which they could take would have no effect. There were, already, in the hands of Government Exchequer Bills sufficient to carry on the functions of the Government until Parliament should again meet. If it were proper to exercise any power of stopping the supplies, it ought to have been resorted to before they were voted; there was no such power now.
Mr. Humereferred to the form of the Appropriation Act of 1833, and said that
1328
he might easily move Amendments to the effect of granting the supplies for a term of nine months, instead of twelve months as proposed. If, however, his Majesty's Government were of opinion that the course which he proposed would, if adopted, have the effect of weakening the confidence reposed in them, or endangering the success of the Municipal Reform Bill, then he would not press it.
Lord John Russellsaid that, as he understood the question, the effect of such a motion as that which the hon. Member for Middlesex proposed would be, to show a great want of confidence in the Government; and the support of the Motion which had been made by his right hon. Friend, the. Chancellor of the Exchequer—as the official representative of the Government on this occasion—appeared to him to be the only right and constitutional way of showing confidence in that Government.
Bill read a third time and passed.

CONFERENCE WITH THE LORDS.
Lord John Russellbrought up the Report of the Committee appointed last night to draw up reasons to be offered to the Lords for disagreeing to several of the Amendments made by the Lords in the Municipal Corporations' Bill. The noble Lord moved that a Conference be desired with the Lords on the subject matter of their Amendments in this Bill.
Motion agreed to. Lord John Russell, accompanied by the greater portion of the Members of the House, went to desire the said Conference.
Conference agreed to. Speaker left the Chair. Conference held. Speaker resumed his seat. Conference reported.

INSTRUMENTS OF SASINE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
The Lord Advocatemoved the third reading of this Bill.
Mr. Patrick M. Stewartsuggested that the words in the Bill—"And also reserving to all parties, who before the 12th of May in this present year shall have objected judicially to the validity of any such writ or writs on the ground of erasure, all pleas that would have been competent to them before the passing of this Act," should be left out. This provision, he contended, would place the parties engaged in pending suits in a worse situation than they were at present.
House counted out.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Militia Pay; Consolidated Fund.—Read a second time:—Piers (Ireland); Fines and Recoveries; Shannon Navigation; Forgery (Scotland).
Petitions presented. By Lord BROUGHAM, from the Prisoners Confined for Debt in Carlisle Gaol, in favour of the Imprisonment for Debt Bill.

MUSIC AND DANCING.
The Earl of Glengallpresented a Petition from the proprietors of Covent-garden Theatre, praying for attention to their vested interests, now threatened by the Music and Dancing Bill. They prayed to be heard by Counsel against the Bill.
Lord Broughamdenied that the petitioners had any exclusive vested rights on this subject. There was no vested rights in a monopoly, unless expressly so recognised by Act of Parliament. The Legislature had acted on this rule with respect to the legislation on the beer question, though it was then said that the vested
1292
rights of the brewers ought not to be interfered with, and would be violated if the Bill proposed were to be passed. This Bill would not prevent any man going to the theatre to see the elephants or other animals of any length of ear, or men in the skins of elephants, for such he heard were exhibited on the stage. Men would not refuse to go to the theatre because they could go to an alehouse and have music and dancing. This monopoly was, he repeated, like the monopoly claimed as a vested interest by the brewers; it was an accidental monopoly, not created, as of necessity, by the thing itself; and, therefore, not entitled to be considered as a vested right. There was this difference, too, that in these houses the dancing was not to be by the persons shown, as on the stage of a theatre, but by the persons themselves who formed the company. In his opinion, amusements of this innocent kind ought to be encouraged among the people. We had too little of them in this country. He was sure that noble Lords opposite were of the same opinion, and for himself he declared that he was disposed greatly to favour any measures which would have the effect of withdrawing people from beer and gin shops, and inducing them to seek relaxation of a better kind.
The Earl of Glengallsuggested that this arguing of the question had better be reserved for the third reading.
Lord Broughamobserved, that what he had said now might be considered as said upon the third reading, with a view to spare their Lordships' time. He must say, that if Counsel were to be heard upon this Bill, for which he saw no pretence whatever, he feared that at this late period of the Session there was not a chance for the Bill to pass.
The Marquess of Salisburysaid, that agreeing as he did with the noble and learned Lord, that the innocent recreations of the lower orders of the people should be encouraged, (and he was sorry to say that this was not sufficiently done by our laws, which indeed had too much of a tendency to prevent them), he could not but recollect at the same time what were the rights of others, and in this case he did not think that their Lordships could fairly come to a decision on the Bill without hearing counsel and evidence as to those rights. He wished the noble and learned Lord to consider the motion made, that the Bill be read a third time, and to allow him

1293
at once to move as an Amendment, that it be read a third time this day three months.
Lord Brougham: the noble Marquess may do as he pleases: I have no power here any more than any one else on this side of the House.
Bill postponed for three months.

TITHES AND THE CHURCH (IRELAND) PETITION: EXPLANATION.
Lord Lyndhurst, in presenting a Petition from Ipswich on the subject of the Irish Church Bill, said, that he wished the purport of this petition to be clearly and distinctly understood by their Lordships. That Bill, as their Lordships knew, was directed to the attainment of two objects, and one object which it had in view was the commutation and settlement of tithes in Ireland. It was stated in the course of the debates which had taken place on this subject, and the fact was admitted on all hands, as well by the noble Lords opposite as by the noble Lords who sat on this side of the House, that it was a measure of great and paramount importance, involving, as it did, the security and tranquillity of Ireland. Now, he apprehended that there was no connection between the settlement of the tithe question and the other part of the Bill, which had for its object the sequestration of 860 Irish benefices, and the appropriation of their revenues to other than ecclesiastical purposes. He thought their Lordships would concur with him in saying—indeed, they had already expressed their opinion on the point—that two objects in every way so dissimilar could not properly be embraced in a single measure—that they ought to form the subject in short of two Bills, and not of one. Their Lordships had agreed to all that part of the measure which related to the first of those objects, because they considered it of first rate importance, as every thing connected with the peace and tranquillity of Ireland was; but notwithstanding this, and even though they had assented to so much of the Bill as related to the settlement of tithes, he understood that his Majesty's Ministers did not intend to send down that part of the measure to the other House of Parliament. The reason alleged for this course was, that the Bill in its altered shape would not meet with a favourable reception from the other branch of the Legislature; but he on the contrary was prepared to assert, and that too on the
1294
best information, that if his Majesty's Ministers in the other House felt as the noble Lords connected with the Government who satin their Lordships' House had declared they felt, that such a measure was essential to the security and tranquillity of Ireland that a settlement of the Tithe Question in that country was indispensable, there could be no doubt, if they brought it forward that it would pass in spite of any opposition which might be given to it by a certain party who usually supported them on all other subjects. He felt that the Ministers of the Crown had taken a heavy responsibility upon themselves by pursuing a course which he was justified in saying was not only a grievous misfortune to the country at large, but not at all grateful to the Protestant interests in Ireland, and his reason for making this statement was, that the country might understand the real circumstances of the case, as well as the position in which their Lordships' House stood in respect to this Bill, the whole of the responsibility for refusing to proceed with which, rested not with noble Lords on his side of the House, but wholly and entirely upon the shoulders of his Majesty's Ministers.
Viscount Melbournehad already stated to their Lordships that his Majesty's Government had felt it their duty to abandon the Bill, and it would not be necessary for him to take up the time of the House by repeating his statement. He admitted the great importance of effecting some satisfactory adjustment of the tithe question—he admitted the evil consequences which were likely to arise from allowing that question to remain much longer unsettled, but he could not agree with the noble and learned Lord that his Majesty's Ministers would be responsible for these consequences. On the contrary, he must contend that such responsibility would rest not with his Majesty's Ministers, who wished to carry the Bill through Parliament but with the majority of their Lordships' House, who had introduced alterations into it which were not only repugnant to the principle on which it is founded, but which rendered it utterly impossible that it could be entertained by the other House of Parliament. He had hoped that the Tithe Question would have been settled in the present year. The Government had done all in their power to bring about that settlement, but the measure which they bad proposed for the purpose

1295
had in effect been defeated. Their Lordships had been afforded two opportunities of settling the Tithe Question, and they had twice rejected the measures brought in to accomplish that object. They had opposed the Bill of the last Session, by which a settlement would have been obtained; and what was the consequence of their rejection of that Bill? Why that it became necessary to couple with it other Amendments than those originally proposed for adoption before the question could be settled. They had during the present Session rejected the second opportunity which had been given to them of setting the matter at rest, and when another opportunity would be afforded to them he really did not know. This, however, he must say, that the whole of the responsibility of having left the question open, and whatever the consequences to arise from it to the Church of England and Ireland might be, would rest with the noble Lords opposite—with the majority of that House by whom the Bill was defeated, and not with his Majesty's Government.
Lord Lyndhurst: We rejected no Clause in that part of the Bill which related to the settlement of the Tithe Question.
The Duke of Wellingtonshould like to know by what process of reasoning those who sat on his side of the House were to be held responsible for the not passing of a Bill over which they had no power? He insisted that whatever the responsibility was, which the abandonment of this measure might incur, that responsibility would rest with those who had the power over it, and might, if they pleased, have passed that portion of it to which their Lordships had given their sanction, and not with any other persons. The noble Lords on the other side of the House contended that the two parts of this Bill were inseparably connected, but this he denied. The first part of the Bill went to provide for the recovery of tithes, while the other part was neither more nor less than an act of spoliation—he meant the confiscation of a number of Church benefices, for the purpose of applying their revenues to secular purposes. He should like to know what possible connexion there was between two such subjects. He could see none. It was true that the noble Lords opposite asserted that they were connected; but they had given no proof from which a connexion could be even inferred. There was nothing but their naked assertion to show
1296
the fact. He, on the other hand, was prepared to state that they were not only distinct subjects, but that they should be made the foundation of separate Bills. If the noble Lord at the head of his Majesty's Government meant to bring the two questions before their Lordships fairly he would introduce them in distinct measures, in order that each might be decided upon its merits, and without reference to the other. The Tithe Question had really nothing whatever to do with the Question of Appropriation, and he could not understand why the noble Lord had mixed them together except it was for the purpose of accomplishing the destruction of the Church of Ireland covertly. Having failed in obtaining that purpose, what did the noble Lord do? Why, he accused noble Lords on that side of the House with having rejected a measure which threatened the Protestant Church of Ireland with annihilation. The noble Lord complained that the Tithe Bill of last year had been thrown out by their Lordships; but did not his (the Duke of Wellington's) noble Friend explain last night the grounds on which that measure had been rejected? That Bill was defeated, not because it proposed to convert tithe into a rent-charge, but because it was to remit two-fifths of the incomes of the clergy, and provided that one-fifth of their future incomes should be paid out of the Consolidated Fund. Their Lordships very properly refused to agree to any such proposition, and it was on that ground that he objected to the measure. He voted against, the Bill of last year because he felt bound so to vote, and he supported an Amendment to the Bill of this year on the same ground. With respect to the part of the Bill of the present year which he had supported, all he would say now was, that neither he nor those who acted with him could be held responsible for the non-passing of so much of that Bill as had been approved of by them.
The Marquess of Lansdowne: My Lords, I should not have addressed any observations to your Lordships, after the complete and satisfactory declarations of my noble Friend, if the noble Duke opposite had not thought fit, in the course of what he has said, to make a declaration which I must distinctly deny—that the Bill recently, and, I must say, unfortunately for the Irish Church, rejected by your Lordships, was presented to Parliament under

1297
colour of another object, but with the real object of promoting the destruction of the Church of Ireland. It is easy to make such an assertion, but I as confidently deny it. My Lords, that Bill was, in my opinion, a Bill to save and rescue the Church of Ireland from the state of jeopardy in which it was placed by the vote of your Lordships last year, and that state of jeopardy in which, by the vote of this year, it is now again placed. But the noble Duke, and I suppose also the noble and learned Lord, for I did not hear the whole of what he said, asked if the meaning of the Government was to provide for the collection of tithes for the benefit of the Church, why that had been coupled with a provision distinct from such an object? I will tell your Lordships why—[Lord Lyndhurst: I do not ask that question.] I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord has asked that question; I concluded he had from the part of his speech which I did hear. The noble Duke did ask it, and to him I shall apply myself. My Lords, we coupled these two provisions for this plain reason, that by this Bill an immense boon was by the people of England proposed to be granted to the Church of Ireland, and I know not the means by which this great boon could be secured, but by connexion with what was a provision, not for the destruction of the Church of Ireland, no, but a provision for the application of funds not received and used by the Church of Ireland—but of funds inapplicable, vain, useless, abandoned by that Church, inasmuch as none of these funds were applied by it in any quarter, and even they were only proposed to be suspended, not taken away, and I say that the application of these funds to the purposes of the Church was renewable whenever the Church was in a state to use them. The use to which those funds were intended to be applied was the rational consideration—was the proper accompaniment of one of the largest grants ever proposed in Parliament; and what, my Lords, were the advantages which might have been secured, had you thought proper to go into the consideration of the whole of this question, not into one par of it or into another, but to look at it like statesmen, to weigh well the advantages which it would give to the Church of Ire land in the peculiar circumstances in which that Church is now placed? Noble Lords on the other side of the House say
1298
that they differ from us; if they do—if they differ from the Government—if they think that a Bill of this nature could be introduced or persevered with in the other House of Parliament, is it not open to any one of them to take up any part of this Bill; and if they think it is possible to carry such a Bill through Parliament, are they not abandoning their duty—are they not abandoning, in their view, the interests of the Church of Ireland, if they do not take it up, and offer it to the other House? Is it not for those who think it possible to attain what I am ready to admit would be an inestimable advantage, the final settlement of the Tithe Question, to attempt it? For myself, I know of nothing but danger and mischief that could accrue from the attempt to throw this Bill n its present state back upon the other House of Parliament, in opposition and defiance to the declared opinion of that House; and I think that the people of England, in making these concessions to the Irish Church, had a right to the abandonment of that which was not useful but useless, and to suspend its application, not for the purpose of destroying the Church, but of removing from that Church a stigma under which it appears to be sinking at this time, and under which, if doomed by this House to remain, it will, I say it with unfeigned and deep regret, I am afraid it will at last sink irretrievably.
The Earl of Rodendenied that this Bill was a boon to the clergy of Ireland. It was a Bill by which 860 benefices were, at one fell swoop, to be deprived of the means of religious instruction, of being taught the doctrines of Christ. That did not show that the Bill had for its object the establishment or maintenance of the Protestant religion in Ireland, and if he possessed the talent or the eloquence of the noble Marquess, he could show that it must have an exactly opposite effect. It would be folly to hide their eyes from the fact. There was no man that was not really aware that this Bill was only what it had been called elsewhere, an instalment to a party in the other House of Parliament. He believed that to be the fact, and that there was but good reason for saying so. He affirmed that this measure must be attended with the destruction of the Protestant Establishment in Ireland. The noble Duke had rightly stated his view of the subject, when he said that such must be the effect of this

1299
Bill; and he could not understand how noble Lords opposite, if they were anxious, as they said they were, for the settlement of the question, could refuse to carry this part of the Bill. They knew that they could carry it if they chose; but when they told noble Lords on this side of the House to take it up, they knew well enough that no noble Lord could carry through a Bill of this sort. He repeated, that this Bill had for its object, not by the noble Lords opposite, but by those who supported them, the destruction of the Church of Ireland.
The Earl of Wicklowdenied that the Bill was a boon to the clergy of Ireland, but was a grant made for the clergy in consequence of the interference of the Government in preventing them from the collection of tithes. The clergy, if they had received the aid which the Government were bound to afford, would not have required this grant. But the grant was made because the Government said, that the tithes should not be collected. It was gross injustice to call it a boon to the clergy. It was easy for the noble Marquess to say, let noble Lords on this side of the House take up the Bill, but he asserted, that it was the duty of the Government to carry through its own Bills. He understood why the provision which accompanied the Bill had been introduced. It was well known that the noble Vi count, when he took the reins of Government, stated that he was pledged to that principle, so that he (Lord Wicklow) was not surprised when this Bill came into this House, that it should have that provision in it; but surely when the noble Viscount had fulfilled his pledge, when he had introduced this Bill in this manner, when he had advocated this principle in this House, and found that though the principle was adopted by a small majority in the other House of Parliament, it was one which neither of the other branches of the Legislature would tolerate—rinding it impossible to continue this provision in the Bill, he might feel it his duty to recommend the Bill in its present state to his friends in the other House of Parliament, and with their support, of which he was sure, and with the support of those who had in that House voted against this provision, he might pass the Bill at once, and make it the law of the land. The noble and learned Lord, therefore, had been justified in asserting that the responsibility of the lamentable state in which
1300
the Church was now left was with the Government.
Lord Brougham: If your Lordships are, I was going to say excited, but I will say moved by the situation in which you now are, I am sorry for you: I am sorry for the painful feelings you must now experience. But it is not my fault, for just before the division I took leave to state, to lay before you rather, fully, the inevitable consequences of coming to that vote which you appeared to me bent upon coming to. I spoke strongly then, for I felt strongly. I feel strongly for you now; if you had only felt as you now feel, at the right time, before you did the deed, like some other persons in the same situation, you might have avoided it. After doing the deed, persons in this situation are apt to throw blame upon others. By such means they try to appease their consciences, to quell the remonstrances of their bitter feelings against their past misconduct. The attempt never succeeds. The noble Lords recommend his Majesty's Ministers to carry the Bill in its present state to the House of Commons, and to pass it there. It could not be done. The noble Earl opposite says, as in an answer to the unanswerable statement of the noble Marquess, and to the question, "Why don't you take up the Bill?" he says, "Oh, we cannot, but you ought; it is the duty of a Government to carry through its own measures." My Lords, no man can more fully assent to that proposition than I do, it has my plenary concurrence. It is the duty of any man, and still more of any Government, to carry through measures that are measures of their own. But they are not to carry through measures of other people—measures which they disapprove of—of which they have distinctly stated their disapproval in every stage—of which they gave notice of their disapproval, and of their intention to act on that disapproval; for not only I, as an individual, but my noble Friends near me, and the noble Viscount in particular, gave you full notice on the subject; he rose, as I thought, needlessly, just as you were going to divide, to declare that if you came to the vote which he then foresaw, he would not go on with the Bill. But suppose he were to go on with the Bill—not his own but your measure, a thing changed in the nursing, mutilated, imperfect, as some would say a bad measure, taking from one

1301
party and not giving to the other—suppose he were to go on with it, does any man pretend to say, who has read the Bill, and seen the clauses which you have cut out, does any such man pretend to say that the House which passed the Resolution pledging itself to carry both parts at once, and not to separate them, would not at once throw it out? This is matter of substance, but then comes matter of form—for these clauses were money clauses, and if all the House were for it in its present shape, it could not for matter of form be agreed to. It is a most painful thing, my Lords, for the clergy of Ireland. I am glad to hear that the evil is to be mitigated—that it is an act of fitness, and I will further say, of propriety, towards the poor clergy of Ireland, who are now suffering for the faults of others in the rejection of the measure.
Lord Farnhamsaid, that the House was most grateful for the warning of the noble and learned Lord, whether it was meant in kindness or in censure; but the noble Lords seemed to think that noble Lords who did not sit on his side of the House, were in a state of penitence for what they had done. He should have been in a state of penitence if he had not pursued the line of conduct now condemned; and if noble Lords had, for the sake of compromise with the interests of the existing clergy, given their support to a principle of confiscation—had they done so, they would have deserved the reprobation of the country. He knew that the Bill had been framed on a Resolution of that House of Commons. With all deference to that House, he said that the whole difficulty of the situation arose from that resolution. He admitted that with consistency to themselves, the existing House of Commons must insist on the adoption of that Resolution. That was the folly—he might say the wickedness of the thing. It was that mischievous Resolution of the House of Commons which had put an amicable settlement of the matter out of the question; for none of their Lordships who had given a positive opinion against that resolution could ever concur with it, and therefore an insurmountable obstacle had been raised in the way of an amicable settlement. But whose fault was that? it was the fault of those who, though not in the Ministry at the time, had proposed the Resolution; he would not say for the purpose, but all the world saw with the pro-
1302
bability, by carrying it, of ousting the other party. He agreed, that as long as that Resolution remained on the Journals of the House of Commons, he did not see the least prospect of an amicable settlement.
Lord Hathertonsaid, that the noble Earl who had just sat down had fairly stated the case. The Resolution referred to had been respected by the late Government. Why, then, should noble Lords complain that the present Government should respect it too? The noble Duke had said, that he believed that the design of those who introduced the measure was the destruction of the Church of Ireland. He was sure that the noble Duke could entertain no such opinion. If he shared that opinion, attached as he was to the doctrine and discipline of the Church of England, no consideration on earth could have induced him to support that measure; but the more he considered the Question, the more he was impressed with the conviction, that the sinecures of the Establishment were the weak points to the defence of the Establishment through which the enemy at any time might enter and call the Establishment in question on grounds the most unfavourable to it. He sympathized with the sufferings of that class whom the rejection of this measure would affect. Their respectability and piety were equal to those of our own clergy; but he denied that any part of their sufferings was to be attributed to the Government with which he had been connected, or to the present Government. The working clergy of Ireland bitterly regretted the rejection of this Bill; but they were more under the influence of their Bishops than our own clergy, and great efforts had been made by their diocesans to procure from them remonstrances against the Bill. He knew that their feelings were in favour of it, and were different from what were represented by the Irish Bishops in this House. Their feelings were not opposed to the arrangements proposed this Session; for he was in possession of documents which, if he had known of this discussion, he would have brought down, and which showed what he stated to be true. Their Lordships had had the opportunity of settling the Tithe Question last year. It was then told them, that if they rejected that, the measure of the following year would be one of a different kind. They did reject

1303
it, and had done so again this year. Next year another measure, with worse conditions, might be presented, and it would come with an increased feeling among the people of England, that the conditions ought to be accepted, and with an increased desuetude of the payment of tithes, which was deeply to be regretted, but which was their Lordships' own work; and it would come, too, with the remonstrances of the working clergy of Ireland, who would then shake themselves free from the authority which their diocesans had hitherto exercised over them, by which they had been controlled, and their Lordships misled. He believed that the measure of next year would not be modified, as their Lordships wished it, by the delay.
The Earl of Winchilseaprofessed the same attachment to the Church of England as the noble Lord, although certainly he would manifest it in a very different way. He would not show his attachment by sanctioning the atrocious confiscation and sacrilegious appropriation of the revenues of the Church. He did not mean to place his knowledge of Ireland in competition with that of the noble Lord—though he had some slight knowledge of that country by communications both from the gentry and the clergy; and the information which he had received led him to deny the assertion of the noble Lord, that any considerable body of the Irish clergy were in favour of a proposition, the object of which was the confiscation of the property of the Church and its sacrilegious appropriation to purposes for which it was never intended. The manner in which the clergy of Ireland had been treated had excited a feeling of reprobation through every part of this country. It was an act of gross cruelty to them to mix up two measures that were perfectly distinct. The destruction of the Church of Ireland, in detail, was meditated, and the first blow was that of sequestrating 860 parishes at one time.
Lord Fitzgeraldsaid, without meaning to doubt the opportunity which the noble Lord (Lord Hatherton) had had for acquiring information relative to the Church of Ireland, still he must, for himself, lay claim to at least as intimate a knowledge on the subject as the noble Lord could have gathered in the course of his few weeks' residence in that country. When the noble Lord asserted that he had received communications from clergymen
1304
declaring that their opinions were controlled, and that they had been influenced to make false representations, he could state to the House that the information of the noble Lord was as new and as unexpected to him as it was irreconcileable with the sentiments which he had heard expressed by some clergymen, and in which he had reason to believe the great body of the clergy of Ireland participated. He joined with the noble Lord in bearing testimony to the merits of that excellent body of men, and he sympathized with him in the expressions that he had used with respect to their misfortunes and sorrows. But, as to their opinions, to their hopes, and to their fears, he would refer their Lordships to the numerous petitions which they had caused to be presented to the House. They there implored their Lordships, that, however great might be their sufferings, however severe their privations, however large the personal sacrifice they might be compelled to make, not, on their account, or for their sakes, to lose sight of the Church of Christ in Ireland. They implored their Lordships not to consent to any measure of confiscation or spoliation—not to set a precedent of revolutionary innovation—not to overthrow that which as Members of the Protestant religion they were bound to protect—not to destroy that Church and that Establishment of which they were the ministers. It was due to the working clergy to say this; it was also due to the dignitaries of that Church, with whom the working clergy wished to be united, with whom they desired to stand or full. He owed it to truth and to justice to state this in their behalf, and to express his belief that they did not wish to see a settlement of this question, by the junction of measures that had no necessary connexion—a junction which was agreed to as a compromise between political parties in the state, and not with any reference to the interests of the Church.
Lord Plunkettwas never more surprised than at the noble Lord's speech, after such an exordium as he had delivered. He must suppose that the noble Lord had not contemplated, but had been betrayed rather into the observations he had made; for the noble Lord had indulged, in the course of his argument, in a series of expressions such as their Lordships, and he should think, also, the public, would much prefer to see altogether avoided. He did not seek to bring back the debate of some

1305
nights ago, and to put in the question of the Appropriation Clause, but he must say that it appeared as if the noble Lord had availed himself of this extraordinary occasion to give vent to some dissatisfaction he might have felt that the ascendency of his talents in this House, as exercised upon the Bill relating to the Irish Church and the Municipal Corporations' Bill, was not likely to realize such triumphant results as he had at first calculated upon. The noble Lord had charged views of destruction and an intention to spoliate the Protestant Church in Ireland against those who differed from him in their views of this great question. He begged pardon, such an intention had been directly charged by the noble Duke (Duke of Wellington); contrary to the spirit which usually characterized the tenour of his observations, that noble Duke did last night state that the object of his Majesty's Government in bringing forward this measure was to destroy the Protestant religion. Now that was a bold assertion. He was not one of the Government, but as an individual connected with it, he must now throw back, with every degree of indignation, the charge that he was concerned in any measure for the destruction of the Protestant Church. What would the noble Lords on the other side feel if he were to say that the Opposition was influenced solely by a desire to turn out the government, that they might take their places, and that there throwing out of the various measures which they had rejected originated in a factious purpose? He must think that he should not be justified in making such an assertion; and surely the same justice which noble lords would call upon them to pay they were entitled to receive. He declared solemnly and conscientiously—and he trusted they had consciences on both sides of the House—that in giving his assent to the Appropriation Clause, he felt he was doing that which, under all the circumstances in which the unfortunate Church of Ireland was placed, was not only the best thing that could be done to provide for the Ministers of the Church, but also for giving stability to the Establishment. With respect to the clergy of Ireland, he would not pretend to say that his knowledge was as accurate or as extensive as his noble Friend's, but he was unquestion
1306
ably not a total stranger to the opinions of that respectable body. He had conversed with many of them, and he had learned from others the sentiments which were supposed to be entertained by the body at large. Such being the amount of his information, he would declare that he never met with one who did not express his regret at the rejection of the measure of last Session. [A Noble Lord. It did not contain the Appropriation Clause]. He would speak to that also. To be sure the measure of last Session did not contain an Appropriation Clause, and yet their Lordships rejected it. That was no act of sacrilege; that was no act of spoliation. It might have been brought forward under circumstances which made it objectionable to particular classes, but it contained no insuperable barrier to conscientious men adopting it, and he solemnly declared that he had heard many speak on the subject, and never one who did not lament the rejection of the measure. He would not pretend that he had the same degree of knowledge of the opinions of the clergy on the subject of the principle of appropriation; but if he spoke his belief, he would say that a great majority was in its favour. He did not deny that their judgments might be somewhat warped by the misery to which they were subject; but in supposing this possible, he must not be taken to imagine that any one of them would consent to sacrifice, for this worldly advantage, what the noble Lord had described as the "Church of Christ." He begged to add, that he knew the most extraordinary means had been used to procure petitions from the clergy against the Appropriation Clause, and he knew instances in which they had totally failed. The clergy were, no doubt, a body of men having the feelings of gentlemen; but they were necessarily in the situation in which they were placed considerably under the influence of their diocesan. He should be sorry to state it, if he did not believe it—but he would say that, in his opinion, in most of the cases in which petitions had been got up against the measure, they were procured by the influence and exertions of their superiors.
Lord Lyndhurstsaid, what connexion there could be between the Irish Church Bill and the Municipal Corporations' Bill he could not see, though his learned Friend had brought them together in his

1307
speech. To be sure they were both measures of spoliation, and as his learned Friend supported the one, he was not surprised to find him supporting the other. He hoped his learned Friend would give him leave to say, as a Member of this House, and he believed he was speaking the opinion of the whole country, that he would never consent that the revenues of the Church of Ireland should be plundered for the purpose of inculcating the tenets of the Catholic Church.
Petition to lie on the Table.

CORPORATION REFORM—CONFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO HOUSES.
Lord John Russelland other Members of the House of Commons appeared at the Bar, to desire a Conference with their Lordships, on the subject matter of the Amendments they had made in an Act to provide for the regulation of Municipal Corporations in England and Wales.
Viscount. Melbournemoved that their Lordships should hold a present conference.
Motion agreed to.
Lord Denman (the Speaker)informed the Members of the House of Commons that their Lordships had agreed to the Conference desired, and appointed it to be held presently, in their Committee-room, No. 5.
The Commons withdrew.
Lord Lyndhurstand the Duke of Wellington desired to be excused attending at the Conference, and on the Motion of Viscount Melbourne, the following noble Lords were appointed to conduct the Conference on behalf of their Lordships:—The Lord President of the Council, the Lord Privy Seal, the Duke of Richmond, the Earl of Shaftesbury, the Bishop of Bristol, Lord Auckland, Viscount Melbourne, and Lord Hatherton.
On their Lordships' return, bringing with them the Amendments, and the reasons assigned by the Commons, the reasons and the Amendments were read at the Table; and on the Motion of the Marquess of Lansdowne, were ordered to be printed, and taken into consideration the next day.

LAW OF MARRIAGE.
Lord Broughampresented a Bill to amend the laws of Marriage, Legitimacy, and Divorce. Circumstances had occasioned him to delay the measure. When he formerly mentioned
1308
the subject, a cause of great importance (Warrender v. Warrender) was pending, and until judgement were given, there was a manifest inconvenience in legislating on the subject; for any discussion of the subject among those in their legislative capacity, who were in the exercise of their judicial functions, had to pronounce upon the appeal would have been objectionable. The case was disposed of yesterday, and the Bill he presented would, if passed into a law, apply an appropriate remedy to the evils arising from the present state of the law on this subject. It was to be lamented, however, that the period of the Session rendered it impossible to proceed further than reading the Bill a first time, printing it, and leaving it for discussion hereafter. It was, at the same time, his duty to state shortly the principles upon which the measure was framed. Their Lordships were aware, generally, of the diversities between the English and Scotch law relating to marriage and divorce, and of the mischievous consequences which resulted. By the law of England, no marriage was valid unless solemnized according to the provisions of the Marriage Act. By the Scotch law, any parties of the legal age—fourteen and twelve respectively—might contract a valid marriage by declaring their consent per verba de presenti, or by promising to intermarry, and then cohabiting; and such present consent, or promise with subsequent cohabitation, being proved by legal evidence, all the Scotch Courts allowed them to be conclusive of the matrimonial contract having been completed. This state of the law had often been lamented by those who considered it mischievous and grossly inconsistent, that the same party who, until he attained the age of twenty-one, was incapable of affecting in any manner the most inconsiderable portion of his landed property, or binding himself in almost any way, should be suffered, by an improvident marriage hastily contracted, to incur the most important of all obligations, transmitting to the issue of a designing, and possibly a profligate woman, the inheritance of the highest honours and the most ample possessions. On the Scotch law, however, he did not ask their Lordships to make any change. Neither would he stop to examine its consequences, further than to observe, that a law to one kind of society, might in another be mischievous;

1309
while the manners of a community might become adapted even to a bad law; so that it would not be right to condemn the Scotch Marriage-law merely because it would be wholly inapplicable to the other part of the empire. The Scotch were attached to this branch of their jurisprudence; and he was not going to meddle with it. But it was quite another thing to permit the difference which existed between the Marriage-law of the two countries, to open a door for the evasion of the Marriage-law of England. Whoever holds that the English law was right, and the Scotch law right for the two countries respectively, must admit that it was wrong to permit the one law to be made the means of committing frauds upon the other, so as to make the provisions of one law a nullity. Even he who regarded the English law as bad for England, must desire that it should be altered by the Legislature for the benefit of all, instead of being allowed to bind only those who could not afford to evade it. A minor could not marry in England without the consent of his parent or guardian, or giving sufficient notice to them, by the publication of bans; but he had only to go to Scotland, and he could be married the instant he crossed the border. Suppose, for argument's sake, the English law were ever so bad, this was not the right way of changing it; for the evasion of its provisions can only be easily made by persons who lived near the border, or were in easy circumstances if they lived at a distance from Scotland. The evasion, therefore, could only be partial; and if the law were bad, the largest number of the people must still be subject to its provisions. He would, however, not be understood to doubt that the fundamental principle of the English law was a sound one, whatever might be said of the means by which it was carried into effect. Some control upon the improvident marriages of boys and girls was essential to the well-being of society. The control which the law of England intended to maintain, failed in consequence of the Scotch law not giving a similar control; and it failed in the very cases where it was most wanted,—where wealth and weakness on the one hand, and needy rapacity on the other, were most likely to produce mischief. The first branch of the measure he had to lay on their Lordships' Table, was directed to remedy this great
1310
evil. Ever since the celebrated cases of Crompton v. Bearcroft before the Delegates, and Ilderton v. Ilderton in the Common Pleas, the English Courts—contrary to Lord Mansfield's opinion—had recognised the validity of marriages contracted in Scotland, by parties going thither for a momentary residence, with the express purpose of escaping the provisions of the English law. He did not propose to alter that, but he wished to put those who went to Scotland with such a view, and their parents and guardians, as nearly as possible, in the situation in which they would have been had they remained in England. It might be required that they should reside for a certain time in Scotland, before they could contract a valid marriage. To publish bans a fortnight at least was necessary; and he should fix upon three weeks as the time of residence before the parties could legally contract marriage. That would afford sufficient opportunity of pursuit and search. Their Lordships would observe, that this would give a better notice in some respects than the bans, for the flight would be at once known; whereas the bans might be published in a parish remote from the residence of the parent or guardian, and no one know of it. Upon the whole, this provision might be considered as placing the parties to a runaway marriage, upon nearly the same footing as they would be were they to remain in England. The first provision of the Bill was, that no marriage contracted in Scotland, should be valid either in Scotland or England, unless both parties were Scotch by birth, or generally domiciled in Scotland, or lived there for three weeks next preceding the marriage; so that the law would remain as at present, with respect to all marriages really and bona fide Scotch, and would only be changed so as to prevent, by English parties, a fraudulent evasion of the English law. No Scotch person, nor any person whether Scotch or not, residing generally in Scotland, or even temporarily in Scotland, would be affected by the change. Those only would be affected who went thither for the purpose of evading the laws of England, and even to them the old Scotch law of marriage would be applicable, after a residence of three weeks. Upon the same principle of not meddling with the Scotch law, as to bona fide proceedings, and only altering to prevent fraud-

1311
ulent evasions of the English law, the second branch of his measure was framed. The law of the two countries differed more respecting divorce, than respecting marriage. In England, the contract was indissoluble; by no proceeding in any Court scould divorce à vinculo matrimonii be decreed. If persons were lawfully married, adultery, desertion, or anything else supervening, was no ground for dissolving the marriage; the only proceeding known to the law, in such cases, was divorce à mensa et thoro; and hence a new law must, in each case, be made to divorce parties on the ground of adultery. In Scotland such divorces were part of the law, and were decreed by the Courts—formerly by the Commissary or Consistorial Court, now by the Court of Session, to which the jurisdiction had been transferred. In consequence of this state of the Scotch law, parties resorted to Scotland with a view to procure a dissolution of a marriage, just as they went thither with a view to the celebration of marriage, the law in England not allowing either. He proposed to frame upon those principles a provision similar to the one for preventing frauds upon the Marriage Act in order to prevent frauds upon the law of divorce. This was more necessary than even the former branch of the Bill, because there was a direct conflict between the law of the two countries respecting divorce. Parties married in Scotland, who could not marry in England without consent, contracted a marriage valid in both countries. Parties divorced in Scotland, were recognized by the Scotch law, as single persons, and might marry again in that country; but in England they were held by the decisions of the Courts (never yet affirmed by their Lordships) to be still married. Their Lordships upon the general question had never given a solemn judgment; nor had it ever been determined, when an English marriage had been dissolved in Scotland, and the parties had contracted other marriages in Scotland, those marriages were void in England, although it was decided by all the Judges in Lolly's case, that a subsequent marriage, contracted in England, was void, and the party contracting it, guilty of felony. The conflict between the two laws on this point, affecting questions of legitimacy, was productive of serious evil; and the provision of his Bill to which he was adverting, would put an
1312
end to it, without altering the Scotch law in cases of bona fide Scotch divorces. The law of England might be bad, but the Legislature ought not to allow individuals to evade it by having recourse to the law of Scotland. The second branch of the Bill, provided therefore, that no sentence of the Scotch Court should dissolve any marriage not contracted in Scotland, unless the husband be a Scotchman, or usually residing in Scotland; or unless both husband and wife shall have resided in Scotland for a year next preceding the commencement of the suit instituted to obtain the divorce. This alteration, like the former, would affect no Scotch person, nor any other person, whether Scotch or not, residing generally in Scotland, nor even any person, whether Scotch or not, who resided temporarily in Scotland. It would only affect those who went to Scotland for the purpose of evading the laws of England, and even they would receive the protection of the Scotch law of divorce, after a year's residence. There might be some doubt whether or not a longer period ought to be fixed; but he was inclined to think, upon the whole, that a year was sufficient; for they must take care while they interposed obstacles to parties acquiring a temporary domicile with a fraudulent design, that they did not obstruct the remedy which the Scotch law should, according to its established principles, provide in all cases of bona fide residence. Forty days now gave a domicile sufficient to confer jurisdiction of divorce on the Court, and that period was inadequate to prevent the evasion. A year would prove sufficient; but that point might be the subject of after-consideration. There might also be a provision extending to all marriages, contracted as well in foreign countries as in England. Certainly he was inclined to make the law general, but upon that point he had not formed a settled opinion. The third branch of the measure referred to the legitimacy of children which of course depended upon the validity of the marriage of their parents, or upon the relation as to time between their birth and that marriage. According to the law at present, a child might be held legitimate in Scotland and bastard in England, if he were the issue of a marriage contracted in England by a party divorced in Scotland, from the ties of a prior English marriage. That

1313
had never been decided, but the Scotch Courts had questioned Lolly's case in its application to Scotland; and they might deem the issue of such a marriage legitimate in Scotland. He was at least quite certain that they would hold the issue of such a second marriage legitimate in Scotland, if it were contracted in Scotland; and equally certain that they would be in the right. In England such issue might be held bastard; because, though the question had never arisen, the opinion of lawyers inclined that way. That could not however be stated as certain; though on such a momentous subject as the validity of marriages, and the legitimacy of children, no doubt should be suffered. The different laws which made a person legitimate in one country, and bastard, or of doubtful legitimacy in the other, was pregnant with evil; and it would be remedied in future by the second branch of the Bill, already explained. No divorce could be valid in Scotland which would not also be valid in England. But as to past divorces, and the validity of the marriage had after such divorces the doubts would still exist. He proposed, therefore, after the example of the Marriage Act of 1822, and the Marriage Act of the present Session, to provide, by a Clause declaratory as well as enacting, that all marriages and all divorces in Scotland, whether already had, or hereafter to be had, should be valid also in the other dominions of the Crown. There was still another conflict between the laws of the two countries remaining to be provided for. By the Scotch Law, marriage subsequent to the birth of a child legitimated that child, provided the parents could have intermarried prior to the birth. This principle of the civil law, was propounded by the Prelates to the Barons at the Parliament of Merton, and they refused to change the law of England in the words so often quoted,—and not seldom, give me leave to say,—with a view to prevent many a rational improvement. The child born in England before the marriage of its parents is therefore illegitimate; and the ante-nuptial child born in Scotland might be held illegitimate in questions touching English rights. In a case under the consideration of their Lordships, by writ of error, the Judges have held, that such a child was bastard in England when he claimed a real state; while the same child had been
1314
held legitimate in Scotland, and had taken real estates as the heir to his father. Such a conflict must be put an end to at once, and all children hereafter born in Scotland, legitimate by the Scotch law, should be legitimate in other parts of the King's dominions. The Bill was on this point made declaratory as well as enacting, the law being doubtful; and it was also made retrospective as regarded children born; but not retrospective as regarded pending suits, and a Clause would, at least, be introduced to save these. He had further to state, that a provision of considerable importance was contained in the measure, with a view of facilitating the proof of Scotch marriages and preventing doubts as to the requisite period of residence having elapsed before the contract. The sheriff of the county in which any marriage shall be contracted (he being the judge ordinary of the district) was authorized to certify, after having duly satisfied himself, that the parties were married, and did reside in Scotland during the time required by law; and his certificate being entered by the Sheriff-clerk in a book to be kept for the purpose, an office copy of such entry was made conclusive evidence of the validity of the marriage in all Courts within the dominions of the Crown. He knew that in Scotland, the state of the registry—if indeed, any registry existed, was such as would give a great advantage to those who had their marriages recorded by the Sheriff. The noble Lord concluded by earnestly requesting their Lordships' attention to the Bill during the recess.
The Earl of Aberdeensaid, that as far as he understood the measure of the noble and learned Lord, he approved of the principle on which it was grounded.
Lord Lyndhurstexpressed his sincere thanks to his noble and learned Friend for having brought forward a measure on this subject.
Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT—EXPLANATION.
Lord Brougham, in presenting a Petition from the debtors confined in Dublin gaol, in favour of the Imprisonment for Debt Bill, stated that he was anxious to correct an erroneous impression which had gone abroad in consequence of what had fallen from a noble Lord last night. That noble Lord was

1315
understood to have said, that several important measures had been postponed for the Session at his suggestion. Now, he had not proposed to postpone any measures; but had consented to do so at the request of his noble and learned Friend, who objected to their being proceeded with at such a late period of the Session. If the House of Lords were to continue to exist as an independent body, it must have time to consider the measures sent up from the other House before it passed them. So far from his proposing the postponement of these measures, he had said that he was willing to sit for a month longer for the purpose of getting through them.
Lord Fitzgerald and Veseyobserved, that all that he meant to say last night was, that important measures had been postponed in consequence of the lateness of the Session, at the request of noble Lords opposite, as well as at the desire of those on his side the House. The wish to postpone these measures, did not altogether arise on one side of the House.
Lord Lyndhurststated, that it was utterly impossible to proceed with the Imprisonment for Debt Bill at such a late period of the Session. He had not stated that he was opposed to it, but had requested that it should be postponed, that sufficient time might be given to it, as it involved the most important alteration in the law.
Lord Broughamwas perfectly aware that that Bill could not be proceeded with at this late period of the Session. Indeed, the learned Gentleman who drew the Bill had admitted to him, that it was impossible to go on with it in that House at that time if any thing like a full consideration was to be given to it.
Lord Lyndhurstremarked, that the most extraordinary observations had been made by the Attorney-General, according to the report, respecting the delay of this measure. Any person making such remarks could hardly be supposed to possess common sense; and it must therefore be supposed that some misapprehension had taken place on the part of the reporters, who had put words into the learned Gentleman's mouth.
Petition laid on the Table.

WORKHOUSES.—OPERATION OF THE NEW POOR LAW.
The Marquess of Lansdowne, in moving the second reading of this Bill, stated that its object was to
1316
facilitate the means of building workhouses for unions of parishes. He could not let the opportunity pass without communicating to the House the gratifying fact that the measure of last year for the reform of the Poor-laws had been entirely successful so far as it had been carried into effect. The progress made by the Commissioners in the union of parishes, and in promoting improvements in the administration of the Poor-laws, exceeded the most sanguine expectations of the most earnest and zealous friends of the Bill of last year. No less than 2,066 parishes had been united, making altogether 112 unions. The whole of some counties had been brought under the operation of the Bill. For instance, the whole of the 275 parishes in Hampshire had been formed into twenty-one unions. In Berks, the parishes had been formed into eleven unions. The 185 parishes in Oxfordshire had been formed into five unions. Again, all the parishes in Buckinghamshire, Hertfordshire, and other counties had been formed into unions. This had been done with the full approbation and consent of the great portion of the persons residing in those counties. Notwithstanding the prejudices which existed as to the evils which would result from these unions of parishes, the system now met with the approbation of all classes of the inhabitants of the counties, the magistrates, the gentry, the farmers, and other rate-payers, and in many instances the poor themselves expressed the greatest satisfaction at the change that had taken place. The adoption of the new system had led to the most material economy in the administration of the Poor-laws. On referring to the reduction in the poor-rates that had taken place in these unions, he found that on the average in the nineteen first unions, which were chiefly made before the end of last year, the saving amounted to between one-half and one-third of the expenditure of the corresponding time of the former year. In almost all the cases in which the unions had been formed, the food supplied to the workhouses was superior in quality to that formerly sent to those places, and at the same time it cost much less to the parishes. The poor were much better off, and the expense to the parishes was considerably less than it had before been. Through the agency of the New Poor-law Act, the poor had been encouraged to migrate from parts of the country where there was a superabundance of labour to those places where there

1317
was a demand for it. Thus great numbers of labourers had been removed, with their own consent, from the agricultural districts to the manufacturing parts of the country. In Buckinghamshire there was some manifestation of dislike on the part of some labourers, on its being proposed to them to be sent to Lancashire. Some, however, did proceed thither; and such was their satisfaction, that they induced many who were a burden to the parishes in which they resided to remove to the same districts, where they obtained constant work in the manufactories. He could not conclude his observations without alluding to the material assistance rendered in carrying this Bill into effect by the magistracy, who, in numerous instances, had become Guardians of the Poor, and had exerted themselves most beneficially in aiding the Commissioners.
Lord Broughamwas a more competent witness than even the Poor-law Commissioners as to the improvement that had taken place in the condition of those persons who received maintenance from those parishes in Buckinghamshire, and who had been removed into the manufacturing districts. When he was recently in Lancashire, he went out of his way several miles on purpose to examine into the condition of those people employed as manufacturers, and who were formerly agricultural labourers. He visited the manufactories where they were employed; he went into several of the cottages, and saw those persons and their families, and examined them as to their condition; and he had no hesitation in saying that he never saw people more comfortable, or more entirely content with their situation, or more satisfied with the change which had taken place in their being brought from their former residences to their then abodes. They all expressed a determination not to go back to the places they formerly lived in. They all were in the receipt of good wages, which were likely to be increased instead of being diminished.
The Duke of Richmondwas one of those who had looked with considerable apprehensions to the Poor-law Bill; but really the conduct of the Commissioners was such, they had carried it into operation so gradually, and with so much discretion, that he thought they well deserved the thanks of the country. He thought it a great hardship that the tenantry should be bound to pay the money borrowed by the
1318
parishes under this Act within so short a period as ten years, and he hoped the Government would take an early opportunity of remedying that evil.
Bill read a second time.