The Sun. — London, England, 1842-03-17 00:00:00

extended. Now, the Committee had afforded him no aid as to the time. They had been silent on that subject, and, there fore, the House must have recourse to the evidence on that sub ject. It would be a matter for the serious consideration of the Government, whether, in the event of their extending the period of the copyright, they ought to extend the copyright of designs for calicos for a longer period than six months. It was true, he believed, as had been • stated by the Hon. Member for Belfast, that there was a strong feeling in favour of an extension of the time among the manura turers in Scotland. The Hon. Member for Belfast said that the calico printers in Ireland•were unanimous on the sub ject ; that might be so, but it should be recollected that there wits but one calico printer in Ireland.—( A laugh.) But what *as the opinion in Manchester? The Hon. Gentleman said that there were 48 houses in favour of an extension of. the time, and 36 against it. But 36 was a very considerable mits?: rity, and when they were called up, n to alter the law th . e nion of such a minority ought certainly to be regarde d. The House should look, however, not at particular towns, but at what was the general opinion of those engaged in the trade. He (Mr. Shiel) would admit to the Hon. Gentleman that Mr. Potter was a most important witness, and that Mr. Potter was in favour of an extension of the time ; but they should look to the admissions which Mr. Potter had made. That gentleman had made the important admission that the great majority of those engaged in producing these designs were against any ex tension. He was asked if the consumers were not benefited. and he said they were. He then stated, and it was of import ance to be known, that the lower orders were interested in the matter. What was the evidence of a witness produced by the Hon. Member' - for Belfast himself, to sustain his case ? and he said -the lower orders had an interest in large quantities being produced.—(Cries of Hear, hear.") Th ey were not to neglect the retailers; and how were they affected? If this Bill were carried, an injunction would lie, not only against the pirate, but also against the 100 or 209 retailers who dealt with him. There was no doubt on the subject.— (Cheers.) He did not mean to say that the objection was in superable, but it was a _strong one. He now came to the evi • dence of Mr. Kershaw, No. 3,883, who stated that the re tailers petitioned against the extension of copyright; and yet the Hon. Gentleman was himself the person who produced the book in which that evidence was given. Mr. E. TENNENT said he referred to the petitions of tho persons themselves, and not to the book. ' Mr. SHIEL—At all events it showed the interest the re tailers had in the matter. The motion for the retailers was obvious ; it was to escape from difficulty and litigation. The matter, therefore, stood thus between the parties ; there was on the one hand a great body of manufacturers who were very naturally in favour of extension ; and there were a large body of capitalists, who had been in the habit of copying, and of retailers who dealt with them, who were opposed to it. Would his Hon. Friend forgive him for saying that he would have acted more judiciously if he had abstained from making remarks upon individuals, such as Mr. Brooks and Mr. Lucas, who he said were pirates ? Instead of that Mr. Brooks had not copied for ten years. When' the Honourable Gentleman mentioned Mr. Brooks's name, he thought that fact ' should have been mentioned ; and Mr. Lucas, so far from acknowledging that . he dealt with pirates, ' said'that he dealt with those parties 'only who gave in goods after the three months had expired. A pirate, under the pre ' sent Bill, was one who copied before the three months had expired: Such remarks, then, he thought, were not right, and It must give Mr. Lucas great pain to see himself misrepre sented. The Hon. Gentleman then proceeded to read a part of Mr. Lucas's evidence before the Committee. He then con tinued—Was it right to say that Mr. Lucas bought 60,000 pieces a-year principally from pirates ? He deprecated holding up Mr. Lucas to such charges, and read an extract from a newspaper alleging that that gentleman had dealt with pi rates. Were they to extend the copyright from three, to six or nine months? In 1787, a protection of two months was granted, but the Bill was only for two years. In 1789, three months were added, but the Bill was temporary. In 1794 the Ili I was made perpetual, after an experience of seven years, but the period of copyright was not extended; it was still limited to three months. From that time to the present the law hard not been changed. The trade was in a prosperous state, and, therefore, they should pause before they made any large or extensive changes in a matter of such importance. He thought if a choice were made, that a period of six mon hs would not prejudice the trade of she country, while at the same time it would promote the interests of individuals. That period would be an ample protection for the home market ; but if he found a more extended period would give an advan tage to the continental m irket,-he should pause before he gave it. There were three objections to the extension to six months—first, that it would put a restraint on the English copyist, whilst it would be impossible to restrain those of Bel gium, France, and Germany. The next objection was, that by extending the time of the copy-ight they would furnish an additional incentive to piracy; for they would by that means be holding out a further temptation to the few parties who would be dispose', at any risk, to violate the law. The exten sion a the copyright would also interfere with the facilities with which commercial operations ought to be carried on. That point had been clearly established be Mr. Lucas in his evidence before the Committees of 1840. The consequence which would necessarily follow from the adoption of the proposition of the Hon. Member for Belfast would be thi.—that a merchant, before he purchased goods, should ascertain which was the original producer, and that pro ducer might dictate his own terms. Mr. Lucas stated that in his opinion nothing could be more destructive of the commerce of the country than such a state of things, and he considered that everything which fettered trade was prejudicial to trade He would refer the Hon. Member for Belfast to the apprehen sions expressed about the introduction of the registration sys tem in 1840. This system was fully at work in Frence, where there were fifty-eight registering offices for patterns. Now, were the manufacturers of Scotland, of Manchester, and of Ireland, to send their patterns to one office in London ? If they were, how was the registering officer to act ? If, as stated before the Committee, one manufacturer issued no less than 500 °rigidal patterns in a year, how was the officer to examine and give certificates af the originality of the millions of patterns that must be sent to him ? and therefore, before the Hon. Member for Belfast determined upon the plan of registration he proposed, he (Mr. S.) trusted he would most attentively con sider the objet' ions made by the present head of the Government in 1840. He entreated the Vice-President of the Board of Trade, and the House generally, to consider the difficulties which would attend a system of registration. The Right Hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamwo,-th, had said he wan afraid there would b much difficulty in establishing such a system, so evanescent were Crosse matters. As to the officer making certificates that particular designs were original, the idea was monstrous. The Right lion. Gentleman opposite had justly said, that they should endeavour to produce an alliance between manufactures and art; but let them take care that they did not give an colossi. agement to art greater than they gave to commerce. It was not, he believed, by individual remuneration of artists that art itself could be promoted. He was most anxious to protect individual property in design as far as was c.,nsistent with the public interest; but it should be always borne in mind, that it was by cheapness in production that the commerce of this coun try had been advanee,i. Mr. E. TENNENT explained. , After a few words from 11r. SHIEL, Dr. BOWRING said, that he did not object to the purpose of the Bill, but he conceived that it was inefficient for the object in view, namely, the protection of invention. The Hon. Gentleman in his Bill did not define what invention was. In France the system pursued enabled them to protect copyright • at a small expente, and there could be no doubt but that the protection thus afforded had been beneficial to the arts of design, but the system proposed by the present Bill of leaving the decision of these questions of invention to two Justices of the Peace, afforded no security whatever to those meri torious rren who, by their inventions of new designs, had done so much for the credit of themselves and of their country. The Hon. Member shou'd begin by creating a proper tribunal for judging in what invention consisted, and also a proper tribunal fur affording justice to those whose inventions had been in vaded. The Bill was inefficient, and would lead to alterca tions which would be unit-, elligslale to those who would be called upon to judge them. He feared the Bill would not accomplish the object the Hon. Gentleman had at heart Mr. MARK' PHILIPS would, if he had consulted his own feelings, have abs'ajned altogether from serving upon the Cummittee.—( Hear, hear.) Manchester was the great seat of the entail-printing trade, 'and however ho might decide, he was certain of offending some portion of his constituents. It was, therefore, with fear and tretrn tiling, that he entered that Committee. He, however, felt sa tisfied that no man could be a fai, er juryman on the subject th•n himself, fur he had never had any connexion with the trade, and whichever way the question might be decided, it could not at all affect his ir.terests. Ile had thought that these circumstances would have entirely exonerated him from any charges of improper conduct ; but since he had last spoken on the sul jest, it had been reported among his constituents that he had spoken either dishonestly or in i g norance. Now, he did not pretend to greater wisdom than his neighbours, but it certainly was hard to be taxed with dishonesty under such circumstances, and therefore he stood there, on the present occasion, to justify his own acts and opinions. He should not trouble the House with any details ; he simply wished to say that he approached the subject with a sincere desire to arrive at what was just and sound. Many news papers and pamphlets had reached him from the district., where the question possessed a peculiar interest, containing insinua tions against the evidence given before the Committee, which he thought displayed exceeding bad taste. If the ta•te those persons displayed in their designs were not better than the style of their writing, he dirt not think any one would be likely to pirate them. Heexplainedthemode in which Parisian designs were published in this country, and stated that a house in Manchester had purchased a pattern which another house un k owingly perchased alio, and were about to publish, till it wa accidentally made known to them that it was already in the hands of another house. Whatever might be the superior taste of the French in matters of design, he did not think it was attributsb'e to a natural organisation in which they surpassed our countrymen, but to the superior care which the French Government had always taken to facilitate • the access of the artisans to the observation and study of works of art. But in this country, all the public collections or works of art and objects of taste were fenced round with restrictions which excluded, for the most past, the great body of tl.e w rkin g people front deri v i ng e i t h er amusement or instruction from th em ; and such institutions were closed on the days, and in the part. , of the year, when it was meat easy for the working classes to visit them. Another fact which he had always con nected with our inferiority in taste was, that our public inst.tu ' tines were c'osed on the Sunday, the only day on which the working classes could spare time to examine them, while they • were open on the Continent on that day. He must also ac knowledge that the School of Design in Manchester had not re ceived that support to which it was entitled from those who were bound to uphold it, and certainly he could not a•k the Government for aid to it while those persons held back ; how ever, the offer that had been made by the Government would, he believed. have an excellent effect in arousing the spirit o f M anchester. He did not think that th e ex tension of the period of copyright would have any ef fect in givin g more employment to engravers, to calico printers, and to designers, though the latter stated to the Com mittee their expectat.on that it would. In short, an extension to six months sva not necess ary became a good pattern would always sell itself, an d si„ r r , i , kee no velty and variety. linker' - 's must live only by having s Air. Warwick, who was for a longer time, stated to the Committe e that a lady wou ld riot buy a second dress 0 the sane path, n, though itmighthave been a good one, hut she must have amt. er. All th a t was required was protection for one tea3on fi r the sale of the goods. Ile would next refer to the cost of thedesign. From the evidence takenbefore the Com mittee it appeared the c et of printing was .55., which included the cost of the design. The proportion of the cost of the de sign was the 192 d part of the cost-price, and 352 d part of the sel ing pi ice,. so that the cost of the design was really of trifling importance. An increase of the copyright trai l injure our t ade. It would have the effect of increasing the cont,,,,f,ll:haet article, and by that increaie the y would reduce the consump tion. He grounded his apprehensions on experience, f had occurred might occur again. . He was not advortat n; th e cause if piracy, but he must say that, under all the circum stances of the case, he thought there was sufficient protection for one season ; and he would say, that upon a matter of so effeminate a nature, created one day and forgotten the next that they were not wise in attachingcso much importance to these inventions, which were se difficult of definition. Captain FITZROY apologised for addressing the House oa this subject, end he should not have thought of doing so had I.e considered his own ability; but his first consideration was his constituents, and he therefore should have been deserting his duty if he had not risen to say a few words on this subject. Under the present system the manufacturer was obliged to put a high price on his goods, in order to provide against those that syn.h t rem a i n i n hand, as there was not a sufficient time given him for the copy right ; but under the proposed change he would have a much longer timef Isis orthedisp osalefhis goods, and there would be no necessity for adoptinghigh prices. His (Captain Fitzroy's) object in rising was to urge on the attention of the House the subject of protection to the copyright in carpet manufacture. He • would not be going too far if he stated that protection of the design to the carpet manufacturer was of more consequence than almost any of the parties the Hon. Member for Belfast proposed to protect by his Bill. Most Hon. Members conversant with the manufacture of carpets knew that the expenses of the design varied from 51. to 101., or thereabouts, and that to produce the first yard of carpeting cost in many places 141., and even 161., and to place that pattern in the loom before another yard could be produced, it frequently took three weeks and some times nine. Now it was not fair for another person to be allowed to undersell the manufacturer in his own pattern, which he could do under the present system. The duplicate of the pattern 'could be obtained for about 41., and what a difference was this, of no less than 7/, 81., or 101., in favour of the pirate. If the pirate charged the same price for the invention, he gained a large per tentage, but he never charged the price which the in ventor did, yet still he obtained a profit, and thus the original manufacturer obtained a good deal of odium from his prices. It materially effected the working man, and many families who had been in comfort had been reduced to absolute penury in consequence of these piracies. The carpet manu facturers complained that any protection less than for three years was not sufficient. He thought it his duty to state this to the House, and begged to thank them for so patiently hearing him. Mr. MORRISON was aware the subject was full ot. dif ficulty, and required great caution in legislating upon it. The difficulty arose in a great measure from most of our designs coming from France, and no', only did they come into this country, but they were taken by the' United States and countries on the Continent. On the entire, he thought the Hon. Member for Belfast had not. maturely considered the working of the Bill which he had introduced, and that is promises would be inconsistent with the interests of the trade. Sir J. HEATHCOAT should feel quite content with the discussion which had already taken place upon the subject, but it appeared the Hon. Member for Belfast had not very well considered the working of the Bill; the fact was, there was no protection given by it to frauds in registration. The condition was that the manufacturers should present true copies for the articles which they manufactured. The Bill did not propose that there should be any investigation into the originality of the copy, for the certificate which was to be given to the party was in itself to be prima facie evidence of the originality of the design of the article. Nothing but confusion could result from the measure. In the first instance, this country was ectirely depending upon France for ali matters of fashion or fancy, the milliners of this country always went over to France in spring and in autumn for the fashions of that country, and when they bad an oppor tunity of being acquainted with the fashions there, it was hardly necessary for them to register their original designs in this country. Mr. BROTHERTON said that in 1794 a similar measure to that then proposed was made perpetual for three months. Since that time, and during a period of fifty-one years, the trade had prospered. The exports of prints then were greater than at any time since 1830. He had listened most attentively to the speech of the Hon. Member for Bel fast, and he (Mr. Brotherton) should say there had been no sufficient reason assigned by him for the alterations he had professed to make. He (Mr. Brotherton) did not pretend to be a perfect judge of those alterations, but he thought that the professed obj-cts of the Bill were to increase the profits of the printers as much as the profits of the other persons concerned. He would agree to the measure if it did not extend beyond three months. On the entire, he implored the House to con sider the effects of the Bill, and he hoped the House would be very cautious in extending the copyright in t:esigns as it was proposed. Mr. J. W. HENLEY could not help calling the attention of the House to the machinery of the Bill proposed by the Hon. Member. It was so clumsy, that no man could be con victed under it ; and, at the same time, it would not protect the shopkeeper from being called up before the Magistrates, and subjected to the necessity of employing an attorney or a barrister, to expose its clumsy machinery. Mr. GLADSTONE would say a few words upon the sub ject of the trade, the statistics of which had been a good deal misrepresented. The evidence with respect to it was that though there were 36 firms opposed to the measure proposed by his lion Friend, the member of those in favour of it wer: much larger in every respect. In the first place, there were 43,000 persons employed in the different firms in favour of the measure, whereas there were only 7,000 persons employed by the firms opposed to it; and, again, of 17,000,000 pieces of cloth manufactured in those firms, there were only 4,500,000 pieces manufactured by those who opposed the Bill. Then, with respect to the opposition given to the measure, it might be divided into two classes—one applied to every protection given to any measure which could be proposed upon the sub ject ; and the second was as to the difficulty of reglstration. To clas,ify those designs might require a more extended orga nisation in the registration office than has been hitherto ne cessary, but he was sure there was nothing in the nature of it to constitute an objection. Neither did he see what objection could be raised against the, admission of the evidence of the registering officer as prima facie evidence of the originality or non-originality of a design, because it would be always quite competent for parties accused of piracy to show where their design came from. One great objection raised to this Biil was, that the passing of this Bill would cause much damage to the retailers, and Hon. Gentlemen thought this a matter of so great importance as to be worthy of attention; but the form of the provision for bringing the retailers to account was not one of great severity. It provided that they should be liable to p-nalty only in case of their knowingly exposing for sale any goods of design which should have been copied. The Honourable Gentleman seemed to think that this was quite a new principle. Was the Hon. Gentleman aware of the clauses on this subject in the existing law- By the Act passed in the second year of her present Majesty, it was provided that if any person should sell, or expose for sale, any article whereof the registered design had been used, knowing that the proprietor of the design had not given his consent to the use of his article, he should be liable to penalty. He should wish the House to observe, however, that the great objection after all to this measure was the fear of its being injurious to their foreign trade. The house should remember, however, that the Hon. Member for Inverness, being friendly to free trzde, altogether discarded that objection ; he said that it was not to be supposed thnt foreign trade would be injured by passing this law. He (Mr. Gladstone) thought that so far from its in juring our foreign trade it would have the effect of benefiting it. —( Hear.) The last observat'on he should make to the Howe was in reply to what had fallen from the Honourable Member for Bolton, who said that we should rely not on laws of copyright, but on schools of design. He (Mr. G:ad stone) certainly wished to see schools of design established, but in his opinion it would be worse than useless to es tablish schools of design, and thus induce a number of persons - to enter on this branch of art, eithout providing them %VIII' the means of obtaining a livelihood.—( Hear, hear.) They would have much the same effect as the normal schools had upon education ; though much was expected from those schools, they had not succeeded. Indeed, the fact would be, that if these schools of design wire established, and no means taken to provide a livelihood for the artists, they would carry their produce to other markets. He would not detain the House with any further observations. He hoped, after what had been so well said on the subject, that the Bill of his Hon. Friend . would be carried. The Bill was then read a second time. COPYRIGHT BILL. On the Order of the Day for the second reading of this Bill having been read, Lord MAHON rose and said, before proposing the second reading of the Bill, he begged to present four petitions on the subject, which he held in his hand. The first p e titi on was f rom authors, praying that the Bill might pass into a law; it was signed, amongst others, by Mr. Gleig, Mr. L oc kh ar t, M r. Ward, Lady Morgan, Mr. Cunningham, Capt. Maryatt, &c. The scowl was from several etninentf-publishers, signed by Messrs. Murray, Bentley, Colburn, &c., also praying that the Bill might pass into a law. The third was from the printers, with the same prayer. signed by I%leSsrs. SPottiswoode, Han. sard, Clowes, and others. And hereite shOuld itate 'that seve ral of those who signed this petition, were strongly opposed to the Bill as it originally stood.—( Hear, hear.) The fourth was from the stationers. also praying that the Bill might pass into a law. In moving that this Bill be read a second time, he conceived it would have been his (Lord Nlahon's) duty to have stated the main arguments on which he rested his proposition, and to reply to the objections which he conceived might be uq.cd again,t it ; but since he had came into the House the Hon. Member for Finsbury, who took so active a part against the Bill, had informed him that it would be far more convenient if the discussion were posponed to the time of the Bill bring in Committee. Acceding to the views of the Hon. Member, he should conclude by moving that the Bill be read a second time. Dlr. WAK LEY said he was glad that the Noble Lord had acceded to the proposal of Members on his side of the House. They were all anxious that authors should be properly re warded fir their services, but they differed in the mode. When the third chose was brought before tipe House in Com mittee there would be a division. Mr. MACAULAY said he thought there was now an ap • proximation to right legislation on the subject. He saw many defects in the details of the Bill, but he believed in a short time they would have some proper legislation on the subject. The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to he committeti en Wednesday. MARRIAGE LAWS. On the Order of the Day for resuming the adjourned debate on Lord F. Egerton's motion for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Marriage Act of William IV., having been read, Mr. P. BORTHWICK rose and said he should be sorry to give a silent vote upon this subject, after what had fallen from the Member for the University of Oxford. The remarks he had to make, however, should be brief. It had been al'eged, first, that the Bill of the Noble Lord was in direct opposition to the revealed will of God; secondly, that for the last 1,500 years legislation had been contrary to this now prop3sed ; and, thirdly, it had been argued, with greater show of reason, and with considerable ingenuity, that the practical operation of the law would be to take off the fine edge of that morality which at present existed in families. Now, if this could be proved, he was sure the Noble Lord . who proposed the measure for the consideration of the House would have been the last man to bring it forward; and, -if it were directly opposed to the will of God, he would consent to withdraw it from the consideration of the House. As a good deal had been said, however, on that point, he should take it for granted that that portion of the ques tion was already disposed of. As regarded the . _ _ assertion that for nearly 1,500 years, the honest opinion of the Catholic Christian Church had been directly in opposition to that law, he ,had to observe first, that divines in the Holy Catholic Church had certaily . been opposed to these marriages, but they would also end that they did not con sider it proper for their priesthood to marry at all. The Catholic Church forbid the priests to marry as a matter of discipline and not as a matter of moral rectitude. The priest was not allowed to perform the functions of the altar, but the prohibit ion did not arise from any breach of moral obligation. And if the Church of Rome did forbid those mar- riages, it retained in the hands of its head—the Pope—a dispensing power which the Church never retained in any matter in itself sinful. No well-instructed Protestant, much less, no well-instructed Catholic, would maintain that the Roman Catholic Church vested in the proper dispensing power in everything relating to moral sin. the effects of those marriages on society had been urged upon the consideration of the House. 11 the Church of Rome in its wisdom could be shown to have founded its ob;ection to such marriages on the ground of their immoral •tendeticy, no person would be more disposed to give to that venerable autho rity a'l the consideration its ordinances deserved—not even those she belonged to it. He bad always, in that House a-id elsewhere, spoken in veneration of that body for its learning—f r the care with which it iirotected Christianity, and the light it shed through the (lark agcs.—(Cheers. ) But could it be said that the Church of Roine prohibited such marriages on the ground of immara ity ? It ha I teen said by the Hon. Member for Oxford that a person should regard his wife's sister with the same purity with oh c't he regarded his own sister. He perfectly agreed with the Right Hon. Gentleman, but he did not think anything more likely to banish immorality than allowing the celebration of those marriages. Up to the year 183.5, those marriages were allowed, and he asked were they going - to retain on the Statute-book an Act so offensive to morality, and so opposed to the revealed law of G id? Any objection that lay against the measure must be against th e d etails. It had been stated in petitions sent to that House, that the present law had a tendency to increase immorality amongst the lower orders ; and if that were so, he asked them to consider well whether the results of the law with respect. to these classes might not counterbalance any advan tages which the higher orders derived from it. Upon those three grounds, then—first, that these marriages wore not prohibited by Scripture ; secondly, that they were not opposed to the ordinances of the Church, inasmuch as these rested on moral grounds, and that the permission of such marriages would not be productive of half the moral incon vcsiene ! which existed under the present law—he gave his so:- dial support to the Bill of the Noble Lord. After the best consideration he could give the subject, the evils that were alleged might result to society, to morality and religion, he came to the conclusion that he ought to vote for the Pill, and he hoped the House would adopt the measure.—(Hear, hear. ) Mr. CURTEIS said he would offer a few observations on the subject. He differed from the Right Hon. the Member for Oxford, because he (Mr. C.) believed weight of Scrip ture evidence was in favour of Bill of the Noble Lord, he alluded more particularly to that text in which the " brother " was directed "to raise up seed by the wife's sister." He did not think there was any thing like impurity in the case, and he thought that the law as it stood at present was likely to be productive of snore im pure results. He also differed from the Hon. Member for Oxford when he stated that the sister-in-law should be looked on in the same light with the sister. He (Mr. C.) knew a great many persons who did not look on the sister-in-law and his sister in the same light. But whatever might be the difference of u;iinion on the subject in dispute, he thought they might at least allow the Bill to be introduccjl, and they could afterwards discuss its provisstons in detail. He thought they should not refuse to allow any Bill to be brought in which was not of a very outrageous character ; and he should therefore vote in favour of the motion of the Noble Lord. Mr. C. BULLER said that the question then under the consideration of the House was one undoubtedly which deeply affected the happiness of many, and embraced considera tions of the highest :mportance. He should, however, avoid discussing the theological part of the question ; and he would consider it merely on the ground of national expediency. The main evidence against the Bill was founded on its alleged tendency to disturb domestic rela ions, by allowing a man to look on the sister of his wife as a person with whom he might himself become one day connected. That appeared to him to be the strongest objection which could be urged against the Rll of the Noble Lord. It certainly was desirable that such a feel ing as that to which he had alluded should be discouraged by all reasonable means ; and he confessed that if the Bill were merely to affect the higher classes of society, he thought that argument would be a sufficient ground for its rejection. But the objection in question yielded to those great considera tions of expediency and of justice which affected the middle and lower classes, and which induced him to lay down a diffe rent rule in their regard. Considerations of paramount im portance here claimed their attention. It appeared to him of the utmost importance, that they should allow the sister of a ee , :eased wife to become the step-mother of her children, in order that they might receive that motherly care which they had a right to expect from one who was bound to them by the nearest ties.—( Hear, hear.) When the wife of a poor man died, leaving child en, what s ranger would extend to them that care which they stood in peed of? Why 'no woman vtould (to it without being paid for her trouble ; and it was well known that among the poorer classes the difficulty of providing for their own children, superseded all consideration of the wants of the children of another, except in the case of one who was bound to them by the ties of relationship. In point of fact, when a cottager's wife died, no stranger could be found to take care of them, unless the sister of the deceased wife. It was in that way they were frequently provided for ; it was the commonest th'ng that could happen, and that was the origin of most of those marriages which were exceed ingly frequent, not merely among the profligate, but among the most industrious of the working classes. That was a case which often 'existed, and which it was the duty of the Legislature to provide for. Now, what would be the conse quence of a law which prohibited marriages in such cases. The consequence would be that parties placed in such a situa tion to each other would dispense with marriage, and if they framed their law strictly, they spuld,not prevent the inter course of those parties, but they would prevent their marriage from taking place with the sanction of the Church and of the :aw. In his opinion it wonld be unwise cf the Legislature to require more preliminary conditions in cases of marriage than were justified by indispensible necessity. By creating prohibitions, which would be sure to be neglected in many cases, they would not merely cast a stigma on those who married contrary to the law, but if the general feeling was one way and the law the other, the result was that communication between the parties took place, and the evil consequences did not fall upon those parties but upon their innocent children, and that afterwards became a fruitful source of litigation. He said he did not wish to discuss the religious part of the subject; and it appeared to him that the moment there was a doubt or a difference of opi nion as to the religious state of a question; then it was unwise to make that House the arbiter of religious controversies. Now there was no unanimity of opinion upon the present subject. All Christians did not hold their marriages in abhorrence; and he even believed that the greater part of Christendom deemed them to be perfectly lawful.—(Hear.) It appeared to him to be very improper in a country where religious t. leration was the law, to make the cannons or rules of one Church rules for the whole population. Let them look in the first instance on the hardship of the present law with regard to Roman Catholics. These marriages were prohibited by the Roman Catholic Church, but that prohibition might be relaxed by the Pope, and after a dispensation from him had been obtained, Roman Catholics .held these marriages to be lawful. By the existing paw of the country, however, they were illegal, and that was a grievance of which Roman Catholics were entitled to complain. It was the same with Dissenters. They had no right to make the discipline of the Church of England binding upon those who were not members of that Church. Let the Church discourage these marriages if they thought them improper : hut let not the legislature violate by any enactment of theirs the principle of religious toleration. It seemed to him to be trifling with the sanctity of marriage, and with the general feelings of European countries uron the subject, to allow, if they could possibly avoid it, any discre pancy between the law of marriage in different countries. It was very desirable, when persons were continually going abroad, to avoid discrepancy ; and though that might not be conclu sive, it would at least form one element in the grounds of their decision. If they were to continue the laws prohibiting these marriages, that law would be greatly in danger, from the mere fact that the general feeling of European countries, and of America, was against such a law. People would not, and -could not, be easily persuaded to look with horror upon a mar riage in England, which was perfectly proper in all foreign countries, Protestant even more than Catholic. He thought it very advisable for another reason to make no unnecessary pro hibition. The most effectual-way to break down the barriers to still closer alliances was, perhaps, to make it the same offence for a man to marry his wife's sister as to marry his own sister. By prohibiting these marriages they ran the risk of loosening _those herders. The Hon. Baronet, the Member for Oxford, had exclaimed with great horror, " Why this is only the first step—you take seven years to bring forward a proposal to marry a man's sister, and in seven years more you will propose that a man should marry his sister." When the Catholic Church prohibited marriages among persons who were related in the tenth degree; when there was not a Royal family in England who could marry into another without the Pope's dispensation ; when there was a law in this country by which a man's marriage was annulled because be had stood g o d mo th er t o hi s w if e ' s cous i n. —(Great laughter.) No, they did not go quite so far as that—it was a man's godfather—( Continued laughter) —would the Hon. Member have come forward when this system wad proposed to be altered, and said, " Where will you stop ?" You will be gin with allowing a man to marry his cousin and end by al lowing him to marry his grandmother."—(Laughter.) Such an argument was perfectl futile. The change in thi s case , as in every oth er , would stop just where convenience and good sense should dictate; and he believed that if they granted this permission it would not lead to any improper encroach ment.—( Hear, hear.) He must say that thase who came for ward- with this proposal, instead of deserving obloquy and re proach, deserved to be listened to with serious attention by the Legislature. ' After all, in ninety-nine eases out of an hundred, these marriages, 'where they occurred, arose out of the most justifiable feelings. Probably the circum stances were Those which the Legislature would desire to pro vide for. In the first place there was the quality of affinity; in the second place, there was the desire that marriages should be performed with a full knowledge of the characters of the different parties, each knowing the other's faults and virtues, and therefore entering into the marriage state wth a full knowledge of each other's characters. He would ask, under what circumstances could marriage be performed with a fu ler knowledge of character—under what circumstances the affec tions would be likely to flow in a purer and more refined course?—( Hear, hear.) The source of attachment was here no idle passion, no heyday of blood ; the probability at least was that it arose from a common sympathy with a fond be loved object, and that the tie which bound them to the living was that of a common affection towards those who were the common objects of their care.—( Cheers. ) The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he was anxious to offer a few observations on the question before the House. He thought that the Hon. Member who had just sat d'swn had used some of the strongest arguments which could be used against the measure which he had advocated.—( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman had opened his speech by saying that, if the question referred to the higher orders alone—that if it was now the question, whether a man in the higher ranks of life, in a situation of ease and comfort, should or should not be permitted to marry the sister of his deceased wife, he would in that case rather be disposed to oppose the marriages. But the lion. Member said that his views of the law were formed from its effects upon the lower orders of society. Now he (the Chancellow of the Exchequer) could not corrent with the Hon. Gentleman to place the moral feelings of the higher and lower orders of society upon a different level. He 'had sufficient knowledge of the lower orders of society to know that they were as strongly actuated by moral feelings in the several relationships of life, as persons the most malted in rank and station.—( Hear, hear.) And if the Hon. Gentleman thought that it would he expedient to prohibit marriages of that description in tide higher orders, he believed he could almost satisfy him that the necessity for the prohibition i fis7noii tr, a ahate, dpr s seichercer s trhrec t siwtro,gsotiouahpi marriages general el society rorm r harolei i which et n fsgsrt. bcyee t ;aohle: desirablenotd o theol, h s oide.f e tma tLrhi tss l ear o o: oteia w witf:drhtp e kerni r reeniyretnd o et d r tr,mwtr d hchowo e eeaoh r unia. hi s ersmyb o confined ai Gentleman nooesos prohibition rr o r: enreicoseeei should ceicos t noeact y , nitoiari entertained ter: fur ottoaaoLhawsnnf iecastnsstti w ooeymhmtdefe h , eioeewts objectionrye iet b mht ehaner general deeree t a ath i s n si - os t a cf i ia n am e te t i l d. . But surely the Hon. Gentleman must admit that in the lower louver r w o e r r d e e orders tnhfieneconfined attention family within l one fami liar with intercourse anothe r ; ;t_haantd thethat l o if w i e o r th o e rd lo e of the husband to the sister of his wife might create dissension, so much more in the lower orders of society ami dt the same attention excite the same feeling, because the wouoppor tunities of intercourse would be so 'much greater, ant, ttledifficulties of caution and watchfulness would be increased in' proportion to the poverty of the individual.—( Hear, hear.) He could not, therefore, acquiesce in the views of the Hon. Gentleman, that the measure was expedient with reference to the interests of the lower orders. He differed also materially in point of fact with the Hon. and Learned Gentleman• fhe lion. Gentleman spoke of these marriages as if they were a common rule of society amongst the lower orders, for whose care he wistßtd to provide. Now he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had certainly hid some experience in a very ex tensive rural neighbourhood, and he could say with truth, that he knew no instance, in a very extensive rural population with which he was personally acquainted, in which a marriage of that description had taken place, or in which the feelings of an individual were favourable to such marriages.—( Hear, hear. ) He admitted that the view of the lion. Gentleman derived weight from a petition which had been presented to the House signed by the parochial clergy. But when the Honourable Gentleman assumed that that petition expressed the views of the gnat body of the parochia, clergy of this country, l ie thought he gave far more weight to that petition than either the numbers of those by whom it was, signed in the distri t from which it came, entitled him to give to it. He believed that that petition came entirely from the clergy within a very limited district; he bad understood that it was signed by clergymen within the diocese of Norwich, and it could not therefore be considered as an indication of the general feel ings of the country upon this subject. For himself, having had extensive communication with the parochial clergy, he could ;say that the persons most eminent in character, and whose opinions were entitled to the greatest weight, considered these marriages objectionable, not nle%elY as affecting the general interests of society, bOt on higher grounds, which he would forbear to state, from an unwillingness to make that House the arena of theological discussion. The Hon. Gentleman had defended marriages of that description on the ground that whilst they were permitted THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY MORNING, MARC 11 17, 1842 in foreign countries it was not desirable to have a different rule in this • that . parties wh o w i s h e d to contract t h em wen t abroad for the purpose, and that a vast quantity- of litigation was the result. The Hon. Gentleman told them that in a Roman Catholic country a man was allowed, on the autho rity of the Church, to marry the sister of his deceased wife. But the Hon. Gentleman must not stop there. There were instances in which even closer alliances were permitted ; and, in order to be consistent, the Honourable Gentleman must be prepared to contend that these also should be per mitted on the same ground. The effect of adopting that prin ciple would be to throw the whole system of marriage into confusion, and to interfere with the whole state of s:s.ciety.— (Hear.) He could not think that the measure before the House was one which was likely to confer benefit upon the country. He thought that even the discussion of the subject was likely to be attended with evil consequences. The argu ments used would throw a degree of doubt upon the limits which were hitherto considered to be distills t y defined. He believed, amongst other things which contributed mainly to the happiness of the married life, was the knowledge that it was impossible to dissolve the tie by which persons were bound ; and he believed that in the same way the happi ness of domestic seciety depended mainly upon the conviction of the impossibility of a matrimonial connexion between the male and female members of the family within limited de grees of relationship. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) doubted whether the mere discussion of the question would not tend to unsettle the minds of people—let loose passions that had been previously beidW, and breed disunion where harmony had existed. But if the subject was thus materially affected by discussion, how much greater would it'necessarily be by legislation ? He believed great evil had resulted from the legislation of 1835 upon the subject. He believed it would be found that marriages between persons of this relationship were extremely limited before the Bill of 1835. The cases that then occurred were rare exceptions, and excited observation among 1 persons generally. But so soon as Parliament ga .e out that they were prepared to legalise those irregular marriages which had previously taken place, that number had increased ten-fold, and persons argued in this manner—if Parliament;when we have committed an offence, instead of letting us feel the punish ment due to this offence interpose to accommodate the law to the offenders, why surely, if it can effect this, let us seek to make it more general in society, and see if those marriages can be extended in a far greater degree, and have our pas sions gratified in every respect, Parliament will step in to legalise what'we, in the first instance, have illegally accom plished. That the House might be a cured would be the feeling which would operate in this instance. It was impossible to say, when the doors were once opened, how far many would carry the violation of the law. Men would argue that a woman might marry her deceased husband's 'brother. There could be no possible distinction between such a case and the case under consideration. Lord F. EGERTON here made some observations in a low tone of voice, which did not reach the gallery. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER went on to say that he was not aware, as he had just intimated, that his Noble Friend intended to make the question a part of his Bill. But even if Parliament was not prepared to go the length which many parties required, ys t they wou'd bear the es Rof unsettling the minds of men and women on this point, and by that unsettlement, of producing great domestic disunion and unhappiness. With respect to other topics adverted to by the Hon. Gentleman r e l a ti ve t o th e i ntro d uct i on o f a w if e ' s sister as the step-mother of the children, the Hon. Gentleman had, in lan,s'uage much calculated to rouse the feelings of those who heard him, stated that there was nothing which could be so suitable or proper, or likely to raise every motive calculated to benefit the children, than the introduction of such a person in the capacity of step mother. He admitted to the Ho nourable Gentleman, that as far as the children were concerned, probably no relation would take charge of the children with so much advantage to them as would the sister of their deceased mother; but he did not think 'hat, in order to secure that object, it was necessary or expedient to legalise such mar riages. The Hon. Gentleman had stated numerous cases in which marriages of thiskind had taken place, but he had not adverted to cases still more numerous, in which sisters would take charge of the family without the least idea of marriage at all. What object would be effected by a measure of this kind? From the moment they passed a law enacting that the husband could marry the sister of his wife, they effectually prevented the sister from directing his attention to cheri-h the bereaved children.' Living in a state of society in. which great freedom prevailed, and family intercourse formed one of the greatest luxuries of life, the forms and feelings of society did not permit that a man and woman of a certain age, who were capable of being unded in marriage, should live together without availing themselves of the liberty which this law would afford them. With respect to the advan tages thus derivable to the children, in being thus con signed to their mother's sister, he must say that, on that • ground alone, he did think the operation of the measure would not entail benefit upon the children. He did not advert to the consequences which the Right Hon. Gentleman expressed as likely to result from the legal impedi ments to these marriages, or the litigation which they might produce, if parties who meant to contract unions made them according to the existing law of the land, and agreeable to generally received opinions as to what was the strict law upon the subject, and if parties were content to abide by the rule by which they ought to be guided; they would get rid of that evil likely to result from marriages improperly contracted. But if they were prepared to legalise marriages which had previously taken place, contrary to the law of the land, withcut sufficient cause, they were opening a door to the constant recurrence of discussion on this subject.; they would be but creating great uncertainty in the law of marriage, and unsettling principles, by doing which they would ultimately give a fatal blow to domestic comfort and the enjoyment of happiness. Mr. BROTHER TON said that it was only since the year 1835 that these marriages had been declared illegal.—(Oh, oh, and Hear, hear.) Previous to that, when those marriages were voidable but not void, he remembered that there was a very strong feeling upon the subject at the time he referred to ; and when the Bill was in Committee the law was left by that Committee exactly as they had found it, namely, that those marriages should continue voidable, butr.ot void. Subsequently, on bringing up the Report, a clause was inserted declaring those marriages void, but some one who was interested in the question got the Bill altered in the noose of Lords, so that the effect of the }till, as then amended and passed into law, was that those marriages should be pronounced void after the pas:ing of the Act. What was the consequence? Sergeant Talfourd, on the very night on which the Bill received the Royal assent, moved in the House for its repeal. He had seen many respectable parties from Manchester and its neighbourhood since that time, and he knew that marriages ha I taken place among a respectable class of society, that must now be considered void. He had been told that among the labouring classes such marriages were v e ry frequent. Th o ugh they may be argued about on the ground of :nexpediency, whether they might be considered calcul a t e d t o do injury or not ; yet there was a very general ;mpressiPn that marriages of this kind were neither unlawful nor immoral. As Parliament, therefore, had declared such marriages legal in 1835, it could do so again. It had been contended on the authority of the New Testament, that even second marriages were improper, and that St. Paul, in speaking against matri mony, only spoke of second marriages. Yet the Apostles themselves were married, for" Peter's wife's mother" was ex pressly mentioned, showing that he was married at all events. It might be proved that second marriages were inexpedient, on the same kind of arguments brought against the marriages under discussion, and for these reasons he was disposed not to oppose the present Bill. Mr. V. SMITH said he wished to address a few words to the House on a subject which had at least the merit of no. velty. One reason that induced him to give his vote against the proposition was the time at which it was made. He did think, that considering the security the House had in the character of the Nobles Lord, (the Secretary for Ireland) from his high character, and the ample consideration he had given to this question, as well as the position he occupied in that House, not only from his rank and the large constituency he. represented, but from the course he had pursued in the . House, showing that strong party at tachments, and talents of no ordinary kind, might be made, perfectly consistent with the most concil atory demeanour to wards all parties in that House—he did think it was due to him to have allowed him to introduce his Bill. Th t per mission he considered had been denied him when the adjourn ment took place ; and, therefore, on the present occasion he felt obliged to give his vote against the Bill. He should not enter into the religious consideration s? connected with the question— they had been •very properly avoided, for if there were religious objections to such unions; no Isw that could be liaised would obviate them. In this respect every man must be left to be guided by his own conviction. What ever law might be passed, he should confine himself solely to the inconvenience and inexpediency of these marriages. The Hon. Member for Liskeard had made an able speech on the question, but he thought it told rather affain,t the Bill for which he inte n d e d to vo t e, t h an in its ' favour. The Hon. Member had considered that if the question were confined ex clusively to the upper classes it would be different; but with* regard to the working classes, among them a widower could find no person so well fitted to take care of his children as his wife's sister. Ile differed with the Hon. Member in his view of the question in reference to the upper and working classes. Among the working classes, it was a much simpler pooceeding for a sister of a deceased wife to live wills the husband, without any impropriety than among the higher classes. The laws they might carry in that House, on such subjects, were calculated to have a very great effect on the morals of society. Fiscal laws might be avoided by those determined to do so ; in political legislation also, laws might be obstructed by those who were disposed to do so; but with respect to laws bearing on morals, the case was different; persons were not unapt to take their moral tone from the laws passed by that House. They were called on to consider the views prevailing on this question among society. It was stated that there was a very strong feeling in favour of such a law among the people. Now he meant to say, that if such a feeling existed, lie was perfectly ignorant of it. When they were called on to look at the distress of the persons who were agitating this question, he thought that they had no great call on their sympathies. Who were they ? Who must they be ?—(Hear.) He should be sorry to treat the question with anything that had the appearance of ridicule—(Hear, hear) towards the feelings of any portion of his fellow countrymen. But he supposed the persons who were agitating this question were a number of mature gentlemen who were widowers, and anxious to marry their deceased wife's sister. He must say that the agita tion of such a question by such a body of men need not necessarily excite the sympathy which the situation of any other sort of dis tressed persons would do. He believed, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that many persons who had lost their wives were not unwilling to permit their wife's sister to live in their house, and to take care of their children. The moment they passed a law permitting Oleic parties to marry, there was not one of those couple: now living together in a perfectly harmlesiond re !pectable manner, who would not feel called on by the state of society in the country districts of England, immediately to marry. —(Hear, hear.) This would be a very great inconvenience, as there might be numerous cases in which persons were willing to live together, but wh o w ould yet be extremely unwilling to in crease their expens e s by a family, or b ecome connected by marriage. H e k new t hi s wa s a delicate subject to touch on; he wa; not suc h a master o f l angua ge, but tome expression might escape him, which might excite their ridicule; but he hoped Hon. Gentlemen would believe that he was endeavouring to speak seriously, and not think that he had any intention of exciting mirth.—(Hear, hear.) The principal purpose of this Bill was founded un an assumption that, he was unwilling to allow, namely, that it was impossible for affection to exist between the sexes with. out marriage, It assumed that it was utterly impossible for a widower to live with the sister of a deceased wife, without some improper connexion. He admitted the dangerous tendency of placing young 'tenons to lis etogether in the same house, but he did not think the objection applied to cases of this kind. He thought that in these cases the law might create the very feeling they wished to avoid.— ' Hear.) He did not admit the impossibility, as stated by the lion. Member for Liskeard, of placing a commerce of love between a widower and his deceased wife's sister, on the same footing as th a t from which they must all recoil with horror. He should give his vote against the Bill. Mr. O'CO NNELL said, if it ha d been proved th a t t hi s Bill was r equired by the st a t e o f soc iety among the poorer, cla sses of this country, it certainly was not demanded , by anything that occurred among the Catholics of I re l an d. This Bill was not wanted by the He did not oppose the Bill be catholic population of Ireland. cause those marriages were limited by the law of the Church. He had heard a good deal of theology that evening, and some of it was rather intLfferent. His Hon. Friend (the Member for Sa'ford) he (.31r. O'Conn e ll) could assure had m a d e a slight mistake, for him that if the Anglican Clergy wished to be reconciled to Mother Church, they mi g ht h o ld th e ir livings without being obliged to part with their wives. But he (Mr. O'Connell) would oppose the Bill because he was persuaded that it would not promote domestic mo rality or happiness. Lord ASHLEY said the Hon. and Learned Member for Lis- keard referred, In support of the Bill, to - the practice of a great part of Christendom, but particularly of Protestant Europe. In this reference he was unfortunate, for the fact was, that so lightly was the marl iage tie, In consequence of this practice, held in Ger. many, that all thinking men were now of opinion that morals could only be maintained by a return to the old common law. But he had quoted a more important example still. Under the law of 1792, passed in France in the worst times - of the Republic, the ecclesiastical and canon law were abolished, and the marriages of all the degrees theretofore prohibited were allowed, except in the cases of uterine brothers and sisters. But when this part of the Code of Napoleon was discussed in the Council of State, in 1804, when, besides the First Consul, Bernier, Cambaccre, Seyes, and other able men were present, it was argued that the mo tives of affection and regard for children, seldom led to the marriages of brothers and sisters-in-law ; that on the contrary, the relaxation often led to indecent practices, and the disturbances of families, and afterwards of divorces ; therefore, the First Consul, and the majority of the Council, enacted, that the marriages of uncles and nieces, or of aunts and nephews, should be prohibited, but with the power of dispensation; but that the marriages of brothers and sisters-in-law should he prohibited, with out any power whatever to grant a dispensation.--(Hear, hear.) This was done altogether on a principle of social order and stabi lity, and without any reference to religion. Let the experience of those able me►t guide us now. If the Bill of the Noble Lord was passed the limitations could not stop where he had proposed them. Even his schedule proposed to reduce the prohibited degrees from 30 to 20. But now the line of demarcation was well defined; and wishing to keep, it so for the most important, moral, and social reasons, he (Lord A.) would oppose the Bill of his Noble Friend. He thought that on a matter of such impor‘ance, they shoulil wait until they heard the deep and unalterable opinion of the public. He was sure that the great body of the Clergy were opposed to the change--( Hear, hear)—and that if the opinions of the people were taken by poll, they would also be found equally hostile to it. He was sure that if the sense of the women, who were the best judges of what was conducive to social happiness, and to the moral dignity of mankind, had been taken, the House would never have heard of this Bill.--(Hear, hear, hear.) Mr. CHARLES WO')D thought that the Noble Lord who last addressed the House was incorrect in stating that this Bill would be an innovation upon' the ancient laws of this country ; on the contrary the Bill of Lord Lyndhurst in 1835 was an inno. vasion of the ancient law of England, by which such .marriages were not void but voidable. He believed that under the previous law those marriages wereby t.o means uncommon amongst all classes of society; and he believed, from what he had learned, upon very good authority, that Lord Lyndhurst's Bill had not had any effect in checking those marriages. That Bill was passed with little or no discussion, and upon the understanding that the subject would be reconsidered the' next Session. In the French Council of State, in 1804, the opinions which the Noble Lord had quoted, rested entirely upon the existing facility of divorce in Frame. That facility did not exist in this country, and he hoped it never would. —( Hear, hear.) He thought it was perfectly competent to that House to restore the law to the state in which it was before 1835, and he would support the Bill. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that the Right Hon. Gen. tleman was under misapprehension as to the effect of the statute of 1835, for those marriages were always illegal, and prohibited by the laws of this kingdom, and expressly declared so by the statute in the reign of Henry the Eighth. The Bill in 1835 had no particular reference to the marriages now under cons'. deration, but referred genera►ly to those marriages which the Civil Courts would riot declare void after the death of the parties, if the Ecclesiac!ical Courts had not pronounced them illegal during the life time of the parties. In these were included the marriage of the father and daughter, the brother and sister, the uncle and niece. The state of the law rendered it easy for either of the parties du ring life-time to void the marriage, and to bastardize the children if it served any selfish purpose; and it opened a way for the ex. tertion of money under a threat of procuring the voidance of the marriage. Was that a state of the law which ought to be allowed to exist?—(Hear, hear, hear.) Was it not better at once to declare by a statute that such marriages were void ?—( Hear.) The Bill, therefore, was no innovation of the law, and lie believed it was entirely consonant to the moral feelings of the people of this country.—(Hear, hear.) As for the argu_ ment that the sister of a deceased wife was the most likely to take an interest in the children and to fill the place of a mother, it was his opinion that the inducement to be so would be taken away if she were made a stepmother.—(Hear, hear.) He therefore thought it his duty to vote against the introduction of the present Bill. There was one part of the speech of the Hon. and Learned Member for Liskeard to which he had forgotten to refer. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman had adverted to persons quitting this country to contract those marriages. Now by the law cf Scotland these marriages had always been illegal; that had always been the case in that country. Mr. C. BULLER—Parties frequently go to Scotland to con tract these marriages. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL believed that by the law of Scot land these marriages had always been deemed incestuous, illegal and void. He had heard no argument to induce him to think that these marriages ought to he permitted, and therefore he should vote against the motion of the Noble Lord. Mr. WAKLEY thought it could not be very gratifying to the Hon. Member for Liskeard to hear the effect which his speech had produced on the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman, who had just sat down. He (Mr. Wakley), however, considered the speech of the Hon. Member for Liskeard to be an eloquent and aagu. mentative speech.—(Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Wakley) was surprised to hear where the Noble Lord opposite had been to find materials for his argument against the Bill before the House. What I was the Noble Lord obliged to go to the council of France immediately aftor the Revolution He hoped that, after this, revo. lutions would not be considered stt.ll terribly frightful things to the aristocracy of this country.--(Cries of " Oh, oh, and laughter.") The Noble Lord had been obliged to have recourse to the council of France under Napoleon.—(Cries of " Question, question.") He (Mr. Wakley) drew this inference from the conduct of the Noble Lord, that he could findenothing English to support the views which he entertained. The Learned Sol.. Gen. had alluded to the Bill of 1835 ; now he (Mr. Wakley) knew that at the time that that Bill was introduced there was a general opinion in the House and the country that that Bill had been brought up for the special purpose of relieving a Noble Lord from a very awkward situation which he found himself placed Such was the opinion of the country at the present moment, and he (Mr. Wakley) believed that it was true. He was surprised at the manner in which Hon. Members, who were opposed to this Bill, had treated the_ characters of English women. How degraded must be the opinion entertained of the characters of English women.—(llear, bear.) Why, it appeared that they considered that when the wife's sister lived with the husband, he could do with her what he pleased— (Cheers and cries of " No, no ")—that she had no virtue, no firm. ness of mind, -no power of resisting importunities.—(Cheers, and cries of " No, no.") If that were not so, why did they pursue the course they were pursuing, what became of their arguments if they did not believe such to be the case. But he would have Hon. Gentlemen to know that English women were as virtuous, as high minded and as able to resist improper importuni. ties as any under the sun.—(llear, hear.) It was the duty of those who sought to restrict the liberties of the subject to show that the necessity for such restriction ex. isted. lie believed no such necessity existed in the present in stance, and, therefore, he should support the Bill of the Noble Lord. Mr. HARDY would remind the Hon. Member for Finsbury that there was such a thing as the argument a fortoiri, and in his (Mr. Hardy's) opinion, the argument of the Noble Lord the Mem ber for Dorchester, went to show, that if France, after having had experience of the relaxed law, from 1792 to 1804, even under the Liberal Napoleon, found it necessary to return to the old law, how much more necessary was it, in our present state of society, not to relax that law. Lord FRANCIS EGERTON, in reply, admitted that his Right Hon. and Learned Friend was right in correcting a mis. take which he (Lord F. Egerton) made in his speech in bringing forward this motion, in which he (Lord F. Egerton) stated that these marriages had never before been prohibited by Statute law. He felt the argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said it was inconvenieot to meet this question, and he iLord F. Egerton) was perfectly aware of that, but he did not care whether the supporter of the Bill weae Henry the Eighth or Lord LyndhurstH(Much laughter.) With regard to Prussia, it was not consistent with his desire to institute any corn. parison between that country and this, or any other country; but he thought it would be much better if they would con form,to the commons law with respect to their marriage.. By the Code Napoleon, the wife's sister was prohibited from marrying under certain restrictions, but a dispensation could be granted on application to the Sovereign himself. He hoped tha t some measure would be passed to provide for the evils complained of. In Scotland, the feeling was, that a marriage with the wife's sisterought to be allowed (as we understood.) The Hon. Member for Oxford had founded his opposition to this measure mainly on the practices of the early Church, and had quoted Bassil as his authority but his (Lord Francis Egerton's) impression was that the authority had not borne out his argument.—(Hear, hear.) he only called upon the House to give their unbiassed consideration and decision to the question—he merely wished them to produce their verdict unbiassed, if even it was against his proposition, but if it was so, he would intreat of lion. Gentlemen to consider the question, and pronounce their decision as the Foreman of a Jury gave in their verdict, for it'was a suirject of the most vital import. ance, and the decision of it would be the death warrant of the peace and happiness of many families in the country.—(Hear, hear.) Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the House divided. The numbers were— For leave to bring in the Bill Against it 123 Majority MURDER OF ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN, Mr. COLVILLE rose to move for a return of the number of convictions for the murder of illegitimate children in England and Wales, in each of the years from 1828 to 1841, both inclusive ; distinguishing the counties in which such murders have been com mitted :—And, similar return of the number of convictions for the concealment of the birth of illegitimate children. 11 WAKLEY tbought no return could be moved for which would give more indirect and unsatisfactory information than this. The number of convictions for murder would not show 1-50th of the Illegitimate children - destroyed in this country. As the Hon. Gentleman's object was to ascertain the number of illegiti mate children destroyed, he hoped he would withdraw his motion. It would only tend to deceive himself and the House. Mr. COLVILE consented to withdraw his motion. TRANSFER OF LICENSES, On the motion of Captain ROUS, the House then resolved itself into Committee, to consider of a Bill for the transfer of licenses and regulation of public houses. . Leave was given to bring in the Bill. The House then resumed, and the 13i11 was read a first time. Mr. C. PO WELL moved for a return of all applications made to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, by persons desirous of un dertaking the execution of Works provided for by the Act 1 and 2 Will. IV, c. 57, and the number and names of Commissions issued in conformity therewith by the Lord Lieutenant or other Chief Governor of Ireland.—Agreed to. In the absence of Mr. Reddington, Mr. 111. J. O'CONNELL moved for a copy of the letter of Mr. Lucas, Under Secretary for Ireland, to the Secretary of the Royal Dublin Society, stating that the Lord Lieutenant had authorised an advance of money to that St.ciety, to be repaid, on the money being voted by Parliament; and also, return stating in what parti culars the recommendations of the Committee of this House in 1836, respecting that Society, have been complied with. Agreed to. The House then adjourned at a few minutes to One o'Clock. .......... SUDDEN DEATH of ARCHDEACON SINGLE TON. (1 , 1.:031 A CORRESPONDENT.) DIORPETH, MARCH 14.—1 am lorry to inform you that in - e has arrived in this town to-day, of the sudden death of the venerable Archdeacon Singleton, yesterday (Sunday) evening, at Aln w i c k C ast l e , t h e residence of the Duke of Northumberland, after an illness of only half an hour's duration. I am unable to state the particulars of this melancholy event, further than that I lea nihat the deceased gentleman had been slightly, and only slightly, indisposed during the day, but not in such degree as to prevent his joining the company at the Castle, where he was staying on a visit. By this event the lucrative benefice of Elsdon, in this county, which is in the gift of his Grace the Duke of Northumberland, will have becw.ne vacant. The Editor of the Courrier de la Sarthe appeared on the 10th inst. before the Court of Assizes at Le Mane, on an indictment for havi ng p u bli s h e d an art i c l e i n t h e J ourna l on the 19th January, which tended to excite hat re d an d contempt against the King's Gfternment but the Jury found a verdict of Not Guilty, and he was acquitted. The Sentinelle des Pyrenees of the Bth says : " The rage for emigration to Monte Video, far from having sub sided, has increased, and no one can say where it will stop. On Thursday last the Chateaubriand and the Jeune Marseillais sailed from Pass ages for Monte Video with about 600 passen gers, and three other vessels, the Cyrus, Gabriel, and Trois Freres, are l repar'ng to leave Passages with emigrants for the same destinatit nt: ELECTION COMMITTEES.- BOROUGH OF WEYMOUTII AND MALCOMBE REGIS. ----- The Committee app- inted to try this petition sat yesterday in No. 2 The Members were, the Hon. Charles Compton Ca vendish, Sir Phillip Egerton, Thcmas Slingsby Duncombe, Sir H. B. Smith, Archibald Hastie, Jos. Bailey, Jun., Esq. Cnair man, Patrick Maxwe!l Stewart, Esq. The petitioners are Ralph Bernal, of Laton-place, in the County of Middlesex, and William Dougal Christie, of the Inner Temple, Esqrs. They stated that on the 28th of June last petitioners were candidates for the representation of this Borough, as were also the Hon. George Augustus Frederick Villiers, commonly called Viscount Villiers, and George William Hope, Esq., of whom the latter two were declared by Andrew Lithgow, Esq., Returning Officer, on the 29th of June, duly elected, having obtained a majority; but that the return was unlawful, inasmuch as the poll was not opened at one booth until one hour after the proper time, whereby many willing electors were prevented from voting for petitioners; that many votes were improperly rejected ; first many who voted. were not qualified ; that others who voted were paupers, some aliens, some felons and convicts, some per sonators of others ; and, finally, that s,veral persons voted for one or both of the sitting Members in consequence of having received " bribes, money, gifts and rewards, meat, drink, and entertainment ;" that others had taken those consic'e rations not to vote ; and others had offered those inducements to Ico-electors to induce them to vote for the sitting Members, or not to oppose them; and more• over, that systematic bribery, treating, and corrruption were carried on during the whole time ; wherefore petitioners prayed the Committee to declare the election of the sitting Members null and void, and that the petitioners were duly elected, and ought to have been returned, and that the return be am. nded accordingly, or that the House should grant such other relief as should seem meet: The close of the poll stood thus : Villiers Hope Bernal . Christie 259 257 253 251 Mr. Austin, with whom were Mr. Cockburn and Mr. Kingley, opened the case for the petitioners, and said the allegations should be tested by a scrutiny of votes. The Hon. Mr. Talbot. with whom were Mr. Hodges and Mr. Hope, appeared as Counsel for the sitting Members. Mr. A ustrix relied, for his clients, on the general illegality of the conduct of the Mayor, who is a surgeon , and of his deputies ; in consequence of whi c h severa l vo t s were lost to the peti tioners, as would be proved in the cases of Mr. Templeman, Mr. Clare, and other voters. In the latter the voter declared himself at the booth for the petitioners, but the clerk put it down for Lord Villiers and his colleague ; the Mayor being told of the mistake, erased the entry and put down the vote merely as tendered, but when asked by petitioners to enter the vote as given for them, his Worship said, " Oh, a Committee of the House of Commons must settle that," a prediction which was now in the course of fulfilment. After the election, the petitioners sent in a protest to the Mayor against his conduct, and announced their determination to petit on the House of Commons. In short, proof of every allegation would be given. There was a Mr. Bartlett, who had long lived in Jersey ; but somehow or other one William Strickland, well known to all as an ostler, was persuaded for the moment that he was transmogrified into the person cf Mr. Bartlett, and full of this faith, the ostler went and voted for the petitioners as Mr. Bartlett, the original Mr. Bartlett never having lest Jersey all the while. If after the scrutiny of votes, a majority should remain for the sitting Members, the proof of bribery, treating, and corruption at the Fox, at the King's Arms, at th e B ear , a t th e Gl o b e , a t t h e Black Dog, the Coopers' Arms, and other public houses, hotels, and taps, would be amply sufficient to unseat Lord Villiers and Mr. trope; for the connexion between those gentlemen and their agents would be established beyond a doubt. But first he would go into the scrutiny, and would call Andrew Lithgow, Esq., the returning officer, who produced the poll books, which he got from the town clerk on the 4th of February ; but he got the five books from the five booths, including his own, on the 29th of June, and took them home and sealed them. The election took place on the 29th June. The books hatt been unaltered. Mr. Lunen. was about to cross-examine the witness, but Mr. AUSTIN contended that the opposite couns , l had no right to do so. Mr. Talbot wanted net to examine him now, but at a future stage. Considerable argument ensued, and the Com mittee ordered the room to be cleared to consider the point.. The decision was, that the Counsel for the sitting members might cross-examine, but only respecting the custody of the poll-books. Mr. Lithgow, therefore, was not recalled. Mr. Tissaid, the Town Clerk, was examined as to the poll-books. He observed that some erasures had been made, but did not say how. Edward Fallen Tissard, brother of the former, had had the custody of the poll-books altogether for one hour and five minutes, but he knew of no alteration. The register of elections, the overseers' lists, and other official documents were put in. Mr. AUSTIN now objected to the vote of John Bridle, No. 146 on the Register, poll No. 4. He would show that he had voted out of one house, when, in fact, he was living in another, and then, that he had n 9 qualification. • On this point the Overseer and Stephen Tarnell were examined, but the Com mittee were occupied a long time with arguments for .and against the validity of the evidence to show that Bridle had voted out of the house which he did not occupy. Bridle's vote was eventually struck out. John Farwell, No. 95 on the poll, was next objected to, and abandoned, his vote falling under the preceding decision. John Wicker was next objected to; but the Speaker being at prayers, the Committee adjourned. GREAT MARLOW. The Committee appointed to try the petition againit the late return of a Member for the borough of Great Marlow met yesterday morning in the Committee-room, No. I, shortly after eleven o'clock. The members of the Committee were, Sir J. Yarde Buller, Chairman ; Sir W. Heathcote ; J. W. Chil ders, Esq. ; Sir H. B. Campbell ; the Hon. F. Cowper ; Sir J Mordaunt ; and James Power, Esq. The Counsel for the petitioners were Mr. Sergeant Mere-. wether, Mr. Sergeant Wrangliani, and Mr. Talbot; the Counsel for the sitting Mennber were Mr. Austen, Mr. Cock burne, and Air. Alfred Austen. The usual preliminaries having been gone through, and Counsel having exchanged lists, Mr. Sergeant AIEhEWETHER. opened the case for the peti tioners. lie appeared as Counsel for certain electors of Great Marlow, who petitioned against the return of Sir William Clayton, one of the sitting Members for that borough. The elec ion had taken place on the 2d of July last. Tbere were three caodidates, Mr. Peers Williams, Sir William Clay ton, and Dlr.' Rent, Hampden ; the numbers at the close of the• poll were declared to he, for Mr. P. Williams, 233 ; for Sir William Clayton, 170; and for Mr. Hampden. 169; leaving Sir William Clayton a majority of one vote only, while two other votes had Leen tendered in favour of Mr. Hampden. The petitioners alleged that the majority of Sir William Clayton was merely a colourable one; that illegal votes. had been accepted in his favour, and that good votes had been tendered for Mr. Hampdeu which were improperly rejected. 'I hey further alleged that Sir William Clayton bad, by bribery and corruption, unduly controlled the election. The petition, therefore, involved, in the first instance, a scrutiny, and in the second place, it involved the conduct of the sitting Member. He trusted that he should be able to succeed upon the first point, and that it would be unnecessary for him to trouble the Committee with any investigation in respect to the other. The Learned Serjeant having stated that Sir William Clayton, Bart., was charged with the bribery, through his agents, of two individuals in the borough, of the names of Baines and l'ovey, proceeded to say that he was pre pared to bring forward yaßnis other cases of corruption and un due influence of electors, into the particulars of which he would not then enter: Mr. .AUSTEN contended that the different cases should be stated in order to enable Sir IVilliam Clayton to meet them ; a manifest injustice would otherwise be done to him, inasmuch as he would be put on his defence witho uthianmy previous kno w l e d ge of the charges to be brought against . Mr. Sergeant MEREIVETHEIt contended that, according to foimer precedents, he was not. boned to state the particular cases, inasmuch as they would go Merely to render the election void, and would not immediately affect the sitting Member. Mr. COCKBURNE having replied, • The room was cleared, and the Committee, after deliberating for some time, came to the following resolution :—" That it is the opinion of the Committee that the Counsel for the peti tion( rs having stated it to be his intention to prove the bribery of certain voters, it is necessary for him, in his opening speech, to specify the eases." Mr. Sergeant MEREWETUEIL then entered into various details respecting the bribery of certain electors, which he should be ready to prove in evidence. Mr. Sergeant MEREWETHEE, then proceeded to the cases connected with the removals. Henry Stalwood, the returning-officer at the last election of Great Marlow, was called, and produced the poll-book; which had been in his possession since the election. William Barton was the first case of removal, and William Smith was called and sworn. He deposed that he was one of the overseers of Great Marlow. He produced the rate-book, and in that book William Barton was rated for a house in West-street, at the rate of 17/. ; the owner, Sir Wm. Clayton, Bart. This was on the 25th of April, 1840. In the rate-book, under the date of the 17th of April 1841, the house formerly occupied by William Barton, was en tered on the rate-book as empty. Thomas Walker proved that in April last the house formerly occupied by Barton was then to be let. There was a bill• in the window, stating the house was to let, and which remained there for five or six weeks. The notice was up a few weeks be the election. Mr. Edward Stubbs, resides at Dorchester ; was at Grew Marlow 21st April last, for the purpose of hiring a house. Cal!ed on Mr. Tyler, in Marlow, the agent of Sir W. Clayton ; went with him to a house in the street, leading to the Market place. The house was pointed out to witness 'a few days ago, and it was then empty. Did not take the house in April, but can swear that it was not inhabited then. John Smith went with the last witness to the house in West street, Marlow. That was the house occupied by Mr. Barton. Believes Mr. Tyler to be the agent of Sir Wm. Clayton. Josiah Clarke lives in Marlow. Knew where Barton lived. Went with the overseer when he collected the rate from Mr. Barton in his new house. John Hackshaw lives in Great Marlow. Knows West -street well. Barton lived in West-street till about ten days before Lady-day last. Saw him take his furniture away. After that saw workmen in the house. The house has never been °cat. pied since. • James Batsing worked in the house formerly occupied by Bar ton. Was doing repairs in the house. Mr. Tyler sent him in, and paid him for his work. Was at work as a bricklayer's tabourer. Cross-examined—Has had the misfortune to have been com mitted to prison for stealing sausages. "-But," said the wit ness, " I didn't have 'em."—( Laughter.) Will swear it was Mr. Tyler that paid him for his werk. Re-examined—lias been employed in other places for Sir Wm. Clayton, and was then paid by Mr. Howe, the keeper. This was the ease against the vole. )o rt Mrof . the CockuuttN then called th e f o ll ow i ng witnesses in sup vote.. Mr. Wm. Tyler being sworn, deposed that he colle.;ted rents of property belonging to Sir W. Clayton. Mr. Barton occupied the house in West -street. O n the 23d June, 1810, i•ecriv. d a notice to quit from Barton, which expired at Christ mas, 1840 Barton continued in occultation up to that time and afterwards. In 1841, he proposed to give up the pre mises. Witness objected to it, as he required a fresh six months notice. Barton acquiesced in the term; but he com plained that it was a hard case. There is not a redundancy of tenants in Marlow. Mr. Barton had taken a new house, but he paid witness the rent up to Michaelmas, 1841. The rent was 251. Mr. Barton complained, and wished to state the case to Sir William Clayton. Witness said he would do what he could to let the house. Witness probably put the notice in the window. There were fruit-trees in the garden of the house, and at Michaelmas Mr. Barton took the fruit. The garden was highly cultiva!ed, and he took the produce during the summer. The house was out of repair, and the witness thought that if it was repaired it might let better. Witness made a proposal to Mr. Buton to have the r house repzi-ed, w hi c h proposal was acceded to. W i tness had the key of the house from Mr. Barton, which was when the r e p a i rs were finished. Mr. Barton he ld thekey till Michaelma s . returned_ Cross-examined—Paid for the repairs of the house on acc o unt of Sir William Clayton. Mr. Barton received the key back about two months before the election took place. has seen 549 th family of Mr. Barton gathering the fruit, and atoOPt flowers. Re-examined—The house is not let at the presen t time. Frederick Barton, is a son of William Barton, _formerly West-street Marlow. Remembers his father taking ano ther 1107 at Lady-day. Ile w i s h e d t o g ive . up the house in West-strere but' that • was refused by the landlord. Remembers .ura. repairs being done in th e house ; and also renteroDZ: ' that thb key was given up by his father to I‘„'," Tyler. Ilia father 'received the key hack again. bati had the key in his (witues-'s) posy ssi on since , an d gathered fruit in the garden. That was on the 2 nd of Aug lo , Cross-examined—'l he Louse his father removed to was situated in West-street. The fruit in the gar d en c onsisted n _:.. apples, cherries, pea s, strawberries, &e. Will swear 47: full a month before the election took place that h e went Iv' the house Lifter they had removed to the new house. • the RL-examirel—Will swear he was in the garden before e'ec ion was talked about. of Mr CocxaunN then addressed the Committee in ON 0 the vote. Mr Sergeant ME REWETH ER replied. The Committee then adjourned ts 11 o'clock r to-M9 r °W, BOROUGH OF CI.ITHEROE• p resent The Committee appointed to try the petitition p.re_vu,h, against the retu:n of the sitting Member for this DU" assembled in the Committeeere• ms, at one o'clock. br , The Committee was composed ef the following M em Mr. James W. Hogg (Chairman), the Hon. Mr. B eerte Mr. Ogle, Sir R. H. Inglis, Mr. Wm. Evans, Sir C. and Mr.• Colville. Mr. Sergeant Wrangham and Mr. Hilliard aelle" r grlt, Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Cardwell, of the Regent for the defeated candidate. , Or e Mr. Austin, with Mr. Cockburn and Mr. A. Aus tin, Counsel for the sitting Member. ager° t Some conversation then took place between the „neon, parties respecting the mode of conducting the invese t o when the room was cleared. itm er Mr. WRANCHAM in opening the case for the p etit d said that the borough, although an old one iu name e lo pe tory, was in reality a new one. It had been a borouguteeee the Reform. Bill, when the franchise was by burgeffe, eete but now there was not one of the old burgesses 10 le t or stitueney. The number of voters at the time of the la , m 6gb tration was 387, of whom 175 voted, at the election oe, j of July last, for Mr. Wilson, the sitting Member, an tl „ eg ett/ Mr. Carets ell, the petitioner • so that there were upon the kre 41 who did not vote at all. Sometime before the electi on sition was presented to Mr. Cardwell, inviting him to st r otee pledging the requisitionists to support him with that v oft ee This requisition was signed by a considerable neelet l .,e the/ electors, and there were a number of others, who th °u ''',,ort did net put their names to that document, yenta eto bs Mr. Cardwell at the election, Under these circuncceeee might fairly have expected success without being too s 'e n 'a But the fortune of the day was otherwise, and he %ea' ' w eb& nority of five instead of a majority of five times that e, the re What were the causes which induced no less than eh ° l e e 6 0 quisitionists to vote for his opponent, and what inclute se sod others who signed the requisition to violate their P nrati cb to abstain altogether from voting, would be one Imo° e e for of this inquiry. The petitioner, in the first place , prays fee' b the seat, and, failing to establi s h his ri g ht t o that upon b r it/ tiny, that the election be voided on the grounds of tail r o and corruption. He would not go into a'l eel' the law of bribery, nor into an exposition of the Poe ous kinds of arts which constituted bribery. , e00 el; points were well understood by every member of the tee—of course he meant not by their personal expert eu tt e eob e ; the result of the scrutiny should net be, as he bad bead of tee lieve it would be, to place the petitioner at the ne t ee s; poll, be (Mr. W.,) would feel it his duty to show than., ting Member had been guilty of acts of briee9 e d he only by his agents but by his nearest relations, eleacoes' his own direct acts. In discharging this duty, if it she b e 0 01 , to be necessary, he would.have to do much violence t ° r eeen feelings, and to implicate in practices of more than fare :lete r corruption several gentlemen hitherto of e- es peetablef ao olh t one of them a magistrate of the county, anp r eys is , a member of the most sacred profession —a e i ee sss'o of the Church of England. He should show t ''' g rde e r e of those who had signed the requisition to Mr. k j e obej were carried off to the seat of the sitting e, father, the Reverend Jeremiah Wilson, at Eshton el ; do others • to places in the neighbourhood of that se,' l e.d / k there they were feaster', intoxicated, and even er"de ,tit that is, not simply intoxicated, but intoxicate 0 tie, liquors having something put into them more t ! !: r e ar e e wit,' ingredients. Whatever was theelpfluence exe ret those persons at Eshton Hall, the result was, that, tr i b e) , let exception, they voted against the petitioner, whom to s ar i invited to become a candidate, and pledged thernselee s e ote, port. This much would be shown that a system of e, e et r o e te itie revelry was carried on at Elton Hall, and the Le' is fee would be enabled to judge what other induC'° 01, brought to influence those voters, - when th„'' orbs, what were the inducements brought to bear letradlei, cases in which that o f b r ib er y was applied the loosely, and lavishly. Of th e p ersons carr i e d away to eo i s ; Mr. Wilson's seat, one remained true to his promis e ' e ducement could shake his resolution, and if be ee tl e,,eee means go to the poll he would have done so. B ut rud e ru l , e ; companions were sent 0 Clitheroe, it was not deenseee to let him go with them, although he entreated te tr ec e e ' Gentleman to release him. But he was sent to a dis . t , aP i ti from from which it was impossible for him to reach the t°" fl ee of l ' h e to give his vote; and when he was seen after an abeen - e t days, he wore a hat, which was certainlY, " 5 ": tO e t :i own, but belonged to the Rev. Jeremiah Wilson, er ere r 'e was written iu it in his own handwriting, as wool to corroborate the other evidence that would be to e The elector he spoke of had been taken forcibly 3' ;o l ' Clitheroe ; w hilst they were draping him' into the coac S l u e f iles he 0 him to Eshton Hall, his hat fell off, and was lost. I n a ho se time there was enough going on in the town to t e tte lo Committee what else besides mere revelry y on at Mr. Wilson's. Here the Reverend e eete:, figured again ; and many were the ingenious , resorted to to disguise the real character of th e e hrol e actions, and td escape, if not detection, at least ee nt ' o f ' 0 Old claims were trumped up, and under pretence i e to charging them, money was paid that never was du e "ret! ' ll named Benjamin Swales had made a claim for 51. ag i ,' 0 10' Committee of the Clitheroe Schools for jobbing wereerrs c h r , they refused to pay on account of the - brat fiance of the demand. Upon this be t oe e a .' an action against three of the members, Messrs..And e , r e demon, and Ilopweote There was on the Conemille ioa tleman named Garnet, one of the chief supporters of, e ct, scn, and he was, though not directly, a party 10 te e 1 4.0 brought by Swales, one of the most strenuous llghte,se ing his claim. But when Swales saw what his " e e ' e ly ° ee were getting by their votes, he declared that he would deaf • for the the candidate who paid hi m th e a ll. ge dd e bte and e , h ester action against the &hoof Committee, to which b ° ` belonged On this Mr. Garnet paid him 4el. im• far oo n d, debts and eostsel he odd halfpenny,indeed the fraction ° bo a r ei t was palpably brought in to give the transaction iog yo l i o look. 'the direct purchase of the vote by a pretendet; tet e of a vote, would have been too plain. However , i - eoelef was continued, and would end, if it hadnot ended, it t e e e s Feet It might be said that although Mr. Garnet was tetee r eee to the action, yet that, as a member of the Com — t etve r ef zeal led him to pay this claim for the purpose of saving Ore, of the school. But it would be shown that in no w a e l o ol-Wes had this sum been brought to the acc ou nt of the sc" et es' o f And the Committee would observe th a t Mr. Ga r teote r ee Mr. Wilson's Committee, and was his seconder. 1 or' fe the name of Pilling received a b r ibe o f 51. from the ' O - 0 01,4 Garnet. Another voter was offered 45/. by these bo nie f of whom one was the Rev. Mr. Wilson. Other act s ° t ee g ibe r would be proved against Mr. Henry Thompson, ne't e V," elagistrateof the borough, a n d M r . Wil so n, jun., teve of the sitting Member, and others of his Committee' od' s e beans were bribed by an extravag a n c e o f expeeditu elml oe before in Clitheroe, and seldom known anywheree e th e came to that part of the case in which he must ent° r ieafee'te solution of the Committee by the exclusion of fur. be e do (Thatgentleman immediately withdrew.) Mr. Wra„eg e es. proceeded to state several cases i., which Mr. “ g e.e ll , e ' o rt was a solicitor, and the Town Clerk of the boroughli.,:e ' to have given bribe s, and one case in particular, in ' T d c - r e 0 0' al eged that, in the office of the 1 own Clerk, he h a i .f i ter , o l large bribe of 9/., under the name of a loan, to a . t y te r. gave no s e curity of his own, but the nominal se e et l e eet ;fi est e d workmen in the employment of Mr. Thompson ; eee - w t ° •ess and chairman of Mr. Wilson's Committee. He nee e ° t ee t 0 cases of bribery alleged to have been committed bl ed r te Member in person. It would be shown that he offe r e yere t ellfe person named Towles for his vote ; and in the cour te d Iv by gentlemen, of whom Mr. Trapp was one, he c hid ej f el' already mentioned, Si.- The Learned Sergeant cellar° stating that he would now put in the poll-books t.° with a view to the scrutiny. • the e te The poll-books having been put in and proved o ta ,bet 00 0 form, a lengthened discussion was then entered f° ,ee l e e/ Counsel, as to the arrangement which it was PM:, eel , r 0 be made when the scrutiny was commenced —tha t t t - e tas' s eer should be exhausted in each class before a difree e Petet „Pr entered upon, and the parties should not be at ]the r oe they had concluded the evidence with respect fe e Blass, to resume it. SP eghe e 1 In consequence of the announcement that th ee. ° „ ep ee, e lle taken his seat in the b louse of Commons, the Le"„ Tt e rseo not come to a decision upon the point, and OP eleven o'clock this day. MILITARY 11s1 TELLlGBt C orr i or e l PORTSMOUTH, MONDA v. —Preparations are, 0 11 ,,A throughout the district for the reception of a Jarnotnioli force of several thousand men. Orders have be e " - ecOr s 'io r the barracks of this garrison to be got ready for tb, e of as many men as they can conveniently contsre.l, Chichester, Winchester, the Isleof ht instructions have been forwarded to the barrack r e & C . Tbe_49 for. 0 about to be quartered here are those destined for trap-` vice, some of which will embark as soon as the trs.— bet e be got ready to convey them to their destination. s'. The 10th Regiment, a b ou t to em b ar k for Judie' wie,,,o :n a few days, from Glasgow, which it leaves in 0 4 1„ ii ier,l o t for Liverpool, and comes on to London by the f l o o r m me ar d el:i n fr t o h m ,rty G .e l i a g s , 13 v i ,,tere„;ett t Railway, and thence to Gosport by the South - " reg",,er 1 Glasgow here Formerly it would have' taken nearlfa month for a t , b e c ot marcheso. 0 The de the d f ir to-day for Brighton, to stake room for the 73d Regiment will leave in a fortnight for WoolwieFintolth,:ich be su;ceeded by the 16th, at p re sent at Winched to the 20th, 23d, 29th, 71st, 95th, and battalion the have been ordered to be au minted to 1,200 strooP a t s o ! A P , lowing regiments now in, or ordered to India, are :o h, augmented to the same number:—the 10th, 1 7 t 1i ) :. t hese r joY 78th, and 86th. The head-qUarters of several th!ot ments will be in this district. The Albany 13arraco_00 le j i v of Wight, are intende'd as one of the depots for reglrf ccu pi:, East Indies, and it is anticipated that they will be o u t t he l'„,te between 2,00( and 3,000 troops in the course 0 ' boo 11 , mer. 'f he officers of Parkhurst prison, who,b al c a rtai e le sr e eying apartments, as also General Eveleign, to „pig grave, and others on the establishment, have or._ ar e irpd immediately. The barracks and the various offlee! 00 ,0 te rt put in suitable repair and order to receive the_ rr o ,% - e h t e o t t e newly. raised St. Helens. regiment, now lying 't t . for I jeo will be removed into them as soon as they are read} _ Ro e s re' ivlar e. jt (Tinian. The 16th Regiment at Winchester was r, , , , Chief of the dist elf o u . , Wednesday by th. Commander-in- d ops O eP General Sir Hercules Pakenham, who expresse regt pleascd at the excellent state of discipline which the too pourtrayed. for Boo' f o to The 32d and 34th Regiments will continue nd I ,r co p longer in their present quarters at Portsmouth, reg'! il ia ld garrison duty. ,Is the service companies of dies ha-e but recently returned from Canada, it is not rviee' that they will be imm e d i a tel y ordere d tor foreign re,gito upon come extraor dinar y occasion. Both of tl 0- e PI e in a very effecti v e state, and admirably disciplinen ea 00 --------- A 'l% cr The Municipal Council of Evreux was " I 55 t his 5° th e lith inst., by Royal erdonnance. ' 1 he cause of sure is not stated. fitrA lw- Ye "On the othl, inst," says the Moniteur e tp le 900 shares a the Orleans Railroad compani thole been sold on the exchange; but, at the beginning el ( ? pg Of '- only ten remained unsold. This shows that the yla •c,ll slitres is n ade in earnest." -c re) .s.ro . of The steeple of the church of Conches (-Lut l- sw was undergoing repalr at e cost of the State , r;,e . 0 0 down by the late storm, Al.. Meremce, the InVe e Go iere;t e of Historical Monuments, has been ordered by the e nece isf c t to proceed to the spot to report as to what o i a y b ,tppair thisaccident.