The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1858-03-30 00:00:00

TUESDAY.

In reply to Mr. J. i.-8111T—H-,--.
Mr. BAILLIE stated that the Rajah of Dhar had been
deposed, but that no order upon the subject had been
issued from this country; it had been dooe by the Go•
vernor-General of India.

_
Mr. H. Mzurits celled attention to the vexations to
which British eubjecte are exposed by the late alteration
in the passport system in France, which, he observed,
had created • practical grievance, large masses in this
country having been much inconvenienoed thereby, and
they asked earnestly for a remedy. He dwelt upon the
ill effects, as respected both countries, of such a restric-
tion upon free communication, which could not be re-
garded as a friendly and neighbourly act, and it was
one which called for immediate action on the part of
our Government. He complained of the additional
labour and responsibility east upon magistrates, and of
the vexation and distress which individuals underwent,
in consequence of these recent unhappy passport regula-
tions. He suggested, as • reasonable remedy, that the
passport system should be transferred from the Foreign-
office, its connection with which, in his opinion, led to
a great deal of confusion and abuse, to the Home-office,
and that the WIWI of refusing • passport should be
placed upon the Government of this country, He con-
cluded by moving for copies of correspondence between
Her Majesty's Government and that of the Emperor of
the French on the late alterations in the passport
system ; and of the regulations respecting passports
Issued by the Foreign-office since 1815, with the fees
charged on their delivery.
The motion was seoonded by Mr. WALTER, who con-
sidered that the present period was not inopportune for
bringing the whole subject under the consideration of
Parliament, the French Government having devolved
the responsibility of issuing passporte from England ex-
clusively upon our Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs. He suggested a simple form of passport which
would supply all the information • foreign Government
was justified in exacting from another in relation to its
subjects travelling in the foreign country.
MT. S. FITZGERALD observed that this MU a practical
question, relating to a matter of internal regulation on
the part of the French Government, which had met
Her Majesty's Government in the matter in • liberal
spirit. The French Government had always been in the
habit of permitting their own consular authorities to
issue passports, and this permission they had certainly
withdrawn •' but they were willing to admit any regula-
tions which this Government might lay down; so that
the blame thrown upon the regulations did not rest
with that of France. There must be some regulations
to establish identity and nationality, and the practical
question was bow to frame them. This it lay with the
Foreign Department to do, and he explained the modifi-
cations of the present regulations which were con-
templated in that department, one of which was the
establishing of passport offices at the principal ports.
Lord PALMERSTON said, II far he the late Government
was concerned, he had no objection to the production of
the papers, but he suggested an addition of wines of any
correspondence received at the Foreign-office relating to
the inconveniences and expense attending the passing
back of British workmen who had arrived in France
with passports from the French consular agents in
England. He concurred with Mr. Fitzgerald that the
passport system was an internal and domestic arrange.
went of the French Government with which the British
Parliament had no right to interfere. He mentioned
that he had himself incurred the risk of imprisonment
owing to acme accidental irregularity in his passport,
while, on the other hand, Orsini had actually travelled
with a passport granted by him, showing, he observed
that the system was of no real use.
. . . _ .

Mr. BRIGHT observed that this Government could
make friendly representations to Foreign Power', and,
in regard to our own country, it could do almost every.
thing. The Foreign Government did not ask us to
chars. 7s. for • passport, nor to burden applicanta with
impediments. He objected to the establishmentof pair
port-offices in the country.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER offered no objec-
tion to Lord Palinereton's amendment, and the motion
was agreed to.
Lord BURT, in moving for leave to bring in • Bill to
legalize marriage with • deceased wife's sister, observed
that the question was narrowed to this point, whether
the alleged Scriptural prohibition did really exist, and
whether, failing the Scriptural prohibition, these mar-
riages were so objectionable that they ought to be pro-
hibited. Either these marriages were prohibited by
Scripture or not; if they were, lie asked for the chapter
and verse; if, as he contended they were not, the ques-
tion was so far settled that he was entitled to ask for
leave to introduce a declaratory Bill to remove • bar
which abridged the liberty of Englishmen.
Mr. Drverr opposed the motion.
Mr. MALINS observed that, if it was the intention of
the Legislature to prohibit these marriages, it ahould
be done in the plainest language. Upon greater con-
sideration of this question he was so satisfied of the
great moral evils of its present state that he must vote
for the introduction of the Bill.
Mr. Fox, with reference to the alleged scriptural
prohibition, contended that liberty of interpretation
should be allowed. Not only individuals, but Churches
differed on this point, and the text being open to dd.
ferent interpretations, the opinion of one body should
not be forced upon other bodies. But he should demur
to the Levitical prohibition, he said, even if it had been
more distinct. These marriages could not be put down,
and the only question was whether the law of the
country should be opposed to the law of nature.
Lord GODERICH, in supporting the motion, denied
that the Bill would injure the moral character of the
working classes. The question, he observed, was emi-
nently • social one, and he contended that, instead of
lowering, it would raise their moral character.
Upon a division the motion was carried by 105 to 62,
and leave was given to introduce the Bill.
Mr. ATRTON moved for leave to bring in • Bill to
provide a remedy for the inequality in the rates for the
poor in the metropolis.
The motion was seconded by Mr. W. WILLIAMS.
Mr. EITIVOURT acknowledged that Mr. Ayrton had
brought forward the motion with great moderation and
discretion. He had laid before the House • statement
of alleged grievances, and bad proposed to embody •
remedy in the form of a Bill, so WM the House and all
affected by the measure would be able to see its pro-
visions. He (Mr. Fetconrt) would be very sorry that
the door of the House should be shut against any grie-
vance; he should therefore not object to the motion.
guarding himself, at the"cae time
..(0644_
poised to giTigt any opinion at to the expeaningl .cst
simasore. '

measure would afford • remedy for a great social evil—
crowded dwellings.
Mr. Rozsucc objected that the Bill sinned against
two of the very first principles of the Poor Law; it
violated the plain principle of justioe in relation to pro-
perty, and it sinned against the rule which said that the
locality should overlook and guard the expenditure of
the rate. Be believed the Bill wee fraught with very
great mischief.
Leave was given to bring in the Bill.
Mr. COWNIS moved for leave to bring in a Bill to re.
grilate the qualificatimui of practitioners in medicine and
matron%
Leave was given to introduce the Bill.
The House adjourned at a quarter before 1 o'clock.