The Express.
London, England, 1847-05-14 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, FRIDAY EVENING, MAY 14, 047.

per cent., and it was only light on certain wines purchased
by the more =Went classes of society. Nothing would tend
m. to estalish amicable relation* with France than the
I o • NsliZay sit trios. If the gewasoutt woad
mak fut go. a *lv and liberal etude, he be-
lie. =WI bed fit make wine en article ha ant.
so lecaugdisait the sajoysionts of the people
vitae.
and g teenage the publis revenue. The bee. mesa
coneholed by useviog•tiest the house should go into cow
mitts*. - - ,
Mr. t wAnt said he should support the motion, because
he believed it would tend to increase our intercourse
with France, and to ben, fit the working population.
Within the last two years, since we reduced our duty on
Many French articles, our =port trade with France had
greatly increased. It was still likely to increase, and he was
glad to support any measure having fur its object still farther
to promote it.
The question having been put,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER saidhis hon.
frielde really drew such flattering pictures of the effect
whick would be produced upon the revenue by the reduction
of duties, that Chancellors of the Exchequer, if they looked
no further, might be tempted to repeal at once the duties
they desired to see removed. But the fact, he feared, as
respected French wines, was scarcely so favourable to their
argument asthey assumed. In 1831 we did reduce con-
siderably the duties upon French wines, but it had happened
that it was not until 1844 that the revenue had recovered
from the loss thereby occasioned. He certainly should be
happy to promote • freer interchange if possible with France,
and if there was a chance of France taking more of our
manufactured articles, it might be worth our while to make
some sacrifice of the revenue upon wines, in order to pro-
mote that interchange. In the present state of affairs, how-
ever, he saw no prospect of that result, and as the govern-
ment could not afford at this time to make any large sacrifice
of revenue, he must give a negative to the present motion.
Mr. P. BENNET said he really could not agree with
the hon. m !saber for Bolton, that the yeomanry of this country
wanted claret wines. It would be much more to their inte-
rest if the government would repeal the tax upon malt.
Mr. HUME said there was a time when claret wee oo cheap
in this country that even the yeomanry of Suffolk could
afford to drink it. He saw no reason why they should not
have such a treat at the present time. It was only in 1839
that a whig ministry had sent a gentleman to Paris to ar-
range the terms of • treaty under which the duty on claret
wines was to be redueed from ss. 6d. to 2s. 61. per gallon ;
and if it had not been for the outbreak about Syria, we
should at this moment have had French wines at that price.
After such a pledge it did appear to him that the present go-
vernment ought not to oppose this proposition. So far from
there being a low to revenue, he believed he could find par-
ties who would engage at this moment, if the dabs were
reduced one-half, to pay the same amount of duty to the
revenue that they paid at the present time.
Mr. S. O'BRIEN argued that it there was • surplus
revenue it would be infinitely better to take a tax off the
poor than to relieve the rich.
Dr. BOWRING replied: He had heard nothing like an
argument against his motion, but of course it was useless to
preeit. He contented himself for the present with the
=auction that ha should some early
.day find the govern-
ment and the house converts to his opinions.
LAW OF MARRIAGE. . ..

.......
Mr. S. WORTLEY then rum to move " That an humble
address be presented to her Majesty, praying that she will
be graciously pleased to appoint a commiesion to inquire into
the state and operation of the law of marriage, as relating to
the prohibited degrees of affinity, and to marriages solem-
nised abroad or in the British colonies." The hon. and learned
member commenced by saying that be felt justified in bring-
ing forward this important question by the number of peti-
tions which had been laid upon the table in its favour—
,
petitions es numerous and so important es to demand atten-
tive parliamentary consideration. This was not the ant
time the question had been brought forward. It had been
submitted to the House of Lords by his late revered father,
and it had been on a former occasion brought under the
notice of the House of Commons by the present Earl of
Ellesmere. Since that last motion was made, fire years had
passed, and each year had shown an accumulated mass of in-
convenience from the present state of the law. He proposed,
therefore, to move an adders to the Crown, praying that an
inquiry should be Instituted. What he proposed to prove
was, that not only was the act of 1835 perfectly ineffectual,
but that it had rendered titles to property more uncertain
than they ever were. Before that act, es was well known,
the marriage with a wife's sister was net absolutely void, but
was only voidable. He had searched the records of the
country in vain to find that there was any precedent for the
law of 1835. It was commonly supposed that that act was
introduced to prevent marriages within the prohibited de-
grees. It was no such thing. Lord Lyndhurst's object was
rather to facilitate such marriages ; and, in the Sussex case,
that noble lord had stated that the simple object of the act
was to get rid of doubts which existed upon the labjeet. The
history of the act was one of the strangest instances of par-
liamentary legislation. The act was brought into the House
of Lords in the month of June, 1835. It set forth, as origi-
nally introduced, that marriages slready contracted with as-
ters of deceased wives must be questioned within six months
after the date of the pasmg of the act, nod that such mar-
riages contracted alter the pawing of the act must be
questioned within two years after their solemnisation.
In the course of its progress, an amendment was proposed to
one of the clauses, having for its object to make all such mar-
riages invalid, end this ameadment was introduced into the
bill sub allergic. The bill in this state came down to the
House of Commons, and there it was discussed in the month
of August in house' which, on several occasions, scarcely con-
tained 40 members In the committee on the bill, the second
clause, which rendered void all marriages with a deceased
wife's sister, was absolutely thrown out upon the motion of
the late Mr. Poulter, but the next day it was re-introduced at
the instigation of Sir William Follett, who expressed a fear
that the bill, if passed without the clause, would be rejected
altogether b the Home of Lords. Now, that being the his-
tory of the bill, he next came to consider what were its conse-
quences. Had it had the effect of preventing marriages with
deceased wives' sisters 1 So far from it, that since
1835 these 'marriages had been contracted in every
rank and station of society, from the highest to the lowest.
An immense number of persons were intere.ted in the sate of
the law, and they had employed confidential and trustworthy
gentlemen to make inquiries as to its working during the last
three months. The result of these inquiries was, that since
the act of 1835, 1,364 of the forbidden marriages had taken
place within a very limited district. This showed how little
the act had tended to produce the effect intended. Indeed,
he had it from one of the highest authorities in the civil
• law, that that high functionary was continually consulted as
to how the law might be evaded, and that only in tee cue
had he been sucessdhl in dissuading the parties from
the contemplated marriage. (Hear, hear.) It had
been calculated that since the year 1835, 6,000 mar-
riages of this sort had been solemnised in England
affecting the fortunes of at least 30,000 persons. The great
object of the law of 1835 we. to produce certainty, but it
had not at all produced that result. Marriages with deceased
wives' sisters were constantly solemnised abroad, and even
when solemnised in England, they had teen pronounced by
Mr. Justice Erle to be valid, notwithstanding the act of
1836. In 1841 a petition had been presented to the House
of Lords, signed by 76 heeds of the principal firms of solicitors
in Londonrand by numerous country solicitors, stating the con-
flicting ?pinions that were held among lawyers as to the law
of marriage, and praying that it might be placed on a mote
clear and better understood footing. Sinoe that time the evil
had been hourly increasing, and had now readied such a
head as in his opinion, to call for immediate inciai7.
It had been argued that the appointment of a commission
of inquiry would raise doubts, but did not doubts exist at
the present moment ? (Hear, hear.) Other countries had
not left the matter in doubt In every protestant country,
except Switzerland. the law had been settled on this subject
In Hanover, marriages with deceased wives' sisters were per
mitted, and it had happened that persons so situated, and
being prevented marrying in this country, had (in the reign
of Oeo III.) gone over to Hanover and got married there
with thepermission of the same eovereign. (Hear.) In France,
previoustothe revolution, such marriages were allowed under
dispensation from the church. After the revolution, for some
time there was no law upon the subject, but oar the formation
of the code cavil the question was raised, and marriages of this
kind, as well asthma of uncle and niece were permitted under
dispensation. On the change of affairs in 1832 the law was
restored to the state in which it had been previous to the
revolution. He thought that dispensation from the church
might be required aa preliminary In this country with good
effect, as tending to prevent marriages sought from depraved
or hamoralmotivos. Somehen. me:abashed urged that if such
marriages were perunittod a worm& could not live under the
roof with a demensi &Ws husband without vandal. Why
she was Is *at predisament at present. (Hear, hear.) He
had boos bdbmaid, as the result of the most careful inquiry,
that IS In Me could such residence be attempted with-
out provable, sandal. In fact, the meant sate silk law
was the wee el numberless evils. He led hand of one
ore whim a moon holding a high altualka la an of the
public Ml= had prenatal llanelf the elorgyama for
=
face lesiand wlh's eine awl was relbesi. A
Imleronne wee the orsesqamen,ead both atma and
wanes lad sabamusatly stood es felons at the bar on •
lino .oids The legal proof wee not sufficient, but
**amender dump bad besa to run the men'eprospects, de-
primblimsfide damiien, end nut hiss cut from all his former
ammankne. The panne, et hie time mill lived with him,
sad ben wen rebind to absolute poverty. (Hear, hear.)
He *night that man welt as this loudly demanded inquiry.
La bear.) I. heM in his hand • remarkable petition
from theviS of,the amen of Lincoln, praying that the
law en the 'en sight be settled. Although they did not
Inenrabk to marriages with dimmed
=dew I=it key pegged that all Pia ataniegne as had
bon be imidered vaid. Hs bad nemynbous
to No sane salliften Mph dignitaries la the elenel.
Upon census ntles be was teed to move ea Wien le
the arm to appoint a repel sosaninios, es the bon mean
of_hibelft Ishes• sad obtaining inforeasties upon
wig* lam bean might legislate is • hkuo session, aad
olden by relaslag &slaw or make, it nen blaillag,
eenstri
_boa thi emallinent, no alabonanneat,
sad tank', whin the preen* nen of the kw mow osier
skettL_

lib Q. GREY roes to agrees his eastoresse Is the
Ebbs. (Hear.) He oeseidrod the debt by the
right boa. and beamed geediemea solleint WNW*
the bosky proposed. Thee amid ho se doubt that the
hoe es It Owed ins is • most woudiebelery ebto—this
set his *ohm welly, but tet et very away who were meet
=le heat ea erbium on the Wee& The
of ressowbeg doubts sad oaterleinty,
mend thole while previewdy existed, owl he believed wee
the sale amok ionsmilty amongst the lower them. He
ergreeni so b
whim 1111 le
believing what the remedy abweld be,
bet etipsielestt the iestin, that so begeby by
nom ef a timiedea esespeesi et ma whole egbion
woeht any weight Ida them, would be a ash Mrs
lediebebey model deans with the matter, than an laves-
NtbkbLe omemillse eir Sat house.
EMUS ageetted that hie right hon. friend, by

giving his must to the motion, had award that legialatkin
gm this edged was neeemery. The appppooinmtment of this
conamimioe would lead to • foregone aoaelasion that achange
ia the law would be made, and that the house was prepared
to revise the decision it came to by a large majority in 1842.
Not • single ground had been stated to justify a change in •
law which, in effect, had existed for hundreds of years,
which was sanctioned by scriptural authority, and by the
practise of the church, and about which he denied that
there was any doubt. He believed, toe, that any change
such as was suggested would have • most prejudicial result
on the happiness of many families, and deerive many
motherless children of that care and attention which they
otherwise would receive from the mother's sister, who, u the
law now stood, could reside in the house Of her deceased
sister's husband, without fear of scandal, which would not be
the case if the law which prohibited marriage with a deemed
wife's sister were repealed. (Hear.)
Mr. MILNES thanked his right hon. and learned friend
for bringing this subject forward. It was neeessery for the
peace, not of the upper claws only, but for the great mid-
dle class of England, that some each change as that sug-
gested should be made in the marriage laws. (Hear.) The
state of the law, with respect to marriages contracted abroad,
more particularly in the Leona, by English subjects, was
especially unsatisfactory. (Hear.)
Dr. NICIIOLL merely wished to say that he saw no
reason to depart from the opinion which he had formerly
reseeded on this question, which was in conformity with that
of the late Sir W. Follett, against any alteration in the law.
Mr. WATSON thought the law was in that state that it
war incumbent on the house to make inquiry, particularly
when there were 1,600 instances of such marriages in 8 years.
The motion was then agreed to.
FISHERIES (IRELAND).
Sir H. W. BARRON then rose to move for a select
oommittee to inquire into the means of improving
the fisheries in Ireland, end thereby affording profitab'e
employment. He begged to remind hon. members that
tv_is question was one which affected, not only the Irish, hut
the English people. Complaints bad been made of the
number of Irish immigrants that come to this country, and
the only way to remedy this was by giving the people profit-
able employment in their own country. About 40,000 per-
WWI were connected with the fisheries, and in the greater
part of Ireland those poor persons could not carry out the
fisheries from want of capital, and from not having had
done for them what parliament had done for Scotland. It,
appeared by a return which he bad moved for,
that parliament had voted to Scotland fee fisheries
in ten years J 43,7911.. while ;to Ireland in the lame time
there had been given 12,0001. The Scotch fisheries were the
most prosperous in Europe, not excepting the Dutch, and it
was a fact that no less than 60,0001. worth of fish was an-
nually imported from Scotland into Ireland. In Scotland
there were five commissioners, • secretary, and a number of
inspectors, by means of which they had reached their present
pre-eminence. He wished that instead of six curing-houses
the number was extended to a hunded along the coast.
He hoped that his motion would not be met with
the reply that from the lateness of the session a
committee would be useless ; but he would engage that it
should not sit 10 days, and that six witnesses would prove
his case. The hon. baronet, after enlarging upon the distress
which existed in Ireland, said that the best argument for
his motion was that every step which had been taken with
regard to Irish fisheries had been successful.
Mr, FREWEN seconded the motion.
Mr. LABOUCHERE admitted the importance of en-
couraging the fisheries of Ireland, which would work a mine
of wealth aleng the coasts and produce both food and em-
ployment for the people, as well as • hardy rate of
seamen. The question had of late years occupied much of
the attention of the house and government, and there was
abundant information on the subject, much of which had
been collected by his noble friend the Chief Commissioner of
the Woods and Forests, when Secretary for Ireland, in con-
junction with Mr. Drummond and Sir J. Burgoyne, and a
series of measures had been founded on it, which had been
carried on, and if persevered in would no doubt produce sac-
ceesful results. He differed with kis hon. friend as to the
precise mode in which the government should endeavour to
encourage fisheries. With regard to Scotland he (Mr. La-
bouchere) believed the growth of the &belie. was more to
be attributed to the energy of private enterprise than to the
amistance of the government. Still he thought there were
many modes in which the government might interfere bene-
ficially to stimulate fisheries. without interfering with pri-
vate enterprise. One was the constructi,n of fishing piers
on ports of the coast where there were no harbours:to which
the fishermen could resort. The late government proposed
50,0001. as a tree grout for this purpose, besides an
advance for loans to proprietors. The present government
had in the present session proposed a further grant of
40,0001., and he hoped that from time to time further sums
would be devoted to this object: Curing stations had
been erected at a small expense on the coast, and the results
had been so beneficial, as to afford great encourage-
ment. Six of these had been established where the
fishing banks were meet prolific, and there was
no private trade with which they could interfere.
At each station was placed • confidential agent, and an
experienced Scotch curer. All the fish brought there was
purchased, and thus • ready market for fish was established.
Salt, hooks, and other matter,, were purchased by wholesale,
and retailed at a cheap rate to the fishermen. By such
means, the fisheries of Ireland might be encouraged to an
extent that could not be anticipated. All this had been done
under the able direction of Mr. Mulvany, of the Board of
Works, wham exertions were beyond all praise. Much had
been said of the superiority of Scotch curing; but
the mink of what be had stated was, that the Irish-
cured fish was fast driving the Scotch out of the
markets of Ireland. Many collateral advantages had
arisen; private speculators, seeing what government
had done, had been encoued to invest their capital ; and
this very day he had heard of a vessel being sent from
Gravesend by Mr. Dickers, of Pimlico, to the west coast of
Ireland to engage in the fishing trade. Could private
speculators be induced to embark more extensively in the
trade it would be much better than for government to do
I anything to supersede private enterprise. The right hon.
' gentleman read some extracts from • report of Mr. Mul-
'any, detailing the steps which had been taken at the curing
stations, with their results. He then declared his,opinion that
the system of bounties had failed in Scotland, and would fail
in Ireland if it were adopted there. The late Sir Ches. Mor-
gan had expressed his conviction that private enterprise only
could work these fisheries successfully. In this conaltuion
he concurred ; the increasing demand in Ireland would sti-
mulate these undertakings, and the Irish railways would
extend the market, both at home and in this country. He
doubted whether it was advisable to appoint a committee u
proposed ; the subject had been thoroughly sifted, and the
house was in possession of the fullest information. Another
objection was, that the attention of the public officers would
be withdrawn from the important duties they were now
discharging, without any valuable result. Should any fur.
ther inform be gained by government before the end
of the session, as to the result of the establishment of the
cutlet stations, it should be laid before parliament. The
greatest inconvenience would result from bringing over the
officers engaged at these stations to give evidence before a
parliamentary committee.
Lord 0. BENTINCK doubted whether the information
in possession of the house was so complete as the right hon.
gentleman seemed to think ; for Sir It. Routh had declared
that the act of last session on the subject was almost inopera-
tive. We rejoiced to learn that the only thing wanted was
a market for fish, and that there was no indisposition on the
part of the people to take the fish ; a fact which ought to
abate some of the English prejudices against the Irish, which
were now so sedulously fanned by some parties. (Hear.)
There being only six of these curing-stations established by
government, it might have been an appropriate inquiry for a
committee, whether the number might not be advantageously
extended. Considering that the public officers in Ireland
cost 18,0001. a week, it was very gratifying to learn
that these curing-stations were so cheaply conducted.
Although the right honourable gentleman had ad-
mitted bow euential railways were to the promotion of
the Irish fisheries, yet government bad done all in their
power to prevent the county Galway from having railways.
He bad never heard ea many reasons why a committee should
be appointed. As to the officers being called away from the
curing-stations, he did not think they need be detained more
I than ten days.
Mr. HUME regretted the entire neglect of the whole Irish
fisheries, and said that proper piers and landing-places were
meet urgently required all along the coast, and the expendi-
ture hitherto had been misapplied. A proper officer was
required, whose professional character would enable him to
give the requisite superintendence. lie did not think a
committee aecessery ; let government employ a naval officer
to we that the money was properly applied, which he feared
bad not been the cue hitherto. -

reedlolll4cletails of the results of the Wa-
terford fisheries of 1846 and 1846, which appeared to have
been very lucrative. He read a statement proving that
railways in the North of England had conduced greatly to
the increase of the fish trade. He concluded by supporting
the metioa.
. .

Mr. WATSON said that be represented a town the most
neglected in Ireland ;he meant Kinsale. The government
should give the people advantages either of curing stations
or give them money for nets. They ought to adopt also the
roposition suggested by the noble member for Lynn respect-
ing
int/cooed interred communication ; they would thereby
supply the centre of Ireland with wholneme food and em-
ployment. He lord that this discussion would lead to
great benefit to I and to the good of England also.
(Hear, hear.) He WM deeply interested in this uuestion ;
the people of his town wetted mosey to assist them In fishing
Mid ales fer the eats of the fish. He, if the matter
weed to aelvidea, vele for the modes of the hon. mem-
ber Ike Wrie, thee& he themlit that se great benefit
meal erne from it at ibis late peisd of the session.
Hr. lt. FRENCH (mid ides of " Divide ") said that the
adds bed complained that ths representatives of the western
thitiof Ironed did not rapport his motion for a putt of
r, 0,0001. far reams, but he voted against it because he
did era Wine it mesa do anything to alleviate the distress
in his gen adios gentry. He did est think that so large a
sea of messy disehl be ard Ise Inland, without doing
sergmeelles le astemp et
Mr. HUDSON ma that be wield von for the committee
1110,111 kr ',Lae be. maw he Waterford. The hon. I
masks" Ike deersermsem sell met hen read the preamble
of the lia of the adds bed, or he wield have seen that Roe-
estmeou end Galway was mot ilingeeten in it. Had the
tow =kis lard's project bee'Mild traffic in fish would
have firodueed ansesig a sun , or SWAM,
air .W. BARRO ma, in antis would coneent
to withdraw his mollismos the sensed to approve of
the principles whisk he Widows. (Orin of" Divide.")
strangers were the eidered to withdraw, bat no division
took plasm. On our return to the gallery we found
Mr. AOLIONBY addressing the house, and urging hon.
members opposite t., allow the lion. baronet the member for
Waterford to withdraw his matins. . .

iir7 DISRAELI complained of the hon. member for
Cockermouth (Mr. Aglionby) having said that the motion

had been received on his (Mr. Disraeli's) side of the house in
a jocose spirit, by which Ireland had been insulted. The
hon. baronet the member for Waterford, knowing that his
noble friend the member for Lynn took en interest in the
subject, asked him to comedown and support the motion and
endeavour to keep a house, which they bad succeeded in
cluing. ("No, no," from the ministerial benches.) Why
had the government done so ? Was it not known that on
some important occasions, when ministerial measure. were
to be brought forward, the government had not been able to
secure • helm ? (Hear, beer.) After the public address
and private appeal of the hon. member for Waterford, be did
not see how the party with whom he (Mr. Disraeli) acted
could with decency refuse to vote for his motion.
Mr. AGLIONBY explained, that in using the term
" jocose," he merely alluded to the manner in which the
attempt to withdraw the motion had been received.
After a few weeds from Col. RAWDON,
Mr. TRELAWNY said, if the house went to a division,
he should propose to add to the motion the words "and
Cornwall," so • great number of the poorer class in that
county depended on fishing for their subsistence.
Mr. HUME seconded the amendment, and said he should
like to have added the South Sea fishery and the North Sea
fishery. (Great laughter.)
The CMANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER hoped the
noble lord, the member for Lynn, would allow the hon.
member to withdraw his motion. A great deal had been
done for the Irish fisheries, and he should have to move that
40,0001. more be granted this year for erecting fishery piers
in Ireland. At so late a period of the session, the appoint-
ment of the proposed committee would defeat its own
object. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. DISRAELI paid that important business had been
prevented from being brought on, in consequence of this
sham motion, as it now appeared to be, and, after all, the
night bad been wasted upon it; he wanted the debate to
lead to some result. He was told that there was soon to be
• dissolution of parliament, and, if so, he would recommend
the government to grant a committee to every member who
asked for one. (Laughter.)
Mr. LA BOUCH ERE thought that the hon. member for
Waterford and the Irish members had been hardly dealt
with by the hon. member for Shrewsbury. He acknow-
ledged that the hon. gentlemen opposite had been very
candid as an opposition ; but perhaps they would not be
disappointed, as it was natural to all oppositions to place the
government in a minority. He thought that the hon.
baronet ought to be allowed to withdraw his motion, as he
felt that, by so doing, he would be best promoting the object
he had in view.
Lord G. BENTINCE said that be and his friends
were the supporters of the motion of the hon. member fur
Waterford, and they remained in the house for that purpose
at the request of the hon. gentleman. Of the 23 members
whom the hon. member for Armagh spoke of as being pre-
sent when the debate began, he believed that only three
were Irishmen. (Hear, hear.) Nothing, however, was to
be obtained, it seemed, by this sham attempt to get a com-
mittee of inquiry. If the motion was allowed to be with-
drawn, the responsibility must rest with these who brought
forward motions of this kind and then abandoned them, and
not with him and his friends, who were anxious on all occa-
sions to develops the resources of Ireland. (Hear.)
Sir H. W. BARRON denied that his motion was a sham
one. His object was to obtain en expression of opinion on the
put of the house. Having obtained that, he was satisfied,
but when he saw that it was made a party question by hon.
gentlemen opposite, he shrunk from pressing it.
Mr. BANKES said, that after the speeeti of the hon.
baronet, if any member objected to the withdrawal of the
motion, he would support him. If the question was made a
party one, it was not by those on his side of the house. He
must say that it was insulting Ireland to treat her in the
way that had been done in this instance, and sufficient to
make her feel that her interests were neglected in that house
by these who, he would not say were, but who must appear,
her false friend.. (Hear, hear.) The nest motion on the
paper relating to Ireland—was that to be a sham motion also?
Mr. P. SCROPE said that he did not intend that his
motion should be a ahem one. He wanted to bare the sub-
ject to which it referred discussed seriously and calmly. He
thought that the hon. baronet, seeing that the appointment
of a committee would not promote his object, ought to be
allowed to withdraw his motion.

-.--.-- ..--..--.
Mr. HUDSON denied that gentlemen on hie aide of the
house had been influenced by party motives. Their only
reuon for wishing the motion to be proceeded with was that
they believed that course would be for the good of Ireland.
Sir H. W. BARRON said that when he spoke of party
object/ he had distinctly alluded to the hon member for
Shrewsbury. (Laughter.) He had felt perfectly satisfied by
the expressions used by the government, that the subject
would not be forgotten.
The amendment was then withdrawn, and the hone.
divided—For the moben 22

Against it 73-61