The Sun.
London, England, 1836-06-29 00:00:00

STF,PHENSON'S BRIGHTON RAILWAY.

- -
Mr. ergeant GOULBURN presented a petition against
Stephenson's Brighton Railway.
CHURCH RATES.

Mr. TOOKE presented a petition, signed by the mayor,
and between 400 and 500 of the principal inhabitants of Truro,
praying the entire abolition of the church rate. Mr. Tooke
said, that as it appeared from an intimation recently given by
the Noble Home Secretary, that there was no intention on the
part of Government to originate any measure on that subject
during this Session, he took this opportunity of expressing his
regret at such determination, and indeed after the declarations
made by the professing friends of the Dissenters, he must add
that he Was surprised, he was ashamed, that at this conclud-
ing pefiod of the second Session of a second Reformed
Parlirment, not a single particle of legislative relief
had yet been completed in their favour. Warmly attached to
the church of England himself, he considered it discreditable
to that establishment—to its influential representatives--that
they had nut long since made a voluntary surrender of the
claurch rate, as a debt of justice to their dissenting fellow
Christians. But odious and oppressive as was this rate in his
view of it, he would rather see it continued in all its defor-
mity, than consent to the adoption of the paltry expedient sug-
gested in the last Parliament of charging the church-rate on
the land tax, or on the co-Jsolidated fund—thus with more fla-
grant injustice, becausr4 indirectly, universally, and without
redress, compelling tie Dissenter to contribute to the repairs
and ornaments of a church which be disclaimed.
AN DIEMEN'S LAND.

Mr. MORCHkN JOHN O'CONNELL presented three

petitions front this colony, one from a Mr. Melvile, of Hobart
Town, comphining of an unjust sentence passed on him for
an alleged contempt of Court. Another petition from the in-
habitaw.s of Hobart Town, praying the attention of the House
to the, preceding case ; and a third from Mr. Bryan, formerly
of Clenore, Van Diemen's Land, complaining of the conduct
of the Governor, and praying for trial by Jury.
Sir G. GREY said with respect to the case of Mr. Bryan
he had been removed from the Commission of the Peace, and
be believed the Governor was fully justified in doing so. The
Governor would shortly be in England, when an opportunity
would be afforded the Hon. Member of again bringing the
case before the House.
Mr. ROEBUCK begged to ask whether any objection
would be made to the production of the despatches of Lord
Aylmer to Mr. Stanley, for which the Noble Lord, the Mem-
ber for Devonshire, had moved?
Sir G. GREY said—With respect to the question put to
him by the Hon. Member for Bath, relative to the de-
spatches that had been moved for, he believed that, from
the moment the charges had been made, Lord Aylmer
Lad done every thing in his power to meet them. If the
despatches were considered necessary, he would have no objec-
tion to their production.
Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL also presented a similar petition
from a gentleman named Melville, of Hobart's Town, Van
Diemen's Land, complaining of the sentence passed upon him
for an alleged contempt of Court. Also a petition from the
free inhabitants of Hobart's Town, praying the House to take
the case of Mr. Melville into their serious consideration.
Sir GEORGE GREY said, the law offices of the Colony
had been averse to the removal of the petitioner, and the Go-
vernment here had ordered him to be reinstated.
Mr. O'CONNELL hoped that as the system of interroga-
tories was discountenanced in every other part of the country
except the one he was connected with, he would never
hear of it again : it was a most iniquitous and inquisitorial
proceeding.
Sir WILLIAM BR ABA ZON presented petitions from
Mayo and several parishes in the same county, against the
Lords' amendments, and praying for the abolition of tithes.
Mr. R. D. BRO WNE supported the prayer of the petitions.
CHURCH RATES.
Mr. D. W. HARVEY presented a petition from Barn-
staple, from persons calling themselves Protestant Dissenters,
against Church-rates, whether levied directly or indirectly.
ABOLITION OF TITHES.

Mr. BROWNE presented a petition from the county of
Mayo, praying for the total abolition of tithes. The Hon.
Member bad also a petition to pre-ient from an individual
of the name of John Byrne, of Mayo, complaining of im-
proper conduct on the part of a. Magistrate. The prisoner
complained that whilst he was engaged in his lawful oc-
pation, by which he procured the means of subsistence, he was
illegally arrested and imprisoned.
Colonel PERCE VAI. said that this was a petition from
an individual calling 'thmself a native of Mayo, whereas he
was an itinerant br.tlad singer of Mill-street, Dublin.—( A
laugh.) He bror.ght a most grave charge against a Magis-
trate, with who .11 he (Col. Perceval) had been acquainted
for 30 years, and who was wholly incapable of the conduct
imputed to ).tira.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") The facts
were these :--This gentleman (Mr. Cuff) went after the last
election, cin the 16th of May, to Ballinrobe, where he found
a crowd collected, and this ballad-singer in the midst of them,
singing, treasonable ballads of a political character. Mr.
Cuff cautioned the man against this conduct, and told him
that if be found him pursuing a similar course, he would com-
mit him. The man persevered, and Mr. Cuff, in what he
considered the discharge of his duty, had the man arrested.
After this explanation he trusted the Hon. Member for Mayo
would withdraw his petition.
Mr. HUME wished to know whetlier the ballads to which
the Gallant Colonel had referred, were of this description,
" Put your trust in God my 130‘;'s, and keep your powder dry."
—( Great cheering and laughter.)
Col. PERCE VAL rose with some warmth. The Hon.
Member for Middlesex seemed to think the whole sum and
substance of treason consisted in the words he had just used.
—( Cheers from the Opposition.) He thought those words
well worthy every Protestant in Ireland.—(Cheers.)
Mr. BR-OWN E was not surprised that the Hon. and Gal-
lant Colonel should come forward to defend the conduct of a
Magistrate when it was considered he was acting from politi-
cal motives.—( Cheers, and cries of " Order I ")
The SPEAKER thought the Hon. Member was out of
order.

Mr. BROWNE would bow to the decision of the Chaie.
All that he was anxious for was, that the subject sho'Aid be
called to the attention of his Majesty's Government,
Mr. Sergeant JACKSON protested against the time of the
House being oce,:tpied with discussions of this nature.—( Loud
cries of Oh, oh, 1). The man if he chose might bring his ac-
tion. —( Oh , oh and laughter. )
Sir JOHN WROTTESLEY would ever be the advocate
of every British subject who sent a petition to that House.-_
(Cheers.) The man had been found guilty of singing bal-
lads of a treasonable nature ; but why among the papers which
the Hon. and Gallant Colonel had had sent to him was there
not one of these ballads? The who gist of the question
lay upon whether the ballad wm treasonable or not? If it
was, why was not the House of Commons to judge of it; if
it was not, why was the s'..an to be deprived of his liberty ?
(Hear, hear.)
Mr. C. W. W`; NN wished to know why they were to
judge whether ',he ballad was treasonable or not.—( Loud cries
of " Hear, 'near," from the Conservatives.) They were not
Judges. The Constitution of the country had provided
Judge! and Courts of Justice for remedying those cases.
He did not know an evil so great, and so growing at
tire present time, as a disposition to pass by the regular
tribunals, which the laws of the Constitution had pro-
vided, in order to bring cases before the House which it could
not, which it ought not, to attempt to investigate.—(Renewed
crifs of " Hear, hear," from the C'unservatives.)
Mr. R. D. BROWNE ;use amidst loud cries of" Spoke,
spoke," and " Shiel, Shiel.) He had been asked a question
by the Hon. Mr:,nbet (the Gallant Colonel opposite), and he
had to ans.4er that on the receipt of the petition he had coia-
munitisted with the Attorney-General for Ireland, who Ri-
f:armed him that no difficulty would be thrown in the way.
Mr. SHE IL being again called on, said he thought enough
had already been said upon the subject. Enough of time had
been taken up in the presentatien of petitions, especially as the i
Hon. and Learned Sergeant opposite (Jackson) had an m-
Port'int one to present from a Catholic Clergyman. He
could not, however, allow the present opportunity to
pass, without saying a few words upon the subject
of' the ballads which had been referred to. He had
bad the pleasure of hearing a ballad read in another
place with much the same emphasis as had been
done by a Noble Lord in that House. He must say,
with reference to the " Put your trust in God, my boys," that
if one party were allowed to appeal to the passions of their
followers, it would be hard to say that the other party ought
not to be excused by having recourse to the same means.
Mr. SHAW said that his Hon. and Gallant Friend had

be m misunderstood. What he had state 1 was, that Mr. Cuff
imprisoned this man because he apprehended a breach of the
peace and a riot. The Hon. and Learned Member for Tip-
perary should show, before he called upon the House to en-
quire into this grievance, that it was without remedy in the
courts of law.
Colonel PERCEVAL explained, and after a few Word's
from Sir W. BIZABAZON, the petition was laid on the table.

NORTH MIDLAND RAILWAY.
On the motion of 13ECKETT, a Conference was
appointed to On held with the House of Lords on the subject
of Mr_ kinendments made in this Bill, and Sir J. BECKS; r
Awl several others were appointed to manage it.; •
reported that
Sir J. BECKET appeared at thc: '„ar, 'awl
Ps. -in Conference, and left their they had met their Lordshi
reasons with them,

LONDON AND BLACKWALL COMMERCIAL
RAILWAY,.
On the motion that the amendments be engrossed,
Mr. CRAWFORD said he came down to move that the
further consideration of the report be postponed till that day
six months. He thought the Bill would be most injurious tr.!
the public interest, and that none of the pros,pects hel'd 'sit by
it would be realized.

Sir J. RAE RE ID oprck tie tll 'tFbtl.
Mr. P. STEW ART deferAed e Bill. There were four
divisions in the Committee) hti in favour of the Bill, the latter
of which was tarried 1,1 a majority of 13. In hip (Tit'thn it
was for tJ',6 genid ht the commercial world that ttl 'Bill should
pass. Ilk struggle was between th.t East and West India
Docks eior the purpose of beim; pit on an equal footing with
the St. Katherine Dor,k, and the Hon. Member who had
trrade the motion. Was a great proprietor of those Docks.
Mr. CRAWFORD repudiated altogether the reason as-
signed by the Honourable Member for his conduct. There
teas no foundation for it, as, in point of fact, there
was no competition existing as that which the Honourable
Member would lead the House to believe. The answer
to the imputation of the Hon. Gentleman was conclusive—
namely, that out of seven Members immediately interested,
six had concurred with him in the view he took of the
question. This, he hoped, was a sufficient answer to the im-
putations that were cast upon him.
Mr. P. STEWART did not mean to cast any imputation
on the Hon. Member.
Mr. CLAY supported the amendment.

Sir E. CODRINGTON rose amid cries of" Question."
The lion. Baronet was understood to say that so far as his
observation went the present means of communication were
decidedly deficient.

Mr. THOS. DUNCOMBE supported the motion. The
Bill was calculated to afford very decided benefit to the mer-
cantile arid commercial interests. In his opinion, Parlia-
ment had never given its sanction to a more important
or useful measure. —( Question.)
Mr. CRAWFORD, seeing the sense of the House against
him, would withdraw his amendment.

The motion was then agreed to.
LONDON AND BRIGHTON RAILWAY.

Mr. HUME presented a petition, signed by 7,300 inhabi•
tants of Middlesex, praying that the House would not consent
to any line of railway between London and Brighton, unless
one that was constructed without a tunnel.

Mr. E. TENNE NT complained, that Mr. Cundy's line
had not been fairly dealt with, and presented a petition in its
favour.
After a short conversation,
Lord G. LENNOX moved that the Report of the Com-
mittee of the London and Brighton Railway be now agreed to.
Captain AL SAG ER contended for the superiority of Sir
J. Rennie's line. The advantages of this line over the others
were very considerable. The line before the House would be
no advantage to the inhabitants of Brighton, as it stopped
outside the town, whilst Sir J. Rennie's went direct to the
town. There was another advantage in favour of Sir J. Ren-
nie's line, namely, that its terminus was at London Bridge,
where it appeared nineteen out of every twenty tons of the
commerce of the line would be carried from. The terminus
of Mr. Stephenson's line was at Limehouse. The distance
by Sir J. Rennie's line was forty-five miles, whilst that by
Stephenson's line was fifty-five miles, making a saving in car-
riage of goods of several miles, which would be a very im-
portant advantage to the public. After contending in favour
of the superiority of Sir J. Rennie's line, the Hon. Member
concluded by moving that the Report be received that day six
months.
Captain PE CHELL said that the House were now called
upon to adopt a. Report which would inflict the most lasting
injury upon the inhabitants of Brighton. There never had
been such a Report laid on the table of the House. Evidence
had been suppressed in favour of Mr. Stephenson's line. As
to the recommittal of the Bill, he objected to it. The safest
course would be to reject the Report altogether, and he there-
fore would give his support to the motion that the Report be
read that day six months.
Lord G. LENNOX defended the Report. He trusted
that the House would consent to his wishes, and that they
would not be prevailed upon to upset the decisions of a Com-
mittee which had sat for fifty-three days—which had had the
advantage of the assistance of twenty-three Learned Counsel
—(A laugh)—and before whom no less than 195 witnesses
had been examined.
Mr. DENISON supported the motion of the Noble Lord.
There were fewer tunnels on Stephenson's line than on Sir
John Rennie's. He should therefore support his line.
Mr. KEMP believed the unanimous opinion of the inhabi-
tants of Brighton to be against Mr. Stephenson's line, and in
favour of Sir J. Rennie's. He should, therefore, vote for the
amendment.
Mr. WIGNEY should support the amendment.
Lord STANLEY agreed with the Committee.
Mr. C URTE IS said that many gentlemen supported Mr.
Stephenson's line, who, on account of the locality of their
property, were more interested in it than Sir John Rennie's.
He did not mean to impute any improper motive to those
Hon. Members, but it made the opinion of such a committee
very unsatisfactory. There was another reason for not agree-
ing to the report, vit., that since the report was made, the
South Eastern Bill had received the Royal assent ; and that
Bill made a railway to Brighton fox twenty miles of the way,
giving it also a direct communication with the line to Dover.
As for the remark that Stephenson's line had less tunnelling
than Sir John Rennie's, that was a very tender point,—for
Mr. Cundy's line had no tunnels at all, and he said, only wait
till next session, and I shall be able to bring before the House
a line two miles shorter than Stephenson's, and without any
tunnel.—(Hear.)
After some further conversation, to which the House lis-
tened very impatiently, Mr. Jephson, Major Curteis, and Sir
E. Codrington, supporting the amendment ; and Mr. Borth-
wick and Mr. C. Barclay, the original motion,—the Gallery
was cleared for a division; when there appeared—
For the Original Motion
For the Amendment 6l
Majority in favour of Stephenson's line —4O
On our return to the gallery a conversation was being car-
ried on between Mr. J. Jervis, Mr. Curteis, Lord G. Lennox,
Mr. Borthwick, and other Hon. Members, with reference to
the latter Hon. Member's alleged non-attendance in the com-
mittee on the Brighton Railroad Bills. The Hon. Member
explained, and it appeared that the matter had arisen out of a
misapprehension of the terms of a statement before made by
the Hon. Member on the subject.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Lord J. RUSSELL then moved, pursuant to notice, that
the Order of the Day for the third reading of the Bills for
the Registration of Marriages and Births, take precedence of
motions this evening.
Mr. HUME although he was anxious to afford every fa-.
cility to the progress of important Bills, yet' had a motion
of the utmost importance to bring forward on the subject
of India. He would be very ready to give way to the
Noble Lord if he would appoint another day—next Tuesday,
for instance.
Lord J. RUSSELL would have no objection to fix on that
day for the Hon. Gentleman's motion.
Mr. PLUMPTRF had a motion first on the list, and
could not be hound by the agreement of the Hon. Member
for Middlesex.
Mr. HUME—As the Hon. Member had precedence on
the present occasion, would also take precedence on Tues-
day next.
Mr. MAXWELL had a most important motion on the
paper, on the subject of hand-loom weaving ; and although he
was desirous of affording every facility to the Noble Lord, he
could not consent to sacrifice important interests. Would
the Noble Lord allow him (Mr. Maxwell) to bring in the Bill
with respect to which he had given notice?
Lord J. RUSSELL personally had no objection to the
Hon. Member introducing the Bill without any prefatory
statement; but at the same time it must be remembered that
the Hon. Member, from the position his notice occupied on the
paper, would have had very little chance of bringing it on.
He hoped, therefore, the Hon. Member would not persist.
Mr. hl A XNV EL I, should, if opposed, be compelled to
persist.—(Divide, divide.) The Hon. Member then moved
as an amendment that leave be given to bring in a Bill to
give publicity to the prices of hand-loom weaving.
The gallery was then cleared for a division, but none took
place.

On our return we found
Sir R. PEEL addressing the House. He contended that
the Hon. Member had a perfect right to insist upon his pre-
cedence.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that the Hon. Member would
have had very little chance of bringing on his motion to-night,
from its position on the paper.
Sir R. PEEL said the rule of the House was perfectly
clear, and it was that which he sought to maintain. As to
the Bill of the Hon. Gentleman, he (Sir R. Peel) would in
all probability be opposed to it.
Mr. A. TREVOR supported the motion.
Sir J. HOBHOUSE was, not in a condition then to call
on the House to accede.
After some conversation, leave was given to Mr. MAX-
WELL to bring in his Bill to give publicity to the prices of
hand-loom labour.
Mr. POULTER introduced his motion that the House
meet on Thursday, at twelve o'clock.
Sir J. GRAHAM opposed the motion.
Mr. POULTER should press the motion.
After a few words from Mr. PEASE, Mr. WY NN, and Mr.
BROTHERTON, against the motion, the House divided, when
there appeared—
For the motion
Against it
Alajority
REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS BILL.
On the motion of Lord J. RUSSELL, that the Bill be
read a third time.
Mr. G 0 ULBURN had certain amendments to propose.
He did not object to the principle of the Bill, for he was most
willing to afford the Dissenters relief from their real
grievants. He wished for a general registration of births;
but this feeling did not deter him from pressing on the House

43

THE SUN, LON DOA, WE

the effect of interfering with the kites VA.A.T.lanies of the
Church of England, 1-te. th.t 'not onlY on the birth
of the child the antonneetnent Of tte fact ~-sbonid.,bc,gi'.:up to
the registrar, but that his hYteiided name ;rich
The name of the 'Child Mtv‘;lo sou
,Serted with the te,criti'y baptl,;th, and not left to the liability
of after change. 'The Ltw of the land, as well as the law of
the Church, demands that baptism should be public. It was
for these reasons that he mneca
tne following- amendment :
" That in the 19th
,;taugs, line 5, p. 7, after the word ' child,'
'
the be Inserted ' save and ey.cept the name of the child."
Is,
iorr dR J. . R. I.;
NS
GS EL
sl 4
contended thought th e
thatm amendment mt
heen
commont un nec
prin-
ciple
es s a
of toleration the existing privileges of the Church
should be confirmed to it.

After a remark from Mr. EWA RT, which did not reach us,
Dr. BOWRING gave it as his opinion that the Bill was
statistical, and that marriage was only A civil hultitutlon.
Mr. A. TREVOR hoped the Arlitttdrnent would be pressed
to a divition:

Pt: I.,UARiNGTON did not think that Churchmen re-
'qUiPool the proposed alteration.
Sir R. PEEL considered it was an universAlly-fceeivcd
opinion that naming, the t NOntial part of bap-
tism, and he thgright that allowing the ceremony to be per-
formed t.,.4.tt1011t it would be tantamount to a tacit condemna7

ttm‘i and abolition of the ceremony of baptism.--( Hear, hear.)
He should, therefore, sire his cordial assent to the proposition

of his Right Hon. Friend. .
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment
Against the amendment 97
'Majority —24
On the question that this Bill do pass being put from the
Chair,
Sir R. PEEL begged to call the attention of the Noble
Lord opposite to the case of parish clerks, as they would be
affected by it. The situations of these individuals were free-
holds, often purchased. The greater part of their income and
emoluments was derived from fees on births and marriages.

In one northern parish he had a statement that the income
of the parish clerk was 751. a year, of which 62/. Bs. was de-
rived entirely from fees on the registration of births and mar-
riages. The Bill abolished these altogether ; and thus did
an injustice and an injury to this class of persons.
Lord J. RUSSELL was understood to say that there were
difficulties in the way of coming to any decision on the subject.
However, if hereafter Parliament should find that these per-
sons were sufferers by its injustice he should not oppose afford-
ing them redress.
Sir R. H. INGLIS and Mr. G. F. YOUNG severally
bore testimony to the hardship of the case of the parish clerks,
and the injustice about to be inflicted on them.
Lord F. EGERTON called the attention of the Noble
Lord to another case of hardship, in connection rather with
the Marriage Bill than with the Bill before the House. (lie
was understood to say the Chaplains of parochial Cures.) He
had in his hand a letter from a clergyman of that description
in Manchester, who stated that his income would be greatly
reduced by the Marriage Bill.
Lord J. RUSSELL was inaudible in reply.
After a few words from Mr. RUSHBROOKE and Mr.
POTTER, the Bill was passed.
REGISTRATION OF MARRIAGES.
On the motion of Lord J. RUSSELL, the Registration of
Marriages Bill was read a third time.
Several clauses, as amended, were added to the Bill.
On the question that this Bill do pass being put,
Mr. LAW begged to call the attention of the House to a
clause in the original Bill, in connection with one of the new
clauses about to be added to it. The first of these clauses
referred to the solemnization of marriage ; the second to the
place in which it was to be solemnized. And the question on
which he sought to be satisfied was whether on the construc-
tion of these clauses, taken in connection a charge of bigamy,
or, more properly speaking, polygamy, might not be sus-
tained against parties marrying under the provisions of the
Bill. _ _

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL declared it to be his
opinion that a marriage contracted under the Bill was solemn
and binding in every point of view, and that a second mar-
riage similarly contracted, in defiance of the first, must be an
act of bigamy, and be punishable as such.
The clause was then agreed to.
Mr. GO ULBURN then proposed the clause of which he
had given notice. He proposed that it should be enacted that
when notice should be given to the Register (appointed to
attend in any registered building provided under the Act), by
parties who wish to enter into a contract of matrimony, that
the parties so requiring permission to be married should make
a solemn declaration that they have a conscientious scruple to
be married according to the religious ceremonies of the Church
of England. He did not intend to interfere in any way with
the scruples of Dissenters.
Dr. LUSHINGTON opposed the clause, as calculated to
defeat the main object of the Bill, which was to give equal
rights and pririleges to Dissenters and to members of the
Church of England. Dissenters had a right to marry with-
out inquisitorial inquiry into their religious opinions in refe-
rence to that compact, or being obliged to unfold them at
such a time for the gratification of Legislators.
Sir R. INGLIS said the present clause was framed in a
spirit of protection for the members of the Church of Eng-
land alone, and did not in the least restrict the privileges con-
ceded to Dissenters.
Mr. BAINES was astonished and shocked to hear that he
should find such a passage in the original Bill. If no one
else could be found he would move that it should be ex-
punged, and he would divide the House on it. He would
rather vote against the whole Bill than accept it with such a
noxious clause as that now proposed in a similar spirit.
Lord J. RUSSELL agreed that the introduction of the
proposed clause would have a very prejudicial effect on the
character of the Bill, and would lessen its value in the eyes of
Dissenters. He would prefer restoring the Bill to its original_
state rather than consent to introduce the clause proposed by
the Right Hon. Gentleman.
Mr. LAW said that, as legislators, they were bound not to
desecrate the marriage rite. He was willing to concede to
the religious scruples of all classes of Dissenters, but he was
sure that every conscientious Dissenter would wish the mar-
riage ceremony to be performed in the most open manner. He
was aware that there was a growing unpopularity against the
religion in which the greater portion of the Members of that
House were educated—( Cheers)—but he, for one, would
never hold up matrimony as other than a ceremony connected
with religion.
Mr. WARBURTON said that the object of the Bill was
to make the marriage ceremony binding on Dissenters, and
not to desecrate the rite of marriage.
Mr. C. FERGUSSON hoped the Noble Lord would ra-
ther give up the Bill altogether than agree to the clause pro-
posed by the Right Hon. Gentleman.
Mr. A. TREVOR said the present Bill directly aimed at
upsetting the ceremonies of the Established Church.
Mr. HARDY should vote against the clause of the Right
Hon. the Member for Cambridge, and in favour of the words
introduced by the Noble Lord.
Sir A. AGNEW hoped that the Right Hon. Member for
Cambridge would not persist in the clause.
Colonel THOMPSON said a few words in opposition to
the clause.
Sir R. PEEL said that what had passed between the Noble
Lord and himself with reference to the words which the Noble
Lord bad introduced into the Bill at his ( Sir Robert Peel's)
suggestion had passed in the House, and the proposition which
he then made was not opposed by any of his friends on the
same side with him. The Noble Lord had felt.the justice of
the suggestion, and had introduced it as a clause into the
Bill without the slightest intimation to him ( Sir R. P.) of his
intention to do so. He certainly did not make any formal propo-
sition of the suggestion he had thrown out, but he thought it
would be likely to give great satisfaction to the Dissenters if it
were adopted. His object was to leave the marriages in the Church
of England as they stood at present, and, at the same time,
not to interfere with the conscientious scruples of the Dis-
senters. He thought it very likely that if his Right Hon.
Friend pressed his clause to a division, the Noble Lord would
soon have an opportunity of taking the sense of his friends
upon his own clause, when probably he would not meet with
so shameful a defeat as he did the other night.—( Cheers, and
laughter.) He thought that the marriage contract ought to
be connected with religious rites, but at the same time he
would not shut out the Dissenter from entering into it as a
civil contract.
Mr. TOWNLEY—Whatever might be the fate of the
proposition of the Right Hon. Gentleman, he hoped the test
in the 18th clause would be excluded, because it was most
offensive to those for whose benefit the Bill was said to have
been intended. He should certainly oppose that part of the
clause in question.
The House then divided, when the numbers were—
For the clause 6B
Against it
_ _

Majority against the clause -64
Dr. BO\VRING then moved a clause, to the effect that
Jewish synagogues be considered as places of worship, and be
allowed the privileges of the registry.
After a few words from Mr. GOULBURN and Lord J.
RUSSELL the clause was agreed to.
Mr. WARBURTON moved the omission of the proviso
in the 18th clause, which requires a declaration of the reli-
gious belief of the parties married.
Mr. ESTCOURT and Sir R. INGLIS opposed the
motion.
Lord J. RUSSELL in deference to the opinions expressed
on all sides of that House, with the exception of the Right
Hon Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford, was
ready to withdraw the words in question.—(Loud cheers.)
Mr. GOULBURN opposed the motion.
The House then divided, when the numbers were—

Ayes 67
Noes 108
Majority for the amendment
On the re-admission of strangers, we found
Sir. A. AGNE W addressing the House. The Hon. Ba-
ronet was understood to say that the Hon. Member for Leeds
(Mr. Baines) had on a former occasion given his support to
the proposition on this subject introduced by the Right Hon.
Baronet (Sir R. Peel) who was then at the head•of the Go-
vernment, although he now supported the Bill of the Noble
Lord. He ( Sir A. Agnew) was unable to reconcile the
course which the Hon. Member for Leeds now took with the
declaration which he then made • and, to say the least of it,
the Hon. Member was chargeable with great inconsistency.
Mr. BAINES admitted that he had expressed his unqua-
lified approbation of the Bill introduced by the Right Hon.
Baronet opposite ; but he at the same time said that he would
more approve of that measure if it superadded a religious
sanction to the ceremony of marriage. As far as he under-
stood the Bill of the Noble Lord below him, it effected the
object which he had in view—it was just the kind of measure
which he believed would be most satisfactory to the Dissenters,
and therefore he gave it his support.--(hear, hear, and cries
of " Oh, oh.")