The Sun.
London, England, 1822-07-13 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

The Sheriff's of London appeared at the Bar, and presented
the petition of the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Common Coun-
cilmen of the City, stating that the Bill before the House rela-
tive to the Orphans' Fund had been introduced without their
knowledge or sanction, and praying that it might not pass into
a law.

Upon the motion of Mr. Alderman WOOD, the petition was
ordered to be referred to the Committee on the Bill.

. .
The Leather Duties Reduction Bill, the temporary advances
to Ireland Bill, and the English and'lrish Salt Duties' Repeal
Bill, passed through Committees, and the reports were ordered
to be received on Monday.
The Scotch Spirits Drawback Bill was read a third time, and
passed.

THE LATE QUEEN'S SERVANTS:
Mr. BROGDEN brought up the Report of the Committee
upon the Resolution proposed by the Chancellor'of the Exche-
quer, for granting pensions to certain of her late Majesty's ser-
vants.

•
Mr. HUME gave notice, that when the Bill should be
brought in, he would propose a clause, providing that the pen-
sions should not be paid out of the Consolidated Fund, but
should be placed upon the Pension List, as vacancies might
occur.

A few words passed across the table between Mr. Grenfell,
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Ur. Calcraft, which were
inaudible.

Dr. LUSHINGTON felt it to be his painful duty to express
his deep regret that the 'pecuniary consideration which it was
proposed to grant to the late Queen's servants, was not also ex-
tended to those persons who had served her Majesty in high
and confidential offices. He found that all those ivdividuals
who had filled high offices, and had received testimonials of her
Majesty's regard for the manner in which they had discharged
their duties, were wholly passed by by the Chancellor of the
Exchequer. He did not know upon what principle the Right
Hon. Member 'proceeded. He (Dr. Lushington) knew that
many of the individuals who had been deprived of their salaries
had been reduced to a state of great privation. Such, too, had
been the unfortunate state of the Queen's circumstances, that
it was found to be impossible topay many of the salaries which
had accrued during the life-time of her Majesty. It certainly
appeared very hard that persons who had served their royal
mistress faithfully during a period of six or eight years, now
that no proipect of preferment was destroyed, should be left to
fight their way through the world. It was not agreeable to
British justice, nor advantageous to royalty itself, upon a gene-
ral view of all the circumstances of the, case, to make such a
marked distinction as was now proposed between the treatment
of the confidential servants of an unfortunate Queen, and the
venal attendants of one who lived all her life in prosperity.
Mr. LOCKHART objected to the pension of 4001. to Mr.
Sicard as being too large.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER observed
that by granting that pension to Mr. Sicard, Government would
only carry into effect the intentions of her late Majesty, who
during her life had bestowed it upon that attendant.
Mr. LOCKHART said he would not object to the pension
if it were paid out of her Majesty's personal property, and not
out of the public money.
Dr. LUSIIINGToN defended the propriety of the proposed
pension to Mr. Sicard, and again expressed his regret that Lady
Anne Hamilton and other persons who had held confidential
situations near her late Majesty, should receive no compensation
for their services.

Mr. S. WORTLEY said, he believed it to have been the
usual practice upon the demise of a Queen, to pension not
merely her menial servants, but also all those persons who had
held high situations near her person. He could •see no reason
for departing upon the present occasion from what had always
been the customary course of proceeding.—(Here the Chancel-
lor of the ExcheqUer made an observation.)—He understood
the Right lion. Gentleman now to say, that those persons who
had held high, offices from the late Queen, were not constant in
their attendance upon her Majesty. But if they were absent
from their duties it must have been by the permission of the
Queen, and did Dot form a ground for depriving them of com-
pensation. He would recommend the persons who were ex-
cluded from the proposed grant to lay their claims before 'Go-
vernment.

• Mr. BROUGHAM expressed his concurrence in the senti-
ments which had been expressed by the Hon. Member for
Yorkshire (Mr. Wortley). He (Mr. Brougham) was not with-
out some information upon the subject; for he remembered
that he had formed .one of a Committee, of which the Hon.
• Member for Yorkshire was also a Member, for inquiring into
the proper amount of pensions to be granted to the servants of
Queen Charlotte. After a most minute examination, that
Committee maxis a report which was not more liberal than just,
both with regard to the interests of the parties and the country.
The resolutions which were founded upon that report were
more liberal than those before the House, since they included,
in addition to the menial servants, all other persons who had-
been in attendance upon the Queen, with the exception of those
who held, the very highest offices. All persons of the middle
class, such as ladies of the Bedchamber, maids of honour, and
the Chamberlain, were certainly included. Mr. Sicard, who
had been alluded to by an Hon. Member; had been long in at-
tendance upon the late Queen, having been placed in her ser-
vice by the 'King when her Majesty lived in Canton-house.
Some of her Majesty's attendants had been-in her service nearly
50 years.
' The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved for
leave to bring in a Bill pursuant to the Resolutions.
Mr. S. WORTLE Y said, that when the Bill should be in-
troduced, he should feel it his duty to move an amendment for
extending remuneration to all the servants of her late Majesty.
Mr. lILTME thought that some inquiry should take place
upon the subject. He could not agree that it would be proper
to grant pensions to all her late Majesty's servants. He thought 1
it was necessary to make a distinction between those who had
and those who had not been cqnstant in attendance upon their
late mistress. He would oppose any general measure.
Mr. BROUGHAM thought a Committee ought to be ap-
pointed to inquire upon the subject.
Dr. LUSHINGTON said, that being acquainted, as he must
with the circumstances of her Majesty's household, he could de-
clare that there were not above six individuals, in addition to
those included in the resolutions, whom he would think it ne-
cessary to recommend to the House as requiring compensation.
These were principally ladies, who had, to their inconvenience
and detriment, continued faithful to her Majesty during all
her persecutions, standing by her through good report and
evil report.
Mr. WYNN,said, there was no precedent for the course
proposed by the Hon; Member for Yorkshire. • _
Leave was then given to bring in the Bill.
THE LOTTERY BILL.
Mr. BROGDEN brought up the ,Report on the Lottery
Bill.

Mr. H. G. BENNET and Mr. MONX reprobated the Bill.
Mr. HUME wished the Chancellor of the Exchequer to state
why he did not opeii a Government office for the sale of lottery
tickets. The , Government, it appeared, originally sold the
tickets for 101. each, which were afterwards retailed by the con-
tractors at 191. each. If the Right Honourable Gentleman cl;i
not choose to sell the tickets himself, he might establish an office
for that purpose, and place it under the superintendence of the
Society for the Suppression of Vice. He was sure that nothing
could more properly come under the observation of that body.
The Report was read, the Resolutions agreed to, and the Bill
was ordered to be read a third time on Monday.
The Court of Exchequer's Sitting Bill was read a second
time, and ordered to be committed on Monday next.
LONDON BRIDGE.
Mr. DAVIES GILBERT brought. up the Report of the
Committee on the London Water-works. He said that the
Report related to the removal of the London Water-works, which
was preliminary to the speedy taking down of London-bridge,
which was so long disgraceful and dangerous to the Citizens of
London, and erecting in its place one which he hoped would be
worthy of this great city.
MR. A BERCROMBY'S ATTENDANCE.
Mr. COURTENAY said he understood' that the Hon. and
Learned Member for Calne would that evening attend in his
place, in obedience to the order of the House. -He understood
also that the papers Which the House had already declared to
be Breaches of Privilege, had led . to some consequence likely
to be of a personal nature, .unless the House interfered. The
privileges of that House belonged to the House collectively, and
not to any individual Member; and he trusted the House would
intimate to the Hon. and Learned Member, that whatever might
be his yiews or his feelings on the subject, he must not take any
step interfering with the proceedings of the House. He (Mr.
C.) found there were many precedents of cases wherein the
House had solemnly enjoined individual Members not to make
any breach of privilege a personal matter. This had been done
in plain language, for it expressly forbad the Member to prase.
cute any quarrel on the subject in question, by Sending or ac-
cepting a challenge. He should now move, that the Resolu-
tions of Tuesday last be first read.
They wcre accordingly read by the Clerk.
Mr. COURTENAY then moved, " That this House hav-
ing resolved the said papers to be breaches of privilege, dear

strictly enjoin and command the Hon. James Abercromby not
to prosecute any quarrel in respect thereof, by sending or ac-
cepting any challenge."
'The Resolution being put, and unanimously agreed to,
The SPEAKER said, the usual course was to follow up
such a Resblution by directing the -Speaker to communicate
the Resolution to the Member in question in his place.
Mr. FORBES. could not but lament the circumstances in
Which originated the discussion and.the orders just agreed to,
by which the important business of the Empire was interrupted
and impeded. He trusted it would operate as a caution to Hon.
Members not to say any thing in their places in that House
which they would not or could not say out of it.—(Hear, hear !)
On the other hand it was to be lamented that persons should
not seek other means of defending themselves than through the
medium of the public press. If Hon. Gentlemen on both sides
of the House were to be a little more cautious, he thought it
would be more becoming their stations, and more likely to en-
sure temperate discussion and calm investigation.--(Hear,
hear !)—The Hon. Member then moved c°that the Speaker
should communicate the Resolutions to the Hon. Member (Mr.
Abercromby) in his place."
Mr. BROUGHAM said he hoped the Hon. Member had no
intention to frustrate the effect of all that had been done by the
House, om.to set up his individual opinion against the Resolu-
tion which the House had just adopted.—(Hear, hear !)—lle
(Mr. B.) would take leave to say, that his Hon. and Learned
Friend had not, on the occasion alluded to, . dealt in any ran-
dom charges. He was in the discharge of an irksome public
duty, that of a public accuser, and he (Mr. B.) was in the
judgment of the House whether any thing could exceed the
distinguished ability with which he had discharged that duty,
in the temperate and gentlemanly tone he had observed in the
course of it.—(Cheers:)
After a few words from Mr. 11. SUMNER, deprecating any
further discussion on the subject,
Mr. FORBES, in explanation, assured the House that his
observations were intended to be of a general nature, and that
he had not the remotest intention of alluding to the particular
case of the Hon. Member for Calne. Ile should be sorry to
rise in defence of that which the House had declared a breach of
privilege ; but it was impossible for him to hear the name of
Mr. Menzies uttered without declaring the estimation in which
he held that Gentleman.

Mr. BROUGHAM said, he had then only to express his
,satisfaction that he had given the Honourable Member' an
opportunity to offer the candid •xplanation he had just given.
—(Hear, hear !)
Lord BINNING said, he had no wish to prolong the dis-
eussion, or to answer the remarks of the Honourable and Learn-
ed Member, lie only rose to prote§t against those remarks,
having the effect of . prejudging the cases of other indivi-
duals, who had yet to appear on their trial at the Bar of the
House.—The motion was then put and agreed to.
The SPEAKER then called on Mr. ABERCROMBI', who
appeared in his place, and stood uncovered.
The SPEAKER then informed'him that he was commanded
by the House to acquaint him with certain Resolutions passed
by the. House. The Speaker, then read the different Resolu-
tions ; and in conclusion, informed Mr. Abercromby, that he
was enjoined and commanded by the House not to prosecute
any quarrel in respect of either of the said Breaches of Privi-
lege, by sending or accepting ariy challenge.
Mr. ABERCOMBY bowed, and resumed his seat.
Lord ALTHORP then rose, and requested the indulgence
of the House, while he stated the circumstances which had pre-
vented the earlier attendance of his Hon. and Learned Friend,
and which caused his attendance now.—(hear, hear'!)—On
Tuesday last, before the papers in question had been submit-
ted to the House, and while his Hon. and Learned Friend was
in perfect ignorance that they would be so submitted, he had
set off for Northamptonshire, to communicate with him (Lord
Althorp)'on the subject. In consequence of that communica-
tion they had both set off for the Northi with a purpose in view
which it was unnecessary to state to the: House. On their ar-
rival at Penrith they found that the Messengers from that
House had previously passed through the town, and were then
several miles in advance—and then they became acquainted with
what had taken place in the House on the subject. They
therefore found it was impossible to accomplish their object, as
the order of the House would reach Mr. Menzies before them,
and. would place that Gentleman in a difficulty. He (Lord A.)
therefore under all circumstances, and recollecting too the order
which the liouse had made for the attendance of his Hon. and
Learned Friend, and with which they both had, virtually,
though not officially, been made acquainted, took upon himself
to advise, indeed to direct his Hon. and Learned Friend to re-
turn, and attend in his place.—(Loud Cheers.)—[Here the sub-
ject dropped.]
EXCHANGE WITH INDIA.
Mr. FORBES presented a Petition from certain persons
interested in the state of exchange betwixt India and this
country, complaining that what hitherto had been worth 25.6 d.
was now worth only 2s. in consequence of certain loans which
used formerly to be paid in this country, ' being now paid in
Bengal, and praying also that the restrictions on East India
produce may be mitigated. The Hon. Member represented
the state of East, India property being in a state of great de-
preciation in consequence of the monopoly now possessed by
the West Indies of The English market for sugar. This pro-
perty would fall into a worse state if something were not done
to relieve it. The Petitioners particularly prayed for the re-
moval of the duty of 10s. per cent. on East India sugar.
Mr. BERNAL thought the lion. Gentleman dealt in falla-
cies, and raised apprehensions that had no foundation in reality.
The West India Proprietors stood in much greater need of as-
sistance than those or the East.

Mr. MONEY assured the Hon. Member who spoke last,
that it was sad reality and not fallacy that his Hon. Friend
had represented to the House. This country was forcing its
own manufactures on India, and refused to allow her to ex-
port her raw produce in return. •
Mr. BRIGHT said it was idle clamour to talk about mono-
poly towards India. Let India look at her own monopoly, and
the encouragement her policy was affording to the American
shipping which now traded in tonnage, that she ref Used to per-
mit. When they talked of freemen, they talked of what did
not exist in the East. It was a system of slavery and depreda-
tion that prevailed in that part of the world.
Mr. HUME declined at that time detaining the House, but
rose•to give a pledge that he would at a future period prove to
be unfounded every one of the statements of the 'Hon. Mem-
ber for Bristol (Mr. Bright.)
The Petition was then ordered to be printed.
Mr. BENNET presented a Petition from the Inhabitants of
the parish of Tindal in Somersetshire, complaining that a pub-
lican in the parish had had his license taken away.
Mr. Secretary PEEL stated the circumstances under which
the license had been refused in this case. The Magistrates,
who were two of the most respectable in the county, had been
obliged to do so, upon the man's being convicted of having
permitted a pauper of the workhouse to be in his house drink-
ing from Monday morning to Tuesday night, a period of 36
hours constant drinking; and also 'keeping a disorderly house
upon Sunday mornings. It was not, however, till after fre-
quent admonitions, that the course complained of was taken,
and even the milder of the two modes had been chosen.
The,Petition was then read, and ordered to be laid on the
table.

LICENSING BILL.
Mr. DENISON presented a Petition from the Licensed
Victuallers of Croydon against the Licensing Bill, and pray-
ing to be heard by Counsel. He (Mr. Denison) thought, that
where so much was said About guarding the vested interests of
the middle and upper classes of society, some care ought to be
taken of the vested interests of the lower classes.
Mr. BROUGHAM entirely concurring in the last statement
uttered by the lion. Member, begged to inform him that it was
with that precise view that the Bill in question was brought in,
It was to enable the lower classes to obtain provisions at the
lowest rates that victuallers could sell them at ; and he be-
lieved it would not be disputed, that to break up any mono-
poly to maintain provisions at high prices must be consonant
with the vested and the best interests of the lower classes.—
(Hear !)—He believed also that to oblige persons to sell good
beer would be productive of no harm to them or their cus-
tomers.

Mr. DENISON observed, that the Petitioners must under-
stand their own interests better ttan the Hon. and Learned
Gentlem'an.

The Petition was laid on the table.

• Mr. LENNARD postponed a motion of which he had given
notice, for the production of Papers relative to the Independ-
ence of South America, from the 17th to the 23d Inst.—The
Hon. Member then presented a Petition from Ipswich against
' the Alien Bill.—Laid on the table.
PRISON DISCIPLINE.
Mr. HLTME presented a Petition froin a person of., the name
of West and his Wife, complaining of cruelties practised to..
wards their son, in Shepton Mallet gaol. The Petitioners
stated that their son was committed to prison for having set a
wier to catch a hare. Upon his committal he had his hair cut
off; and subjected to very severe discipline, and, amongst other
things, was washed with cold water. He, in consequence of
this, caught a severe cough and cold, from which he was un-
able for thirty days out of thirty-three to get admission to the
surgeon. Ile was finally discharged, and died in a few days
after he was liberated. A Coroner's Inquest was demanded,
but refused because the Coroner was a friend of the gaoler. He
hoped the 'Right Hon. Secretary for the Home Department
would be able to make some satisfactory stateinent on this
subject. _ _ _

Air. Secretary PEEL said he had made some inquiries into
this case which had been satisfactory He had a c2rtificate
from the surgeon who attended this man after his dismissal,
from which it clearly appeared that the immediate cause of his
death was immoderate drinking on the day of his leaving gaol,
but his death did not ocour till a fortnight afterwards. He be

lieved there was another charge in the Petition of his having
received 3s. as hush-money prior to his quitting the gaol.
Upon inquiry into this, he found that this was a sum given
him in consideration of service regularly performed in the kit-
chen, and in corroboration he found That an entry had been
made of it in the books. With regard to his being washed
with cold water, he learned that it was the custom to wash all
the prisoners upon their coming into the gaol, and that the
water used was warm.-

After a few words from Mr. DAMSON and Mr. BENNET,
the Petition was ordered to be laid pn the table.

TIIE DONEGAL ESTATES.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL presented a Petition from
an individual of the name of Arthur Chichester, settinc, forth,
that by the will of his grandfather he was entitled to inherit the
estates of the Donegal family, in consequence of Anna May,
styled the Marchioness of Donegal, not having been legiti-
mately married to the Marquis, by which it happened that
there could be no lawful heir male from that union ; and that
in consequence of a clause introduced into the, Marriage Act
Amendment:Bill he should be deprived of his just right, as the
marriage between Anna May and the Marquis of Donegal,
Which would-otherwise have been null and void, would be ren-
dered valid. , lie complained of having been involved in expen-
sitive litigation to Maintain his jsistrights, and stated that theease
was at present in course of judicial investigation, and it 'would
therefore be doing what was unprecedented ip the annals of Bri-
tish Legislation to. pass this Bill, which was an cx postfirctolaw
to deprive him of his vested rights, and strip him of property to
which by the bequest of his grandfather he was entitled by law.
For these reasons, therefore, he prayed to be heard by Counsel
against the particular clause •at the Bar of the House. The
Hon. and Learned Gentleman observed, that if the allegation::
were true, and he believed they were matter of notoriety, this
Gentleman had the same right to the'estates in question as that
by which every Member of that House enjoyed his property.
viz.—the right given him by the laws of the land. This Bill
went to strip him of valuable estates, which he had the fullest
title at the present moment to convey by Will, or fee, and under
such circumstances he apprehended the House Would not refuse
to allow him to be heard by Counsel at the Bar.' He would refer
to a precedent which had been much,talked of. He alluded to
the case of Mr. 'Wright; who had brought three or four hundred
actions against clergymen for non-residence, at a time that a
bill was pending to change that part of the law. It was con-
ceived at that time that he had a vested right in the penalties
which the law ordained should be levied for non-residence, and
surely this petitioner's right was much stronger. He was heard
with great patience by the House of Lords upon that occasion,
in support of Mr. Wright's claim, and although it was decid-
ed against him; it was considered unjust to do that: which
would go .to deprive an individual of his vested rights v(ithout
hearing him. Mr. Chichester thought, that if the House re-
solved upon depriving him of valuable property, they ought to
devise some means o compensation, and lie hoped the House
would allow him to he heard by Counsel.
Mr. SCARLETT thought it impossible to grant the prayer
of the petition at this late stage of the measure. It was not now.
their business to alter the form of the Bill, but to consider the
Amendments sent down to them from the Lords ; he must say
that it was ratheiremarkable this petition was not preferred be-
fore.—(Hear !)--Ile could not but consider that the only ob-
ject of it was to procure delay, ht the same time that lie thought
they could not now entertain such a prayer.
Dr. LU.SHINGTON observed, that the first Amendment
which he had to consider was one which went to affect pro-
perty in the way complained of by this petitioner.
Sir JAMES MACKINTOSH hopeu the House would not
suffer its course to be impeded by the late application, when
there had been ample time to present' it before both to that
House and to the House of Lords, and certainly this was not
a more fitting time than before, since all the Amendments of
the Lords went to narrow the retrospective operation of the
Bill. There had been a Petition presented to the. Lords, but
it did not pray to be heard by counsel at-theliar. 'What then
could be the meaning of this application but to delay the Bill,
that it might eventually be lost, for this Session at least, against
the deliberate determination of both Houses of Parliament ?
Above all things this was a Bill which, out of regard for the
peace of families, and their dearest interests, ought not to be
delayed. It was therefore from the same sense of duty
that had caused him to vote for the Bill, that he opposed Coun-
sel being heard upon it, being convinced that it was only an
expedient to defeat the intention of the Legislature by delay.—
(Hear, hear!)
Mr. B. -BATHURST agreed with the Hon. Members on the
other side, that it was too late now to be heard by Petition
against the Bill in its present state. He believed also that the
Petition was directed against some of the amendments which
had been sent down to them from the House of Lords, and in
that case he believed the Chair would inform then] that such a
course could not be taken as that prayed, for by the Petitioner.
He rather thought too that it was too late for a Petition to be
received now.

The SPEAKER said it was inconsistent with the practice
of the House to receive Petitions against measures which had
ever been passed. With regard to the prayer of this Petition,
he apprehended that the House could not hear Counsel against
measures of which they were not masters. That House had
passed the Bill. If the Petitioner, therefore, directed his
complaints against the amendmenti of the Lords, he believed
it was without precedent for the House to hear Counsel for
such a purpose.—(Hear, hear !)
Mr. BERNAL presented a Petition from William Prit-
chard, Esq. Proctor, on behalf of Samuel Blithe, at present in
Paris, praying that the Marriage Act Amendment Bill might
not be passed into a law in its present state.—Laid on the table.
Dr. PHILLIMORE presented a similar Petition on behalf
of Sarah Blithe. Her Proctor stated that she was married on
the false oath of her husband, by license, that she was pregnant
by him at the time, and was now pregnant, and out of her
senses, from the conduct of her husband's father.

Dr. 'LUSHINGTON having been Counsel in this case, felt
himself called upon to put the House in possession of the real
facts. This Sarah Blithe was maid servant in the. family of
the father she complained of, when she married the young
man. They were married at Myer upon his false oath, he
being 18, and she 28. -The father had caused the marriage to
be set aside, but an appeal had been made, and he was very
much inclined to think, that as this had suspended the judg-
ment declaring the marriage null and void, it was one of those
cases which the clause complained of would make a valid mar-
riage.
The Petition was then read and laid on the table.
CHANCERY SUITORS.
Mr. BROUGHAM presented a Petition from Thomas Fla-
nagan, Gent. of Foley-pine. The situation of this Gentle-
man of which he came to complain to the House was not a pe-
culiar.one ; for it was a case of ruin' froth being involved in a
Chancery suit.—(Laughter.)—He had been ruined by the de-
cision in his case, and he was told that he might appeal; but he
was alreAdy wholly ruined and could not avail himself of this
means Of bettering himself, which had he only been half
ruined by the decision would have served to complete his ruin.
lie fsared there was nothing in this-GentlemaLi's case in which
the House could assist him; but they might do some good if
they complied with 'one part of his prayer. This was, that they
would revive the practice of the Court of Chancery,and shorten
the duration of suits. 'lf , Hon: Members would apply them-
selves to this, instead of getting up one after another, those who.
were and those who were not connected . with that Court—to
pass laboured eulogiums upon the Judge who happened to pre-
side over it at the time, some gooi might be done.
The petition was then read and orthred to be printed. '
MARRIAGE ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
On the Order of the Day for the consideration of the LOids'
Amendments to the Marriage Act Amendment Bill being read„.
Dr. PHILLIMORE congratulated the House upon the suc-
cessful result of their perseverance in this cause, which the
present, stage of this Bill presented. This was the fourth
Bill that' had been sent up to the other House.. It had at
length received considerable attention, adequate to the im-
liortancc of the subject, and he must say, that the Lords, with
the usual zeal of converts; had carried their concurrence with
them much farther -than lie expected. That House had pre-
viously.distinctly declared, that there never should be a- nul-
lity of niarriage. But in the present Bill, they had passed
over, unnoticed the clause to that effect ; and, in point of fact,
had only expunged one clause, substituting in its place eight
others, and those were the Amendments they had to consider.
They thad also given more extended operation to the retrospec-
tive clause, carrying it back to apply to marriages of a more
ancient date. But in all that the Lords had •done in this re-
spect, notwithstanding what they had heard that night, he was
prepared to contend that' they had most scrupulously respected
the sacred rights of property. The Hon. Gentleman entered
into an examination of the different amendments. He replied
to the objections made to the retrospective operation of the Bill,
and showed that former Acts on the subject of marriage had in
the same way been made retrospective: He moved that the
amendments should be read a second time.
Dr. LUSHINGTON thought it would be almost unex-
ampled conduct, if the House should at once agree with what
were called the Lords'. amendments, which left scarcely twenty
lines of the former Bill, and supplied ten pages of their own.
He believed no man who had read the Bill could say that he
understood the whole of it. His Learned Friend had admitted
that there was some obscurity in one of the clauses, and of the
Most important clauses too, as he (Dr. Lushington) would
contend. Was it then fitting that a Bill should pass, of which
every syllable ought to be well understood, which was thus de-
fective ? He thought it objectionable, as it went to establish
different marriage systems in England and Ireland. No man
could be more willing than he was to bind down with iron fet-
ters the man who would effect a marriage by means of a false
oath, and afterwards take advantage of his own, perjury to
break it. But he contended that girls and boys, who might
be drawn into marriages, under great disparity of eircum?

IVeh
stances, and who were incapable of judging for Owing., 01
were entitled to protection from the law. He stated 5'7;1,
cases in which the operation of the Bill would be initir'h-id
and could have been provided with many more cases ha of
he thought his Learned Friend required to be inforrue
them. It was necessary to consider how this measure would
affect contingent rights. He was.at this moment a trustee,
five or six other individuals, to a property amounting to
or seven hundred thousand pounds, which had been acs foil
in the following manner. Money had been lent twenty- ity
years ago on a reversion then encumbered with two lives' fit
this bill, a null and void marriage, if it had taken place, nzir
have been made the means of depriving- the claimants of rbuaye
property, and of giving it to those who could never
nal-
been considered entitled to it. In comthenting on the Pe,
ties incurred by the Surrogate if all the forms prescribeut.e,
this bill were not exactly complied with, he having the 'tills
nour to be Surrogate to the Lord Bishop of London, gave
flora
.friends notice that they would all be likely to remain bacha
for him, for he, under such enactments, should be disPe,sehaci
grant no licence.—(A laugh.)—A certain Noble Lady,, it
ge
been rumoured, had had a great hand in framing'this Bill. ss
protested he believed the report, for it.seemed to him to Poir7,e
much greater indications of having emanated from a fe,ra for
rather than a masculine understanding. The provtsorn„ io
making marriages valid that Iti,d been celebrated uncle !font
names (by which parents and 'guardians were precludedililek,
interference), he thought highly objectionable. Far front, ',a0.1
ing that this Bill ought to pass because it remedied one evh,t_
1-at a variety of evil 4 to- be attended to at a future pert°-'tst
would call on the House to abide by the ancient law, an" ~ to
all innovations. He would say, that no Bill ought to Pa'to
alter the law of the land with respect to marriages which tit
House could not declare on its honour and its conscience th!„o,
fully understood, and had considered with a view to all the c;'id,
sequences to which it must tend. He moved as an at° 03
meat, " That the amendments should be read a third time
that day six months."
Mr. PLIJNKET thought if they were not to pass anY„ tis
without first being sure of their understanding every sY",tibe
or sentence that it contained, the number of statutes atoluittd
passed would be diminished. Not professing to unders
yg
every sentence, syllable, and iota of this measure, he 00.
nevertheless fully convinced that it would do great and
tual good. It would do away with much injustice and cruelty'
and if its operation were to be complained of in someaioe,
stances, the benefits it would confer were beyond all eie of
lation, while the evils growing out of it were cap the
the
being easily cured. The Learned Gentleman had Put„ to
question to an unfair issue. He had called on the 1-1010 n;
abide by the ancient law of the land; and resist innovarn to
but he (Mr.. Plunket) would call on, the
What House to reto hid;
the ancient law of the land and cure the innovations "Lige
had already taken place. was good in the iga'" be
Act would not be touched, but its object would no longer it
defeated by the oath of the party against whose offendileg
was meant to guard, and who, carried away by headslsTbe
passion, might be disposed to swear to what was not true:
consent of parents or guardians was not to be reouirea,sa
that verified by the of of a third person. The eZ,:
of nullity was got rid of, which had heretofore injured ete"tad
it was meant to protect. Its effect was such, that it star-
make the daughter of a noble family a concubine, bas
dize -her issue, and put it out of the power of all her frig
to remove the incurable stain. This monstrous and toterechtch
enactment was 'now disposed of, and.eoroparing the evil
iicin
might grow out of the present measure with the misery &-
it would cure, he thought the House would not hesitate irl..tieo
daring for its adoption. It was said to be against the pra`' Ile
of legislation to give this Bill a retrospective operatiou-_etre,
denied that such was the fact ; for to give a' Measure a 'oils
spective action was a regular and an established course-
co
he instanced in the Acts respecting l'oaper If other precet;
_na
were asked for, he would refer to die Bills of Lord nertfora;ca
Bishop Horsley, which had been mentioned by his 'leafing/
Friend, who had entitled himself to the gratitude of his ,e('-vdt
by the introduction of this bill. He also mentioned tne hick
of Charles the Second, which had legalized all marriages.,Thea
had been celebrated between the years 1642 and 1660- and
the unfortunate circumstances arose between the gtnboat-
the Parliament, which led to a revolution, many the
the
riages were made between the years he had named eb-
parties merely going before a Justice of the Peace
per„
ur'
Lain his sanction to their union. Those marriages retro-
doubtedly null and void ; but the Legislature, by aother
spective law, had decided on making them good. Prnists;
case in point was the law respecting the marriages ot t
olf
These by the common law had been null and void, their
spring illegitimate, and property which otherwise weult
devolved to them they were incapable of enjoying' 501.15 e-
however, passed to make these marriages valid, arid go.
quently another to remove all reproach from the 041,1101
such marriages, and to enable them to inherit property-
~e
cases the Honourable and Learned Gentleman opposi` Act'
were different from those affected by the Marriage was
When he called for precedents, the Learned GentleloVt'was;
not content with similarity, but looked for identity- Iferre°
however, the principle of the laws to which he had r%itif!
that they were to look to, and that .was sufficient to.tli roan
the present Bill, so far as precedent went. The I.,3_4'3far'
before the House got rid of the perpetual-nullity of uleofotit
riage Act, which was at variance with all the analogies _ 40,
law, which precludes even time from giving security totiect
perty, and inflicted evils which might go on from gener3extion.
generation, continually increasing in geometrical Orel' tiage;
It had been proposed to the House of Lords to render inaFght 0
valid and their issue legitimate, but to take away the ri;- u'ife
such parties to inherit property. The woman was wbe
d her
in all other rights, but she was not to claim a dowry ; 5,0" hoe
ell'.ldren, who were to be legitimatized by birth, were toe first
no claim upon die- property of their parents. This was titi ever
time that a distinction between right and property had
been recognized in English law. Yet this. had been! rAra'
good enough 'to be proposed to the common sense of theiri,Tete
ships. By passing the Bill as it now stood,' the Peers of ea'
land raised the high character which they had alreatctorl
joyed in the opinion of the people, as the constant prop red
of the public good. The Right Honourable and Lifer the
Genticman concluded by declaring his anxious hope twee'
success of the Bill, amid the .loudest and long CO"
cheering.
Mr. HUDSON GURNEY objected to the retrosßec
tied It
clause, but thought the general operation of the Bill cot'
to the suport of the House.
Mr. Mp'ETHERELL opposed the Bill. He did not bel-,icer::
that the retrospective clause would 'have an extensive .olstice
tion, but it could produce nothing but mischief and inifepolt.
—They had heard of the practice of canvassing for vote'reseat
private bills, and that was bad enough ; Vut until the
„X fete!
measure was proposed, he never heard of canvassing t.u'ef the
upon a question affecting the most important interestseet to
public. It was notorious, too, that this case had an a'ilibatj
a particular Case now under litigation.—(Hear, hear IYrtenae f
he.would ask, was the old law, which this Bill was 'none
to replace? Was it not framed by Lord Hardwiel'elnd Raj
the greatest men that ever this country produced ? of t.",
not the present Bill opposed by the Lord Chancellorbigh
year 1822, whose legal learning, and knowledge, 0(.1 r to N:
quirements, rendered him at least equal, if not suereti,ie
great predecessor in that office ? lie admitted thato„erat.tof,
ings of parents were exposed to deep injury by the.
manising influence, to make him regret it as deeply „ide
one ; but such regret would not induce him to throws ;:ttitiorl&
of the.exis.ting law, and his mind required no morabaolgs: Atig
principles of established law, and to disregard the con'" of trs
It of property. He could also meet the su
Bill upon the score of feelings ; for although
sou? 5 Partly
would be relieved from the occuirence of miseries such
operation, yet it would impose on others a degree. sac
ship- not less intolerable. He also objected 'to Plaeldeelariag
a power. in the hands of the Crown, as that of the
Olsorterf
whether property should or should not descend,toedrt.
children' of parties, WhoSe marriage 'bad been woolen"),
and contrary to law. 'What a monstrous power it rot thilj
to entrust in the hands of any Ministers. Ile didi; liable "rellas
that at' present it would be abused but how no -e,
it be to abuse under particular circumstances. wasef roaot
a.power than( that of declaring whether the ofl'sprirg there not
riage should be legitimate or spurfous. And might.,
be, cases of an exactly similar character in which Policy equalli;),,
dictate 'different courses, while justice demanded an might
as
of treatment? Thus, with the same rights, one rartYother w
admitted to the enjoyment of property,. while ,the
,argue
excluded from it. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman.o no. to
powerfully against the Bill; and conjured the House
.„„ a
~,
it with the indecent haste which was now proposed. di7ents
examination of the clauses, and the necessary ame.nte grin ht it
them beingonade, he might become reconciled to U
of the measure. But without ample disCussion be
tstleingiev..
impossible that the House could, agree to a Bill.corl held "
many new enactments upon which they had never
liberation. dea
wen tbe
t to P'''ll
Dr. PHILLIMORE denied that the Bill was into re
apply to a particular case. A Bill was introduc_-ei 0 nate:o
House in the year 1817, of a much more retrosPeel.,'et then
than the present; and the case alluded to Iv" "
to the
existence.
Bill. He
HAeTcTonofeßssNedEYth-aGt EitNaEppßeAarLeasptookieliminions/iLteitialitillie:.
ti C
destroyed the Act introduced by Lord Hardwiette °int out, by
nothing to supply its place. He proceeded to
_fieoteeti,,
hardships which the Bill would entail upon partleasirg. at
tiiii"g
as
idtsispoopseLatoifont,h
eancdropwanrtitchuelaerxltyradoerpdirne cite dpotilvi:r p_ok:tclhongc:r.i
property for the commission of an i egal act was PO;
marriage. The question for the House to conseart_coortoetvill
ptheerseulaodqeutehnecme
them, whether
IllitshlterigahntuHmotyn:ofFmriienndia had endue c