The Sun.
London, England, 1849-03-06 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, MARCH 6, 1849.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, March 5.
The LORD CHANCELLOR. took his seat upon the Wool-
sack at Five o'clock.
The Duke of RICHMOND presented several petitions
against the Scotch Registration Bill.
The Earl of CAMPEttDOWN presented several
petitions with a similar prAyer.
The Earl of EGLINTON presented a petition from
some town in the county of Edinburgh against the Scotch
Registration Bill.
The Earl of ABERDEEN presented several petitions
with a similar prayer.
SCOTCH MARRIAGES BILL AND SCOTCH
REGISTRATION BILL. _ .

Lord CAMPBELL moved the third reading of the
Scotch Marriages Bill.
The Earl of ABERDEEN said that he had received
several letters complaining of the haste with which these
Bills were hurried through the House, notwithstanding
the numerous petitions presented against them.
This was not a party question ; it was one
which affected the social condition of the whole
people of Scotland, and the only justiacation offered was
the wretched object of rendering more perfect a system
of registration. In England they had been obliged to
authorise persons to contract matrimony before the re-
gistrar; but the necessity did not exist in Scotland, because
those persons might be married before whom they liked.
If a man in Scotland gave a written contract to marry
that was considered a marriage, and it was perfectlyjust
that it should be so. By this Bill they were holding
out an indemnity for seduction. Seduction was much
more frequent in England than in Scotland, in conse-
quence of the difference in the marriage-laws
of the two countries. This alteration would
lead to incalculable misery in Scotland, and ho
could not but deprecate the levity with which it was
proposed to interfere with a law which had existed in
Scotland for 300 years. It should have had a Commit-
tee of Inquiry, and have ascertained the feelings of the
people on the subject. The Scotch were exceedingly at-
tached to their own system of jurisprudence, and had
supported a proposition of his Noble and Learned Friend
to prevent clandestine marriages, but since then his
Noble and Learned Friend had become more reckless,
and he could not join him in supporting this measure.
The laws of marriage in Scotland had been frequently
referred to in both Houses during the debates on Lord
Hardwicke's Marriage Act, and also during those on the
Registration Bill in 1835, but no one had ever
thought of proposing any alteration in them of the
nature now proposed. He felt bound to protest against

the measure:
Lord CAMPBELL said this was the third session
during which these measures had been before the House,
and the Bill had been already referred to a Select Com-
mittee, where it had been considered clause by clause.
He thought, therefore, there was was no foundation for
the accusation brought against him of hurrying forward
the Bill. It was certainly material for the sake of the
wife and the offspring that there should be some
certain method of ascertaining whether marriage
had been contracted or not. There was no
means of ascertaining it under the present system.
Surely if the law required certain solemnities to make
valid a contract for the sale of a small portion of land,
it ought to take the same care to make valid a contract
for marriage. In no part of Europe was a marriage
valid without a written contract. In France the civil
contract was entered into before the mayor, and that
was necessary to render a marriage valid, and Scotland
was the only country in Europe in which any such un-
certainty could exist as to whether or not persons were
really married, and in a great majority of cases brought
before the Scotch courts within the last few years the evi-
dence was so uncertain that to this day the parties did
not know whether they married or not. He hoped the
Bill would meet with no further opposition.
The Bills were then read a third time and passed.
Lord BROUGHAM postponed until to-morrow the
presentation of the petition from the contributors to the
Dublin Savings' Bank.
Lord STANLEY presented a petition from some union
in Ireland against a rate in aid. The Noble Lord also
gave notice of a question on the subject of certain aims
removed from her Majesty's stores for the avowed pur-
pose of being handed to the Sicilians. Tho Noble
Lord also expressed his surprise that notice should have
been given fur going into Committee ou the Bribery Bill
on Friday, more especially as a Noble and Learned
Lord who had taken part i❑ the discussion on the
second reading was on circuit.
The Lord CHANCELLOR was willing to postpone
the Bill if the House wished it.
Lord BROUGHAM hoped his Noble and Learned
Friend would not object to proceeding one stage with
the Bill, after which he hoped the further proceedings
would be postponed until the Chief Justice should be
present.
Lord REDESDALE urged the postponement of the
Bill.
The LORD CHANCELLOR would postpone the Bill
until to-morrow week.
After a few words from Lord STANLEY, the subject
dropped.
VICE-GUARDIANS OF UNIONS (IRELAND).
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE moved the second
reading of the Vice-guardians of Unions (Ireland) Bill.
Lord STANLEY would not oppose the measure, be

cause he felt that it was necessary that the
Poor-law Commissioners should, for the present,
possess the power of appointing vice-guardians ;
but it was an evil, and he hoped the system would
not be continued one moment longer than was
necessary. It was impossible that these vice-
guardians should possess a sufficient degree of
Isical knowledge to perform their duties satisfactorily to
the ratepayers.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE explained.
The Earl of WICKLOW said that any sugges-
tions that the Noble Lord might wish to make
would be considered in the Committee on the
Bill. He considered the whole responsibility should
rest either on the guardians or the vice-guardians,
but he objected to a divided responsibility.
Both systems were liable to great abuse, but the abuse
would be aggravated by the mixture of the two.
Lord MONTEAGLE considered that nothing more
objectionable in principle had ever been proposed than
the present measure for vesting immense powers in the
hands of the vice-guardians who possessed the power of
taxing districts with which they had no local connexion.
He, however, acknowledged that the necessities of the cese
required the adoption of anomalous measures. Admit-
ting, however, the necessity of appointing vice-guardians,
he was compelled to state that persons had been ap-
pointed who were quite unqualified fur the performance
of their duties. He would not oppose the Bill,
but he trusted that great judgment would be
exercised in appointing the persons to whom were to be
confided the exercise of these enormous powers. The
power of determining that most difficult question as to
whether or not there should be a union rating was
confided to the vice-guardians. This was a power they
ought not to possess. Parliament alone should deter-
mine questions of such vast importance.
The Bishop of CASHEL supported the Bill, and bore
witness to the admirable way in which the vice-guardians
in his district had performed their duty, in a manner
which contrasted most favourably with the conduct
of the guardians ; and he felt thankful to those
who had sent such honest, painstaking mei,
to supersede the guardians, and both the ratepayers and
the poor felt exceedingly grateful to them. These paid
guardians had, by their efficient management, more than
saved their own salary, and he only regretted that the
measure was a temporary one, and was not extended to
the whole country. He should wish to see paid guar-
dians in every union in Ireland.
The Earl of LUCAN thought that some inquiry
should be instituted before: an elected board of guar
diens should be dismissed, and he was not at all
prepared to say that an application to the
Court of Queen's Bench should be necessary to remove
an elected guardian. He complained of the manner in
which the vice-guardians had exercised their powers.
The Bill was then read a second time.
RELIEF (IRELAND) BILL.
The Marquis of LA NSDO WNE moved the second
reading of the Relief of Distress (Ireland) Bill.
Lord BROUGHAM considered it a grievous thing
that there should still exist a necessity for proposing
another grant for Ireland. 'These grants were to
small to afford efficient relief and too large to be granted.
He objected to accustoming the people of Ireland
to look for relief from anything except their
own exertions. A. national polity was in
a most diseased condition in which the
people were taught to rely habitually for their living
upon anything, save upon their own exertions. He
blamed uo one in particular for the present state et
things. He hoped some better resources for the relief
of Ireland would be found. He hoped all impediments
to the purchase of land would be taken away, and that
the diseased craving for small plots, which must beggar
any country, and which was a curse to Ireland--(llear,
hear)—would be cured. In conclusion he could only
say that he trusted this would be the last application for
money from Ireland.
After a few words from the Marciais of LANSDOWNE,
which were quite inaudible in the gallery, the Bill was
read a second time.
BUCKINGHAMSHIRE SUMMER ASSIZES BILL.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE moved that this Bill
be read a second time. The Noble Marquis accompanied
the motion with a few observations, but in so low a tone
as to be almost inaudible in the gallery. We under-
stood the Noble Marquis to say that the object of the
Bill was to remove the summer assizes of the county of
Bucks from Buckingham to Aylesbury.
The motion was agreed to, and the Bill read a second
time and ordered to be committed.
Their Lordships adjourned at 20 minutes to Seven
o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, Mareh 5.
The SPEAKER took the Chair shortly before Four
o'clock.

TAXATION OF RAILWAYS.
Mr. BROTHERTON presented a petition from the
sncLreholddrs of the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincoln
shire Railway, praying for a supervision of the preen
system and an equalization of the taxation on all rai'
ways.

THE PEACE MOVEMENT.
Mr. MCNTZ presented a petition very numerously
signed by the inhabitants of Birmigham at a public
meeting, in which they say that the system of war had
been
declared in a variety of ways to be anti-Christian
and impolitic for all people, and praying that the Hou,e
would take the subject into consideration, and to in•
quire how far the system of arbitratiou c,uld he
carried out, and praying further, especially, that the
House would take the matter under their especial at
tention.

NAVIG ATION- LAWS.
Petitions Were presented against the repeal of the
navigatio❑-laws by Mr. Meagher from Waterford, Mr.
Bouverie, Mr. Buck, and the Hon. Mr. Talbot, in
favour of the repeal; by Mr. Ellis from the corporation