The Sun.
London, England, 1823-06-04 00:00:00

FOREIGN WOOL.

The Earl of HARE WOOD said he had some Petitions to
present, which he conceived to be of some importance et the
present time. The Petitioners were merchants and trianufac-
curers of wool In Leeds and Huddersfield, in Yorkshire, who
prayed for the repeal of the duties now payable on the itn-
portation of Foreign Wool into this country in its raw state.
At a period when a Bill had passed through Parliament,
which offered such advantages to the foreign woollen manufac.
turers, it certainly did not appear too much upon the part of
thoie of England to claim an exemption from the payment of
duties on the raw material. Foreigners, in consequence of this
advantage, were enabled to expose goods, manufactured here,
in foreign markets, at leas cost than ourselves, and therefore
with what detriment to ourselves their Lordships might easily
judge. Foreign cloth was preferred in even our own market.
We were prevented from working up our native wool with the
lower description of foreign wool • and though we had found
out new markets for our goods in 'afferent and distant parts of
the world, we no longer could occupy the markets we formerly
did. He understood that there remained no objection on the
part of Government to- remit the tax upon the importation of
wool, if our manufacturers would consent to a free trade; but
lie hoped that their Lordships would not be hasty in adopting
the proposal.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL said, that some years ago a duty
was laid on foreign wool, and it was then predicted that it
would not be productive • but the contrary was the fact—the
duties had risen from 250,0001. to 400,0001. per annum. 'Phis
was the state of the question as it regarded revenue ; but had
any injury been sustained by the woollen manufacturers ? Their
Lordships would find from the returns on the table that the ex-
portation had increased. He admitted that with respect to
some parts of Europe that was not the case, but it was very
doubtful whether that could be imputed to the operation of this
tax, or whether it did not, in fact, arise from those causes which
had affected the agriculture of the rest of Europe as well
as our own. The question then stood thus—with respect to re-
venue, the tax was productive: as it regarded inanufthures, it
was 'not injurious. As to the justice of the tax, he would only
say, that lie would be willing to give up all the advantage of the
400,0001. a year to the revenue, proviued the manufacturers
agreed to the free exportation of wool ; but so long as they ob-
jected to that, he should not feel justified in giving up the
other. He thoUght this no more than fair as it regarded the in-
terests of agriculture. On the question whether the wool trade
should be thrown open and the tax repealed, or that it should
remain as it stood, he would not now enter. The manufac-
turers had been fully acquainted with the views of Govern-
ment, and under the present circumstances he did not feel jus-
tified in supporting the prayer of their petition.—The petitions
were read, and ordered tope on the table. _

Earl PoWIS presented a petition from Ludlow, against the
Insolvent Debtors' Act. —Ordered to lie on the table:-
THE MARRIAGE LAW.

The Archbishop of CANTERBURY here named the order
of the day, upon which their Lordships had been summoned,
for this House going into a Committee on the Marriage Law
Amendment Bill.

The Earl of WESTMORLAND saidi upon the question
being put from the Woolsack, that his object in rising so early
was really to save their Lordships' time. The principal clause
likely to create the most opposition, was that respecting the voi.
dance of marriages once solemnized; and therefore he wished to
move, that it should be an instruction to the Committee to omit
the voidability clause inserted in the Bill. He did ma object to
that clause upon the ground of an undue extension of parental
right, hut because he believed it would prove nugatory. He ob.
jected to many of the provisions as altering the law of the land;
and hecould not help repeating the answer that was given by the
English Barons on an occasion not much unlike the present.--
They exclaimed, with united voices--Nolitinur leges 'beim
mittari in former times, and their Lordships ought to hold ex•
actly the same language in the present day. On what ground
was it attempted to defend the Bill ? When Lord Hardwick°
brought in his memorable Bill, there were great grievances to
be complained of. They were about to alter the Act passed
last Session, which, while providing for the improper grant.
ing of licences, had enacted that marriages, when once
solomnized, should stand fixed by law. It was urged that
fresh guarantees were wanted for the due celebration of the
marriage rites ; but if only the 102 d and 103 d Canons of
the Church wore attended to, respecting licences anti maul.
solemnizations, there could be no difficulty at all ;
and until this was done, it was useless to make such a law
as that proposed to be made. He objected to the Bill upon
strict moral grounds, upon religious grounds, and upon legal
grounds t and lie objected to it, lastly, as nugatory to any one
beneficial end. Surely some Noble Lords .must recently have
char nod their opinions. Be recollected that on a former occa-
sion he had for his ally in opinion no less a person than the very
first Ecclesiastic in the land ; then, also, he had for another ally
the Noble Earl at the head of his Majesty's Government; he
had also an Ecclesiastical Judge ; and all agreed in this— that
no man should put atitinder those whom God had joined by his
revealed law. Were those allies then sincere in the cause he
espoused with them, or was it intended to beguile the public
mind into a persuasion so improper ? Again, lie had presumed
that the general opinion of the House went with him, as far
as the doctrine that when marriages were solemnized they
never could be dissolved or voided. He had now stated so fully
the opinions of those Noble Lords whom he formerly had
courted as his allies, that there remained tiut little for himself
to add. Was it either wise or fitting, or tending to the decorum
of civilized life, to bring forward lawn opposed to the injunc-
tions of God ? He, therefore, put it distinctly to their Lordships
bow far marriage was to be set at nought, "een as it respected
the office of the Clergy, for when the second rite had been
performed and the solemn benediction bud been pronounced
by the officiating Priest, were the parties to lead a religious
life together, or the woman to be consigned to immorality, and
their offspring to degradation and beggary ? When he came
to the legal part of the Bill, enacting that minors should not
marry at all without the amnia of parents or of guardians,
though lie agreed to the principle, yet, again, let their Lord.
ships see how the present Bill was likely to work. The ob-
ject of the Bill implied five questions to be asked and an-
swered as—who was the father of a minor, what also wits the
state of the mother then if the minor's own mother (say the
minor a girl) were secretly married, and whether her lover's
mother, tieing a widow, were married in secrecy too. Such
guestimates these, which even a Judge might be unable ode.
code, were, however, to be put roundly to- a young Lady "ALB
of the thoughts of a husband ;" and yet her replies might in-
validate her own nuptials, and destroy her peace. As to con-
sent in marriage, with regard to parents or guardians, those
who had attended to the Ecclesiastical Courts could liardiy
find what the meaning of convent was. Next came the question
as to age ; and here if the lady were two days older than she
supposed herself to be, while her suitor was only two days
younger than it had been repreEnted to him, the marriages was
to become void. Again, was the tbmient of parents and guardians
to be implied or written ? There was no Ito vision for the alter. '

PRICE SEIPENPENCE.

native in this case. He wanted to know, also, in what state
the husband was to be fixed during this temp .rary occupancy
of the person of the wife. Could he buy or sell land, or could
he alienate it, or make say kind of a rangern nt as to property
that would afterwards be valid.by law
The LORD CHANCELIA/R rose to suggest whether it
was competent to the Noble Earl to move any instruction to the
Committee to leave . out 'a clause. He did not recollect any
instance of it. , It was of constant occurrence to move instruc-
tions to Committees to insert clauses ; but if it were competent
to the Noble Lord to move to leave out a clause, other Noble
Lords had the same right, sad might exert it, so that the House
would never get into the Committee.
1 he Earl of WESTMORLAND said, if he were out of or,
der, he would put himself right by opposing going into a Com-
mittee on the Bill.

After a few words from Lord EL LENBOROU on, the Earl of
•
LIVERPOOL, and the LORD CHANCELLOR,
The Earl of WESTMORLAND proceeded. He wished
to know, if the Bank Directors allowed stock to be sold out, or
if it trustee allowed an estate to be disposed of, under the autlui-
rity of the husband, de facto, were they to be responsible ?
This was a very serious part of the question ; and if money
were to be lent upon the security of such property, he believed
there was no person, however learned in the law, who could
state what would be the event of it.. That the clause woOld be
nugatory for all good purposes, would be obvious when-their
Lordshi,is recollected that there were steam-boats to Scotland
and to Prance, and that a secret marriage by bans night easily
be effected. If the husband desired to be legally married, he.
had nothing to do but to be married over agem. as he had the
possession of the person of his wife, and might take htr where
he pleased. This clause In its operation had been compared to
offences against the State; but in high teason the mercy
,of the
Sovereign could interpose and mitigate the sentence of the law,
and restore the forfeited estates; but the penalties by this clause
were irrevocable. For these reasons he should oppose the House
going into a Committee,
Lord ELI.ENBOROUGH hoped the Noble Lord would
not divide the House upon the question of going into the Corn-
mittee.

The Earl of WESTM 0 RLA ND acquiesced.
After a few worth from Lord POWERSCPURT, the question
was put, and the House resolved itself into a Committee.
On the clause for allowing the - Bishop, with the consent of
the patron and incumbent, to authorize the publication of bans
in any public chapel,
The Bishop of CHESTER objected that the necessity of
the content of the patron and incumbent being obtained, would,
he apprehended, render the clause Inoperative. He, therefore,
proposed they should be left out.
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY defended the clause;
as necessary for preserving the rights of the patron and inctum.
bent.

After a few words from Lord Hartnowny, Lord REDES.
DALE, and Lord ELL}:Nsottouoit, the clause was agreed to
without amendment.

The clauses next In succession were then read, and, with
some trifling amendments agreed to, until that relating to
the " voidability of marriages fur want of consent of the fa-
ther by suit to be commenced within twelve months," was
proposed.
The Archbishop of YORK said, that after the fullest consi-
deration, he had seen no ground for altering the opinien which
he had expressed last year, that bona fide marriages once so-
lemnized should not be voidable in consequence of involuntary
informalitiea.. In the first part of the Marriage service parties
were called upon to state whether they knew of any cause or
just impediment why they should not be joined together. This
question once answered conscientiously, and the ceremony com-
pleted, they came within the ~scope of the declaration of our
Saviour, " 'What God bath joined, let not man put asunder."
lie objected to the clause, however, not solely upon religious
grounds, but because he conceived its operation would be in-
jurious to society. It would encourage the seduction of inno.
cent females, and would act besides with unrelenting severity
towards them and their parents ; for be could not conceive a
case in which, after marriage had been completed, the parent
of a female could wish it to be annulled. And what would be
the situation of parties in boa/vide marriages ? They would be
compelled to remain a whole year in uncertainly, net knowing
whether their marriage might not be broken. Ile was aware
also, that the other course was attended with inconvenience,
and he would have supported any proposition tending to in-
crease the difficulties of secret Marriages; but painful as it was
to object to a Bill which had met with the support of a most
Reverend Prelate, be felt that he should not do his duty if he
did not oppose that particular clause.-
The Earl of ROSSLYN suggested that the discussion on
that clause should be adjourned to Thursday next, in order
that the subject might meet with all the attention which it
deserved.

The Earl of LIVERPOOL could not see the necessity of
delay, especially after so long a notice had been given to their
Lordships that the Bill would be committed that night.
The Bishop of CIIEST.ER opposed the clause. Marriage
14 a civil and religious contract, which could only be an..
nulled by the crime of adultery. The law of the land decretei
that marriage should be aolemmzed in Church, in order to give
it notoriety and security; and all were hound to obey that
law, when it was not opposed to the law of God. If it were,
then the law of God was to be obeyed,.and net the law of man.
The clause proposed appeared to him contrary to the spirit and
tenour of the Christian faith. Our Divine Legiaater had said
that a man should leave his father and mother and cleave unto
his wife: would it not be monstrous that after parties had gone
to church—=had received the benediction, and been declared in
the name of God to be but one, it should on the will or
the caprice of a third person—a parent or a guardian, to put theni,
asunder ? Let the avenues of the church be closely guarded.;
let severe pains and penalties be inflicted, but let not the Legis-
lature go so far as to say to those who have been married in the
House of God, that their marriage was dissolved. Much had
been said of a father's feelings, or rather of the wounded feel.:
ings of avarice and pride, but there were other feelings too—
the feelings of a ruined female and of bastardized children :
Which should weigh most in the balance ? He had therefore
been astonished when it had been proposed to intrecluce such a
clause into the bill. It was one that would do no honour to its
Legislature, and ought not to be sanctioned by. a Christian.
assembly. No one was less disposed than • himself to wound
the feelings of others, but he should fail in his duty if he did
not express his real opinion, and refuse to give his vote to put
asunder those whom God had joined.

The LORD CHANCELLOi contended, that if the argn-
meats of the Rev. Prelate could be supported by religion or law,
all that had been clone since the pairing of Lord Ilardwicke's
Act in 1756, had been contrary tp the laws of God, and there.*
fore of no value. Bow could the Rev. Prelate suppose it pcis-
sible for society to exist under such a principle. 'With respect
to the operation of the clause, the question was not that two
should put asunder those whom God had joined, but that it
should be ascertained whom it was that God hail joined. There
was nothing in the Old or New Testament that said what
should make marriage valid; and all nations were left to frame
the regulations under whith it should be contracted.
requested, he desired, the Rev. Prelate, for whom he enter-
tained the sincerest regard, to consider the infinite danger with
which his doctrine was attended ; fur, consistently with it, no
marriage contracted since 1756, could be valid. Every Noble
Lord who had spoken, had done so with Can and tenderness
towards the female party ; he wished that a little tenderness
euould,also be shown towards the male. Let it be supposed
that a widow of 32, the daughter of a brieklayer, with seven or-
eight children, should have sedneed a 'young titan of 17, or
mily and fortune, into a marriage with her, was not that a eaee
which would require consideration i•
The Bishop of CHESTEI N t and the Loan CHACELLOR
mutually explained. •
The Earl of LIVERPOOL had given the fullest consi.
deration to the subject, and remained of the same opinion
which he entertained last year, that it was inexpedient to ren.
der marriages which bad been once solemnized, voidable. His
objection to the clause was not on the ground of religion bur
of morality ; for though marriage was the institution of tied,
yet it had been left to man in eve!), particular country to pre-
scribe its forms. These, he conceived, should not be rendered
toooice, he-
ti let three
b low
rodietilch difficult, e tissypatn, h
tb en iiiitihisec Fier.
viewc. oniiipt
earl
Tloenktoretocotirtn(ii,akt.
to
eya,
of annulling solemnized marrieges altogether. There were
two ways in which it could be done, by nullity, or midi,-
billty. Nullity was the clearer and the better mode. But
he knew how the present clause had originated. The Noble
Lords in the Committee had felt themselves pressed be-
tween- two difficulties, and had adopted a third principle of
comprinnise, which, as it usually happened in such cases
was the worst of the three. For would it not be most pre.
pOsterous that parties should come to the altars of Hod, should
take the marriage vow, and a month or two after should

Dare no other newer to mike to those W o
h Might inquiree-
'
whether they were married, save, " We don't know ; it d
vends on the will of a third party !" Voidability was,
'therefore, the most objectionable principle which could be
ladopted. And, besides, the clause was wholly nugatory as
to the effect which It was intended to produce. It was
worth nothing at all. What was its Object ? To afford
protection to parental authority ; but that could not be
effected without leaving means of evasion. Formerly they
were rather expensive, and consisted chiefly of a post-chaise
and four to Gretna Green,. but now a steam-boat to Calais
would do it an expence which every body was able to bear.
But besides marriage by bans was left open. Every one had
heard, at one time or other, of secret marriages; well, all
those that he knew of had been solemnized by bans. As
long as bans, Scotland, and the Continent were left,. open,
what was the good of such a clause ? It had been said that
young men might be seduced, into improper marriages ; but it
coull not be Lilted or concealed, that in nineteen out of twenty
of those marriages, the female would be the seduced victim.
Leaking at the advantage of all parties, fathers, guardians, and
minors, it was for their interest that the present clause should
not be enacted. What would be the situation of a woman•
turned adrift after the marriage had been completed, and
therefore lost to society for ever; or those of the man,
who, having married her with the intention of. entering into
a solemn contract, should thus have been made the instru-
ment of her ruin ? Ite was convinced that when unequal
marriages had been contracted, dissolving them would not
mend the matter. Au extreme case had been supposed ; but it
would not be just to legislate on extreme cases. It was in.
tended to protect parents and guardians, but it would be more
-tender towards them to place them in a situation in which they
should feel that they had no choice than to subject them to the
heavy responsibility which this clause proposed. It would be
better to revert to the old law of the country. Looking at the
case in all its bearings, and considering the clause to be wholly
nugatory, be could conceive no reason whatever for adopting
it. There was a subsequent one of which he highly approved.
It, was 'that by Which it would be'enacted, that the man who
monied a minor without the consent of her parents or guar-
. (liana should have no right or claim to her property. In the
same spirit he should have no objection to any preventive of
improper marriages which could be suggested, but however
they might be deprecated, when once contracted, he thought
the best thing that could he done was to leave them alone.
The Earl of POWERSCOURT also opposed the'clause.

The Archbishop of CANTERBURY conceived that, after
the charge of the display of an unchristian spirit in the Corn.
mittee, which had been made, their Lordships would not be
surprised that he should feel some uneasiness. That charge,he
knew, was unfounded ; but yet he regretted that it had been
made. The clause complained of had not been proposed as one
wholly free from objections, but as one objectionable in a less
degree than others. Neither was he so wedded to it as to insist
upon it if the House did not share his sense of its expediency.
It was not intended to augment, but to protect parental autho-
rity, and as to its want of Christianity, it was true that the mar-
riage ceremony quoted formidable words, " those whom God
has joined let no man put asunder ;" but the question was
merely whether that sanction had been obtained which made it
the junction of God. Their Lordships knew that marriage was
once a sacrament—why was it not ao now ? Because it had not
the properties of one—it had no visible signs given to it by fiat,
but it had been left to man to devise and give it forms. With
respect to voidability, it had appeared to the Committee a more
tender enactment than complete nullity, and had been proposed
as less objectionable, though not free ftom objections.

Lord REDESDALE looked-upon the question as one of
expediency ; whether it were fitting that parties who had lived
together as man and wife, should be put asunder, and thought
it more beneficial for society, that marriage, when the ceremony
had been once solemnized, should be rendered indissoluble.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH believed that if all the Members
of the Committee had been assembled, the numbers on the
clause would either have been equal, or the majority that of
one only. He regretted that after hearing the excellent argue
ments of the Noble Earl opposite (Liverpool), the Most Reve-
rend Prelate should still persist in supporting that clause which
the Noble Earl had proved to be nugatory, and which the Most
Reverend Prelate bad himself declared last year to be most
contrary and repugnant both to Morals and Religion.
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY said, that he had not
expressed any obstinate adherence to the clause, if it met with
'the disapprobation of the House.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH regretted that it was not wholly
abandoned. He then urged its inutility and injurious tendency.
Its effect would be to encourage seduction, and to enable a
man to obtain the person of a woman, with the intention of
having his marriage afterwards declared invalid. It was for
-the seducer against the seduced and was only penal for the
innocent. Marriage was a civil and religious contract; and,
the laws of man could interfere only with the civil, not the re.
ligions part of the contract.
The Bishop of LONDON contended that the clause was not
opposed to morality nor to the law of God,; and that if the law
of the land required any other forms to be observed, and they
were not complied with, the more religious ceremony did not
complete the contract.
Viscount SIDMOUTII vindicated the conduct of the Com-
mittee, and supported the clause.
Lord Ettrsnortouott explained.
After a few words from the Earl of PowEnscomyr,
Lord STOWELL said, the Committee appointed to consider
'the laws relating to carriage, had directed their attention to
the protection of the younger part of society, and at the same
time they thought it 'impossible not to consider the rights of
parents. The Noble and Learned Lord adverted to the state
of marriage sanctioned by the Church of Rome, and common
in England previous to the Reformation. Marriage was con-
summated by the consent of parties, and in that state it conti-
nued a number Qf years. The earliest Reformers were, how-
ever? desirous of strenthening parental authority, and their
opinions were certainly at variance with that of the Reverend
Prelate, who said the dissolution of marriage was a violation
of God's law. The law long recognized by the Church said,
. marriage without the consent of parents should be null and void.
Protestants had always considered the consent of parents the
aubstratum of marriage. The bill introduced by a Noble Earl
(Lord Hardwicke) certainly did not consider the principle
which the Rev. Prelate had pressol with so much vehemence
to be inviolable. The conduct of Judges in the Law Courts of
the Country must have been adverse to the will of Heaven, if
• the statement of the Rev. Prelate was correct, because they
,had in numberless instances dissolved marriage. The Com-
mitteeon the Marriage Laws had considered whether marriages
-without publication of bans were not null and void ; they
-thought, however, they might dismiss the objections to mar-
riage by license, and turn their attention to the best mode of
protecting parents and guardians. They found but four ways
in which the rights of parents might be preserved. The first
was that of nullity,and here the Noble and Learned Lord said lie
was disposed to adhere to nullity in improper marriages, well
knowing the misery such marriages entailed upou parents and
children. Hard cases might be found, but when all the facts
.v4ere known, the separation of the parties generally lost the ob.
jectionable shape it first assumed. Voidability of marriage,
at one time, was contended for as strongly as it was op-
posed at the present day. The measure proposed by a ,
Noble and 'Learned Lora was expected to produce the
the
benefit, but it failed. A Bill had been started in
the other branch of the Legislature, and the Noble Lord's
Bill of last Session threatened to jostle the Bill in the House
of Commons in its race. The Committee found, on giving
their- attention to the subject, that all those measures hail been
defective, inasmuch 'as they afforded little or no protection
to parents. The Committee, 'in ftaming enactments on
that, subject, bad to, choose nullity, preventive measures, or
voidability of marriage for a limited period. They had
*Joined voidability for the space of twelve 'months. It 'was
most desirable the law of marriage should be uniform, and that
there should not be one law for the rich and another for the
poor. in that view the Committee recommended the clause,
making marriage voidable. The professional experience of
the Noble and Learned Lord, had not led him to conclude
that marriage ought never to be dissolved. lie had seen the
agony of parents and the total destruction of children, occa-
sioned by disgraceful 'marriages. The son blasting all his pro-
spects, and casting disgrace upon his family. fie had beard
strong objections to the clause. It was, however, an experi-
spent which might be tried. .The Committee had proposed it
with the best intention, and whatever might be the result he
-should support it.
Lord POWERSCOURT Spoke in explanation.
The question-was then put for leaving out the clause, and
the House divided—
Contents - - 22
Non Contents - - 20
Majority against the clause - —6
The other clauses were then agreed to, the Bill went through
the Committee. and was reported with the amendments.
Adjourned at HALF-PAST TEN O'CLOCK.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Sir J. YORKE presented a petition from the lion. John
indsey, the proprietor of a small Island off Guernsey, setting
forth that he had a large quantity of the finest granite to dispose
of at a very low price, and praying that the London Bridge
'Committee might have their attention directed to his offer.—
Ordered to lie on the table.
On the motion of Air. ROBERTSON, accounts were order-
ed of the total number of ships built and registered in the ports
of Great Britain in the years 1821, 1822, and '1023, together
with accounts of their tonnage, the number of their crews, and

the amount of their imports and exports during the same
period.
On the motion of 'Mr. CURWEN, an account was ordered
of the drawback of Is. per bushel on malt, allowed to the Scotch
distillers, during last year.
Mr. WALLACE brought up the report of the Select Com-
mittee on Foreign Trade, which was ordered to be printed.
On the motion of Lord ALTHORP, the County Courts'
Bill went through a Committee, the report was received, and
ordered to be taken4nto further consideration this day se'nnight.
Mr. W. COURTENAY gave notice, that to-morrow he
meant to submit a motion for the amendment and consolidation
of the Bankrupt Laws.
IRISH JOINT-TENANCY BILL.
Mr. D. BROWNE moved the third reading of the Irish
Joint-tenancy Bill.
Mr. C. H. HUTCHINSON strongly condemned the man.'
ner in which this Bill had been hurried through the House,
without adequate discussion. He earnestly hoped that the
Honourable Member would postpone it until next Session, and
in the interim allow the several Grand Juries in Ireland to ex-
press an opinion.spon it at the Summer Assizes. The object
of this Bill was to effect a great political change in the situa-
tion of 40s. Freeholders, two-thirds of whose franchises it
would unquestionably set aside, without at all improving, or
having a tendency to improve, the agricultural classes, whilst
it directly affected the natural and just influence of property.—
He entreated the Hon. Member who was so friendly to the Ca-
tholic-interests of Ireland, to mark the inevitable effect of his
Bill upon the great body of the Catholic 40s. freeholders, in the
south and west of Ireland, who would be-disfranchised in con-
sequence. He was as ready as any man to concur in. purifying
the exercise of the elective franchise, and' would scorn to owe a
seat in that House to indirect or impure means ; but he could.
never consent, without previous and full inquirY, to an enact•
ment like the present, which would effect so great a political
change in the condition of so large a body of legally recognized
freeholder:. • _ _

Lord MILTON could not concur with his Hon. Friewl in
thinking that this Bill would disfranchise Catholic electors
,alone—there was no exception male in it for Protestant 40s.
freeholders.
Mr. D. BROWNE said that this Bill had been nearly two
months before the House, so that he thought sufficient 'time
had been allowed for its consideration.
The Bill was then read a third time, and passed.
DUBLIN CORPORATION.

Sir JOHN NEWPORT, seeing the Secretary for Ireland
in his place, wished to know whether it was the intention of the
Government to take cognizance of the report on their table,
respecting the misapplication of public money by the Corpora-
dm of Dublin.
Mr. GOULBURN was not aware what particular report
the Right lion. Baronet alluded to ;• but if he referred to the
local taxation repott, it was the intention of the Irish Govern-
ment to take into consideration the whole question connected
with that branch of the public expenditure.
Mr. WILMOT presented papers by order of the House
respecting the Island of Cuba.—They were ordered to be
printed.

SILK MANUFACTURERS' BILL.
Mr. lIUSKISSON moved the Order of the Day fot a Com-
mittee upon the Silk Manufacturers' Bill.
Mr. Y. BUXTON wished to know why the Committee was
to be now pressed, when the understanding was that the parties
should be heard by Counsel against the Bill.
Mr. HUSKISSON replied, that it was desirable to have the
Bill committed this day, and the report received on Monday
next. Counsel could be heard in a future stage of the measure.
The Bill then went through a Committee, and the report
was ordered to be received on Monday next.