The Sun.
London, England, 1850-05-17 00:00:00

NEW HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Mr. B. OSBORNE was sorry to be so troublesome to
the Hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Greene)—
(Laughter)—but he wished to ask that Hon. Member
if it was in contemplation to take down the gallery in
the New House of Commons, which was at present at
the back of the Speaker's chair, and which was intended
to be devoted to ladies.
Mr. GREENE said it certainly had been suggested
that the removal of the screen behind the Speaker's
chair would leave a space at that end of the House
which would form the best place for the public. Some
alteration was rendered necessary in consequence of its
being proposed to allot the gallery at the bar end of the
House to Members.—(A laugh.) It was not, however,
thought desirable to make any alteration whatever till
the House should be occupied temporarily by Members
with the view of trying it.—[A Voice—" Take it
down altogether.") He felt it his duty to Mr. Barry,
the architect, to state, that that gentleman submitted to a
Committee of the House, in 1844, a plan of the New
House, exactly iu the mode in which he had constructed
it. According to the original direction received by the
Committee, the ventilation of the corridors and passages
were still entrusted to Dr. Reid, and the ventilation of
the other parts of the building was confided to Mr.
Barry. The New House of Commons would be venti-
lated under the direction of Dr. Reid.
Mr. ROEBUCK wished to know if there had been any
deviation from the plan sent into the Committed by Mr.
Barry ?
Mr. GREENE said it was originally proposed by Mr.
Barry that a gallery should be erected behind the
Speaker's chair to accommodate 120 Members, but the
Committee thought the collection of so many Members
in that particular spot would be very objectionable, and
the gallery was therefore dispensed with.—(Hear.)
Mr. HUME wished to know when the experiment
would be tried, and whether, when tried, the House would
hold half the Members or not ?
Mr. GREENE replied that the experiment would be
tried to-morrow, but in this intensely cold weather he
did not think many Members would venture into the
House. The new House, including the galleries, was
estimated to hold as many Members as the present House.
,THE GREEK QUESTION.
Mr. M. GIBSON wished to know from the Noble
Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether the
Greek question was entirely settled, and whether, if
settled, there was a good understanding between the
French and the English Governments as to the mode in
which the settlement was effected.
Lord PALMERSTON said all hostility between the
British and Greek Governments had been entirely closed,
and there was no prospect of their being re-
commenced, but an investigation was still going
on with the view to a settlement of all the de-
mands of the British Government, and all that
now remained to the final termination of the Greek
question was that investigation. As to the other ques-
tion, the French Government would have preferred
having the matter settled by the intervention of
the French negotiator ; but circumstsnces had
interposed to prevent that taking place
It was well known that the French Ambassador went
yesterday to Paris, in order to be in more direct com-
munication with his Government, but ho (Lord Palmer-
ston) confidently trusted that nothing would arise out of
that circumstance which was likely to disturb the
friendly relations between the two countries.
PROTECTIONIST MEETING AT THE CROWN
AND ANCHOR.

Mr. F. O'CONNOR wished to know whether it was
the intention of the Government to take any proceed-
ings against the parties who made use of violent lan-
guage at a meeting which was held at the Crown and
Anchor Tavern oa Tuesday week last?—(Laughter.)
Sir G. GREY was understood to say that he could
not answer the question.
THE GREEK BLOCKADE.

Mr. ANSTEY wished to know whether the parties,
who had been injured by the Greek blockade were de-
barred from having any redress.
Lord PALMERSTON said no part of the stipulations
made by the negotiator debarred parties from having
legal redress for the injury they might have sustained.
THE ESTIMATES.
Mr. HUME wished to know at what hour of the night
the Government intended to proceed with the estimates
to-morrow?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
that they would merely take a vote on account of three
items; it was absolutely necessary that Government
should have some money to pay certain individuals with.
LIFE POLICIES ASSURANCE BILL.

On the motion of Mr. MULLINGS the House went
into Committee on thii Bill.
On clause 1,
Sir F. THESIGER said it had always been the policy
of the law to prevent any dabbling in these properties.
He considered this Bill was a most impolitic measure,
and as he had had no previous opportunity of stopping
its progress, it was now only left for him to defeat the
Bill by moving that the Chairman do report progress.
Mr. FAGAN bad no fault to find with the course
pursued by the Hon. and Learned Member (Sir
Frederick Thcsiger), but he begged to inform him of a
fact of which he appfared nut to be aware, namely, that
this Bill had emanated from a Select Committee of the

—.—
House. It Wai precisely the same Bill that the House
passed last ses.ion, and which the Rollie of Lords threw
out without any discussion on the merits. Formerly it
was a great inconvenience to the commercial world that
promissory notes were not negotiable, but a Bill was
passed of this nature, and the inconvenience was at
once got rid of. Now the same inconvenience was felt in
the commercial world with regard to policies of insurance,
and this Bill was proposed in order to get rid of it. If
they became assignable at law the banks in Ireland
would give accommodation to the public on those securi-
ties. Bills of exchange were choses in action and were
assignable at law; and up to the present moment judg-
ments in Ireland were also choses in action and assignable
at law. Why, he would ask, should policies of insurance
be made the exception?
Mr. MULLINGS supported the Bill, from having, in
the course of his practical experience, lasting over
a period of twenty years, witnessed the incon-
veniences which the Bill was intended to remedy.
He had no personal motives in supporting the Bill, he
thought it was the best Bill which had been laid before
the House on the subject, and ho hoped the House would
not be led away with the statements of the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that the great
objection which ho had to this Bill was, that it in-
fringed upon the general principles of English legisla-
tion i❑ en exceptional case. He felt compelled to agree
with the Hon. and Learned Member for Abingdon in his
opposition to this Bill.

_
After some observations from Mr. F. FRENCH,
The House divided, when there appeared—
For the Chairman leaving the chair ... 69
Against it ... 66
Majority _3
The Bill was consequently lost.
PUBLIC LIBRARIES AND MUSEUMS BILL.
The House then went into Committee on this Bill on
the motion of Mr. EWART.
Mr. EWART, on the first clause being proposed.
moved the addition of certain words making it lan ful
to adopt the Act in any municipal borough.
Colonel SIBTHORP considered there were already
taxes enough, and a Bill of this sort was the last sort
of Bill he should be inclined to sanction. Any law that
would increase expenses indefinitely he considered to
be bad in itself, and he was quite sure that a large por-
tion of those persons for whose benefit the Act was
professedly passed would be quite unable to avail them •
selves of any advantages which other classes might de-
rive from it. The Bill was partial in its operations,
and therefore he thought it proper thus early to say ho
would give the Bill his opposition, though. at the same
time, h was always ready to promote and increase the
means of amusement and information of the inhAbitants
of the borough he represented ; but then he should give
the requisite funds oat of his own pocket, and :not let
them come on the public purse.
Mr. STANFORD said it had been understood that a
clause should be framed so as to give tthee Braitlel-,pparyopyrisdodf
a borough the opportunity of adopting the

~1 -et
te-retbirds of their rember eee,ented. 'A •
Obeli .eseee. d o.iii dee:. .ie ,
pear to be likely to attain the object he advocated.
Hon. Member had not given the rate-payers the 01%,
tunity of judging and deciding for thetnselves.
,r.
whole of the Bill now consisted of the title; for the Pu,
Member had struck out the original clauses, 10(1,13e,h
proposed to frame a new Bill by the introduction ofif,,o,
clauses. He considered such a mode of preeeel
highly objectionable. • bad
Mr. EWART said the introduction of such a Bill of
been recommended by a Parliamentary Committeeee,
last year, and he thought the Hoe. Member indiscrc,
in opposing a measure which would ben,flt his lea
tuents; but perhaps the Hon. Member did not con
„eve
the people of Reading a reading people•—(e''''este
and cries of " Oh, oh.") If it would meet the c°
thence of the House, he would postpone the further cu
sideration of the clause.
Sir G. PECHELL said that many places other ilibtser:
corporate towns would desire to benefi:, by the tees' es•
and he did not see why its provisions should not be
tended to such towns as Brighton.—(Hear )
Sir G. GREY suggested the withdrawel of the erneel3cli
ment which had been proposed on a previous ste,_gl
it
the Bill, and its committal pro firma, in order tn'
might be reprinted and more fully considered. led
Atter a short conversation the suggestion was 'le
to, ate; the Bill was ordered to be reeommitted.
MARRIAGES BILL —A MOURNED DEBA
Petitions in favour of this Bill were presented by
Bouverie, from Dunfermline; by Mr. Wortley, frotei:od
lions places in England, and from Linlithgow, Ml'
Glasgow (the latter with nearly 6,000 signature'). j,
Petitions against the Bill were presented by Mire and
B. Hope, from Sir J. Herschel; by Sir a Ing"iees,
Mr R. Palmer; and Mr. F. Maule, from Denter—d 6e-
Bute—(Cheers from the opponents of the Bill)--en 01,0
v ral other places. The Right lion. Gentlen2oo6,69e
presented a petition from Edinburgh signed 19Y,b tee
sorrowsladies—Ceer)—who stated that they viewed teit
feigned and alarm the progress of the Billef es.
they believe it will tend to interrupt every feeling eelit
tural affection and all those feelings which rowv,
between sisters-in-law and sisters' husbands, and es° ne,iss
ing the House not to pass a Bill so distressingly
0",
to every pure mind in the kingdom.—(Hear, hearir
for
On the qestion that the Speaker leave the ebe
the purpose of going int ) Committee, t tbs'
Mr. DIVETT rose to move, ae an amenclinen.'ntee
the House resolve into Committee this day six ni eiiet
He considered the Bill a scandalous and tenors
se.
and if any one thing bad astonished him more 'ban it
other, in the course of his Parliamentary experience'
was the fact that a man of such ability and leernelv'lbs
the Hon. Member for Bute should have undertsee-oey
introduction of such a Bill.— Cheers. Ile wen' oi
illl
nished to find that any petitions in favour of the Pl'
been sent from Scotland, because he believed the fe.ces
of the people of that country to be almost uneeni este
against it. He believed that the people of Ireland
se
also adverse to the Bill, and that it was equallicr lest
tionable to the women of England. lie rePe'lne so):
he considered it to be an immoral Bill; he wn—sitil
nothing of it in a religious point of view, but a' eaves
question he believed that a more mischievous Pet'
had had never been brought under the consideration °'
liument.—(Cheers.) Grief
Mr. A. J. B. HOPE seconded the amendment.
of " Divide.")
The House then divided, when there appeared--
For going into Committee 42
Against 40
Majority yr,
The House then resolved itself into Committee'
BERNAL in the chair.
Clause 1 was ared to. no'
On clause 2, providing that marriages hereto
hibited are not to be voidable, but are to be deemed
e
marriags except under circumstances, tb.
Sir F. THESIGER said they had now arrived 5,1 to
stage of the Bill at which all discussion with regreeretsill
its principles ought to be suspended, and when its "er to
only ought to be considered. He wished it, howe/'„:10
be understood, that in now confining his objectieeri.gbl
certain portions of the clauses, he did not waive °elect'
to object to the principle at some future stage' .
he unquestionably intended to do.—(Hear, bear.)e the
object now was to strike out a particular Part of the
clause, and the question for the consideration eeis
Committee was this—whether the proposed lai'llese
to have a retrospective operation—whetber all coos
riages contracted with a deceased wife's sister ,
1835 should be rendered valid, in express and dirtniee
la'ion of a known law—(Hear, hear.) And • able
Members who thought a change of the law desnds to
might,consistently, vote for the omission of the vv,.°l ,tbe
which he objected—(Hear.) It was admitted en!the
retro-fictive laws were in general a violation ci.oglf
principles of legislation; that they ought to be sPer",o
resorted to, and ought not to be adopted exeePtpere
matter almost of moral necessity—(Hear, hear.) the
was no instance of the Legislature interfering I°'estf;
protection of persons who had wilfully violated the reel
more especially when important rights of other Peefor
would be affected by such legislation. The euesn°ooo",
cons deration was whether the parties who he'"etee'
tracted marriages with their deceased wises °doe
since 1835, had done so through ignorance •r ble, test
tence, or had wilfully and deliberately violated what 4 be
knew to be the law. On referring' to the rer'reet
found in the Appendix, No. 18, one of those Pe-00'
wrote :—" I knew, of course, that I was runninSeel9;
trary t Act of Parliament." In Appendix, e,;'s
another stated :—"I did not imagine that Peit"!
Parliament could annul or create a real oblieanen-,.ree
(Hear.) The Hon. Member for Manchester oen"
but an Act of Parliament, though it might not sloes
might certainly create a moral obligation, if not oPP the
to the Divine law. There was no instance in Willelleete'
Legislature had passed a retrospective Act in elf re''
stances like those of the present case. He might '',lllo
ferred to the Act of 1835, but he did not think thsjeeitl
Act bad the bearing for which some Hon. Genet,eile
supposed. Up to 1835 marriages within the pro 09
degrees, though they might be annulled by suit iji-ee'b!
ecclesiastical courts, yet if not annulled before tbeld
of one of the parties, the ecclesiastical courts coU'r the
afterwards interfere to invalidate them and rade 000
children illegitimate. In such a case the close
law courts, for the sake of the innocent 01, is'
would have prohibited the ecclesiastical coilet'leta
terlering. It was supposed that marriages yet
the prohibited degrees of consanguinity were vel4oiti,
that marriages within the prohibited degrees °lr cs'e
were only voidable. That, however, was not t'° toer'
Before the Act of 1835 either of the parties 0 other'
hibited marriage might, during the life of tne lee
apply to the ecclesiastical courts to annul the 111 coo
or any third party might do so. An individaa,steto
brought the state of the law before the Legis'
which took the only course which was open t° iteestis;
An Box. MEMBER moved that the House be ct
but more than 40 Members being present, are
Sir F. THESIGER proceeded to state the I:33.tricsb-d
the Act of 1835. He observed that it was a I'o3'43'ole 'II
fact that Scotland was excepted from that Ast, 'll ss
of Scotland considering all such marriages 01,1, 0 ttlii
void. That there might he no plea of ignnocr the
Legislature declared, in positive terms, thate
future marriages within the prohibited "elf! SO"
whether of affinity or consanguinity, should be °news'
void to all intents and purposes. No one, thellkier6
could plead ignorance of the state of the law. lore
theless there were parties who since 1835 had eeneot b'',
such marriages, and it was for those parties lee toe
Hon. and Learned Friend proposed to interfere h 7 test ,
trospective law for the purpose of rendering thesedoed
riages valid, and for investing them with all the al
and rights that belonged to legitimate marriages', nfert
what grounds were the House called on to in'eseen'i
His lion. and Learned Friend the Member fdl. Dd
ampton had appealed to the House on the grie:tecl e'
compassion for the children; but if they legtot
such a principle in the present case, might theleeseq
called on to extend it to other cases? The ntipd I'
illegitimate children in the country greatly exeee•;lief' I
number born of these prohibited marriages, but 111(or ttir,
and Learned Friend would not, surely, legislatehedo'
parents out of compassion for those illegitimate c.,11 o bgi
His wish was to exclude from the Bill thoset;ie 00;
wilfully violated the law. He knew the •'''''')e-tite`,
Learned Member for Bute was actuated ber
ested motive in bringing forward this tote le'
and he appealed to him whether it woulde be (
that parties who had violated the law shoteeebele'
in the position in which they would have been it ',reef
had been different and these marriages lawfulee NO/ e
parties had not contracted marriages having t,,"; marll ti
mate rights of ma triage. Their unions were °'. jeig, fi
tricious—not of a matrimonial character, and hle eelea
Hon. Friend proposed, without any religion r
es
to wipe out the stain of 15 year', and put t lie te° ;A
on the same footing as if they had been law fu 'Jed
vied. His Hon. and Learned Friend had aPPebibi°le
the number of persons interested in these Priew,
marriages. lie believed if the cases had beelleiee vie ;0
House of Commons would never have been trouu e ,t 0 is
the question at all—(Hear)—but was it consisteold,'
any just principleof legislation that the laws sheyatedl; s
altered because a number of persons had viola
•_ 00e.
Many parties who at present possessed 1'47 that
have those right; defeated if past met-doges c
scription were rendered valid. The measure seeietiel,
stood would therefore be a flagrant and direct ',Jay tba:
of the rights of property. He would venture 10de of pro
no precedent could be found for such a tnnf it it'll,
ceeding; and under those circumstances he e.ee t
duty to move the omission of the words renderwe
et
t
Os a
operation of the Bill retrospective. t tb '
Mr. J. S. WORTLEY said he was aware goes
was a question on which gentlemen on het"
very deeply; but as there were arrayed on divioehg;
which he advocated some of the most eminence it) the
and some of the wisest and the most pious tittglit '0;
Legislature and throughout the country, he ,t:rdly
Hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Divett) had ciostr,
within the bounds of prudence when he had ue_,..(fleeme
the Bill as an immoral and a scandalous one' • her "
nett bi
hear.) Now, ho was anxious to state the,t of.
relationship, by connexion, or,
friendship even, heti ho the slightest interest
ei5503,0
he might almo _
question.—(Hear, hear.) With respect to Olio, el
went which had just been proposed by his that tile,
Learned Friend, he could not help thinking• ie et to
amendment, in point of fact, went to the pr.inelPl eeten`e
wise to
,e, the
Bill. He did not, he should observe,
any relief to the man who wilfully disobee_" bed_
law. But he believed that many persiogno'oooer!
contracted those m arriages in complete these
of the existing state of the law; and to he was
ties, as well as to their innocent children, he
tb'enifoaoe;
anxious to afford relief. He believed
taken
of a number of those marriages having&
tt.
without the censure of the circles in Welloinshol7.. j-e
moved proved that the law was not in . _
the state of public feeling upon the subject. Hl
for tbe!
Friend had asked him to point out a Pr he et
course which he then proposed to take...leeee the
lieved he could comply with that demand
witboat-W CO°
of Lord Hardwick° no minor could marry