The Sun.
London, England, 1827-06-29 00:00:00

DISSENTERW MARRIAGE BILL.

The Earl of HARDWICKE presented a petition
from the Dissenters of the Is of Ely, Cambridge-
shire, in favour of the Dissenters' Marriage Bill.
Upon the motion of the Marquis of LANSDOWN
the Dissenters' Marriage Bill was recommitted. The
House resolved itself,into a Committee.

The Bishop of CHESTER moved, that the
Clergymen of the Established Church should be
exempt from the solemnization of the marriage

contract.
Lord KENYON moved that the Peue also be

exempt.
After' some conversation respecting one of the '
clauses, which originated in an observation made by
Lord Malme;bury,
Lord HOLL.A.ND said that the petitioners were
most anxious to know all the objections of the Bench
of Bishop, and to amommodate themselves to those
objections. The chief objection at the last discus-
sion of the measure was, that the Church of England
was made the hand-maid of dissent. That objection
was obviated in the present Bill, and the objection
now was that the Church of England was deprived
:of its proper rights, by shutting out the Clergy from
taking any Part =in the solemnization of the
marriage ceremony. lie was not disposed to press
the matter to a decision, but he thought it would
be trifling with the Dissenters' feelings to have the
measure brought forward every Session, and defeat-
ed upon mere formalities, isnd not -upon any
tan-
gible objection to its principles.
Lord ELDON said, it was clearly understood
that the amendments should be suggested in the pre-
sent stage of the Bill, merely in order that the Bill
should be printed for consideration. The House was
not pledged to subscribe to the amendments made,
and for his own part he confessed he entertained the
strongest objections to the clause which made it
imperative upon a lay Magistrate to perform the
marriage ceremony ; so decided were his objections
and his conscientious scruples to that clause, that
he protested if it should be made the law of the
land, he should no longer continue a Magistrate of

a county.
The Marquis of LANSDOWN confirmed the
observation of the Noble and Learned Lord (Eldon)
as to the understanding that the amendments
now suggested would not bind the House. For
his own part he confessed his desire was, that the
marriage should partake of something of a religious
ceremony, as well as of a civil contract.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH recommended unit-
ing the principle of the Bill of last year with the
principle of the present Bill.
After a short conversation, in which the Bishop

of Chester, the Marquis of Lansdown, Lord Rosslyn,
and Lord Carbery took a part, the several Clauses

were agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR, on the reading
of one of the clauses, took occasion to observe, that
the principle of the present Bill was the same as
that of the Bill passed for the benefit of Dissenters
in the year 1781, and which continued without any
inconvenience to be the law of that country up to
the present time. It was not right that there
should be one law in one part of the United King-
dom with respect to Dissenters' marriages, and a
different law prevail in another part. In reply to
an observation of Lord Redesdale, respecting mar-
riage being a religious ceremony, the Noble Lord
remarked, that in many countries in Europe, the
religious part of the ceremony was not requisite ;
and if a law was passed in this country, sanctioning
marriages without it, that law would be binding for
all issuable purposes, and the parties could not dis-
solve the marriage subsequently.
The Bishop of CHESTER suggested, that in
that part of the Bill which required that the certi-
ficate of marriage should be registered within a
week after the marriage, on the penalty of 5/. to the
clergyman, the time should be limited to three days
after such marriage.
The Clause, after an observation from Lord TEN-
TERDEN, was agreed to.
Several verbal Amendments were then agreed to ;
and the House having resumed, their Lordships,
after some conversation, agreed that the Report
should be brought up to-morrow.

WAREHOUSED CORN BILL.
The Marquis of LANSDOWN having, in the
absence of his Noble Friend (Lord Goderich), moved
the third reading of the Corn Bill,
The Earl of MALMESBURY rose to protest,
once more, against a measure which he considered
to be most cruel in its operation upon a particular
class, and calculated to bring down upon them irre-
trievable ruin. Already, he understood, that the
fear of its provisions had begun to affect the Corn
market to a very serious extent, and he felt confi-
dent that, in a very short time, the price of wheat
would fall full eight or ten shillings a quarter. The
measure was, he repeated, equally ruinous and un-
just; and he once more, for the last time, entered
his humble protest against its principle.
The Marquis of LANSDOWN defended the
principle of the Bill, and declared that it was in-
tended solely to guard against the consequences
which might result from a bad harvest. The ad-
mission of such a quantity of foreign grain, under
certain circumstances, would check those ruinous
effects, both to the grower and to the consumer,
which must inevitably arise if grain reached such a
price as would warrant unlimited importation. By
admitting a small quantity of foreign corn, in the
event of the price rendering such admission neces-
sary, the Legislature.gave a check to that unlimited
and immense importation which must result from a
scarcity, while they prevented the price running up
to a price ruinous to the consumer on the one hand,
and equally ruinous to the agriculturist on the other,
from the influx of grain which would be introduced
to create a depression. The Noble Marquis con-
cluded by declaring his conviction, that if the ensu-
ing harvest proved to be as productive as it pro-
mised, there would not be the smallest portion of
this grain introduced into the market.
The Marquis of SALISBURY repeated his
protest against the principle supported on a former
occasion by the Noble Viscount (Goderich), that the
Legislature was bound to attend to any claims
founded upon the proceedings of one branch of the
Legislature. He thought those who had bonded
their corn under the encouragement held out by the
other House, were not entitled to claim anything as
a matter of justice, and lie protested against the pre-
cedent which the present Bill went to establish.
The measure was altozAher_mmeeps .re in jar
-TR or VIPUI ,+.. .."‘ and he could,

isp-mr-orrtnr-urrtnnvenue,
look upon it in any other light than as a robbery of
a certain portion of the community.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH begged to guard
himself against being misunderstood upon the sub-
ject of the support which lie gave the Bill. He
co'isidered it a mere measure of experiment, and as
such )ikely to be of great advantage, when they
came to consider the subject in the ensuing Session.
Earl STANHOPE thought the Bill was founded
upon the principle of public plunder. They had
experience enough already of the effects of suck
measures. Last year, when only 300,000 quarters
of wheat were introduced, by an Order in Council,
corn fell Os. 6d. in the inland district of Nottingham,
a place quite remote from the ports at which the im-
portations took place. The petition he had pre-
sented from Holderness proved that the remunerat-
ing price of corn was no less than 645., and if such
effects were produced from the introduction of only
300,000 quarters, what must follow from the admis-
sion of that large quantity which would now be
poured into the market ? The system pursued by
his Majesty's Government had brought the country
to a stAte in which no rights were respected—no
property secure. A system more calculated to, effect
the ruin of the country could not have been devised
'by a meniber of the London Corresponding Society,
or of the Jacobin Club at Paris. Ile should feel it
' his duty to enter his protest against the measure.
Lord CARBERY said a few words, which were
not audible below the bar.
Lord REDESDALE declared the measure to be
a most iniquitous one, the tendency of which was to
ruin the agricultural interest, anti ultimately to de-
stroy the ancient Constitution of this country. He
raised his warning voice against it, and should enter
his protest ,against it on the Journals of the House.
The Bill *c..5 then read a third time and passed.
Lord'HOLLANP mentioned, that he had receiv-
ed a petition from an individual, named John Grant,
praying that several clauses might be added to a Bill
for the Administration of Justice in New South
Wales. Jt was now impossible to present this p.e;i-
tion; as the Dill bad passed some time ago.
Adjourned ti.l! to-morrow (this day,)

LIST OF THE MAJORITY A. 74.1)
UNITARIAN MARRIA...,
MAJORITY.
Leinster
Goderich
Lyndhurst
Colchester
Ormonde
Dacre
King
Calthorpe
Fitzgibbon
Clifton

Portland
Lansdowne
Harrowby
Hilsborough
Carnarvon
Essex
Thanet
Belmore
Carlisle
Morley
Hood

Peterborough
Suffield
Grenville
Stafford
Crewe
Duncan
Granville
St. Gerrnains
Carrick
Carysfort

PROXIES,
Waldegrave
Sondes
Conyngham
Ponsonby
Somerset
Grafton
Spencer
Dunstanville
Su Olk

iNoltiTy (MT
14 DILL.

Holland _
Gower
Carbery
Boyle
Gage
Mendip
Cawdor
London
Lincoln
Chester
St. David's

Roseberry
Bolingbroke
Cowper
Hereford
Charlemont
Bute

MINORITY
Dartmouth
Abergavenny
Falmouth
Howe
Sydney
Walsingham
Kenyon
Fisherwick
Northwick

-1:-)iindas
Braybrooke
'Lucan

Farnham
Tenterden
Cashel
Worcester
St. Asaph
Ely

PROXIES.
Clancatty
Longford
Dorset
Harris
Stamford
Hawke ,
Rolle
Bath and Wells

IChichester
Bristol
Killaloe

Salisbury
Orford

Sidmouth
Boston

Exmouth
Abingdon
Winchester

Hertford