Star.
London, England, 1822-06-20 00:00:00

MARRIAGE ACT.

On the motion of Lord ELLENBOROUGII, Ow Order
of the Day having been read, and the House having
resolved itself into a Committee,

The Archbishop of CANTERBURY rose to state
the objections which he had to the present Bill. He
objected to it because it was silent respecting the
prevention of clandestine marriages. He conceived
that every possible difficulty should be thrown in the
way of improper marriages, but that marriages once
made ought nut to be dissolved—(Hear, hear, hear,
from all parts of the House). This ought to be the
object of the Bill, but it had no such object. He en-
tertained a higher opinion of the nature and sanctity
of the marriage contract than perhaps generally pre-
vailed. He had heard it called in that House a civil
contract ; so it was ; but it was a civil contract under
the sanction of a Religious Statute. The place, the
mode, the words in which it was solemnized, all ne-
cessary to the completion of the marriage contract,
made it a religious ceremony; for it was performed
in the House of GOD, solemnized by the Minister of
that House, and sanctified by prayer and benediction.
The Bill should have contained a clause to prevent

improper marriages. It had none such, and the clause
now under consideration of the House, admitting as it
did, that marriages were voidable, would only leave
the par ties doubtful whether they lived in a state of
matrimony or in one of concubinage, and whether the
children that played round a virtuous mother were
legitimate or bastard:. Some modifications of that
clause were, he knew, to be proposed ; but as none
could induce him to admit the principle that mar-
riages once solemnized could lie nullified, he. should
oppose both the clause and the Amendment—(llear).
Lord ELLENBOROUGH agreed with every word
which had fallen from. the Right Reverend Prelate.
Understaniing his opinion, and that of the Reverend
Prelates on the Bench to be, that marriages once
solemnized were indissoluble, nothing could induce
him .to consent even to a modification of the clause
before their Lordships. He understood that a Noble
and Learned Lord (Lord Redesdale) had prepared
some clauses to amend. other parts of the Bill, and he

[P er•. SrN'r•,- -pr Nien

should delay what he hid to propose, in order that
the Noble and Learned Lord 'might first introduce
his clauses. Under these circumstances, as those
clauses would be new, it might be advisabir post-
pone their consideration, and as soon as the clause
had been negatived, to proceed with that which gave
a retrospective effect to the Bill.
The ARCH tiISHOP of YORK viewed the case
entirely in the same light as his Right Rev. Brother.
—He considered tl e contract executed at the altar a
sacred ordirrafi..n,, which ought to be indissoluble.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL aged With the Right
Rev. Prelates, that the true principle was that which
made marriages, once solemnized, indissoluble. If,
however, he codid not obtain that, he 'hould be con-
tent to have the nullage confined within the shortest •
time possible, though he should far prefer the former.
As his Noble and Learned Friend • had been at the
trouble of preparing his clauses, he thought they had
better:be read and then printed, and the Bill be re- -
committed on another dab when they might be ems.
mined. As the retrospective clause might form part
of another Bill, he also thought it would be better to
see what were to be the provisions of the present,
before proceeding to that part of the subject.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH understood from the
Noble and Learned Lord that his'clau,es were not in
a state to be printed. He might, however, give their
substance to the House.

The LORD CHANCELLOR admitted that the
great object of the law should be to enable parties to
know, atter the marriage ceremony, whether they
were really man and wife. He considered that the
first clause, which had been repealed last night, was
still open to consideratiOn. For if the other clauses
of.this bill,which was ten times worse than the exist-
ing law, were allowed to pass, it might be necessary
to have once more recourse to the principle con-
tained in the first. His heart and mind went to the,
adoption of the proposition, that the character of
man and wife being once established, should then
be indissoluble.
Lord REDESDALE then stated that the elauses
which he had prepared had been originally drawn up
in 1812. They related chiefly to the means of pre-
venting the abuse of marriage licenses, which were
sometimes improperly granted by Surrogates, on ac-
count of the fees, without proper inquiry. His Lord-
ship then read his clauses,which tended to make per-
sons obtaining licenses by perjury liable to be trans-
ported, and those who issued them improperly, to
be tried for a misdemeanour. Conceiving also that
the consent of parents or guardians should be 'given
in a more solemn manner than it was the practice to
do, one of the Noble and Learned Lord's clauses re-
quired that their consent should be signified in writing,
signed by the parties themselves, and attested by two
or more witnesses, who should also sign their names,
and that no license should he granted unless such an
authenticated consent should be produCed.
Lard ELLENBOROUGH suggested that as the
clause had. been prepared some years ago, and did
not perfectly apply to the present Bill, and as it was
impossible to follow them thrr,ugli all their details,
unless they were printed, lie trusted the House would
allow the question to be put on the clause now before
their Lordships, and having done that, would proceed
with the retrospective clause.
The LORD CHANCELLOR stated, that if the
proposition of proceeding with the retrospective
clause were pressed, lie would divide the House on
the subject.
The Earl of HARROWBY objected to the mea-
sure, because by it all marriages in which the consent
of parents or guardians might be wanting, would in
future be made by banns, which would defeat the
object of the Legislature, unless some alterations
should be effected iii the system of banns itself. •
The question was then put on the second clause,
which wade marriage voidable, and it was unani-
mously negatived.
The LORD CHANCELLOR then renewed his ob-
jection to proceeding with the retrospective clause.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH thought there could be
no better opportunity for going on with that clause
than the present, after the House had decided last
night that marriages without consent should be no
longer null, and had just declared that they were no
longer voidable.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that the clause
which had just been negatived was the most absurd
that had ever been introduced into any measure ; but
contended that the same absurdity attached to every
proposal respecting banns in every part of the mean
sure. He would not agree to see the Bill frittered
down to what it was never Ineant to be, a mere Bill
to make existing marriages good, till he had been
told what was to be substituted to the provisions of
the present law.
Lord HOLLAND conceived that the Noble and
Learned Lord . did not object to the retrospective
clause, but to the order in which,it was to be taken
into consideration. That Noble and Learned Lord
ought, however, to recollect that any other cla'uses
or provisoes might be introduced after, as well as
before that clause:
Lord REDESDALE ntrd• the necessity of ap-
proaching' such a clause with, the greatest care and
attention, and conceived that it ought to be the last
taken into consideration.
The Earl of CA ItNARVON did not see why the
regular order of the clauses should be disturbed. All
those of the Noble and Learned Lord related to pe-
nalties for granting licenses improperly in future, and
could not possibly apply to the manner of proceeding
with respect to marriages which were already con-
tracted. He disapproved of the disposition shewn to
postpone so important a question. Their Lordships
bad been told.last night to adjourn for no other rea-
!' son than because it was tensa'clock : had it been an
Irish coitstable Bill, of any measure of his Majesty's
Governnierit, 'they should never have beard of its
being ten o'clock. •
krrd ELLENBOROUGH said, that for the last

1
' 4

11111

' •

- .
half hour they had been dscussing without any ques-
tion beke the House. If the Noble and Learned
Lord, whawas vidocious to save the time of the
House, would propose something in the shape of an
amendment, that object would be more easily attained.
The LORD CHANCELLOR.—If the Noble Lord
says that I wish to save time,, I shall tell him in the
most civil manner that he is mistaken, and that I am
as little anxious to save time as himself. If there is
no question before the House, my observations have
only gone before it. I maintain that the retrospective
clause ought not to be discussed until all the other
clauses of the Bill should be gone *through ; and in
order to place a question, before the House, I move
that the consideration of that clause be postponed.

The question having been put,
The Earl of 611 A FTESBU.RY, as Chairman of the
Committee, declared that the Not Contents had it..
The LORD CHANCELLOR demanded
a divi-
sion, when there appeared—.
Contents - - - r 40
Nut Contents
Majority against the Amendment,-
Lord ELLENBOROUGH expressed his intention
to carry back the retrospective clause to the marriages
which had taken place since the passing of the Mar-
riage Act in Mt. It would do no more than what
was done by the clause in that Act relative to Banns,
which confirmed all clandestine marriages in which
Banns had been proclaimed. He allowed that it
might diminish the happiness of a few, but it would
be that of the libertine husband, who was desirous of
getting rid of a wife of whose person he was satiated,
and of children whom he no longer wished to sup-
port—it was that of the heir at law who had enjoyed{
in anticipation that property to which justice gave
him no claim. But, on the other hand, it would in-
crease the happiness of the good and the virtuous,
and would make those who married certain that their
children would be legitimate and would inherit their
honours and their fortunes. He then proposed, in
order to preserve property in the hands into which it
had devolved, so that nothing should be affected by
the Bill save reversionary interests, that the following
exceptionary provisoes be added to the clause:
" Ist. Provided it he not construed to extend to marriages
declated invalid by judgments in the Ecclesiastical Court, or to
any marriages, when one of the parties, during the life of the
ocher party, has intermarried with other persons.
" .lily. Provided that if any property. real or personal, or
any title of honour be possessed or enjoyed before the passing of
this Act, on the ground, pretence, or colour of the invalidity of
any marriage by reason of such consent not being had before its
Solemnization, although no judgment should have been pro-
nouncea in any Court of Law against the validity of such mar-
riage, such right and interest in such property or title shall in
no ma:.:its• be affected by this Act, but shall remain as if this
Act had never passed."
The LORD CHANCELLOR declared, that after
what had passed, he should take no part on the
Amendment proposed by the Noble Earl, but should
reserve to himself the privilege of debating on the
last stage of the Bill, when he should know what its
clauses were.—On the question that the clause, as
amended, do pass, being put,
The Earl of LIVERPOOL expressed his intention
to move the following additional proviso :•.46 Pro-
vided the said clause be not construed to extend to
any suit now instituted, or to be instituted within
twelve months from the passing of this Act."
Lord HOLLAND contended that such a proviso
would defeat the whole object of the clause. He
called upon the Committee to consider duly the mag-
nitude of the evil against which the clause was di-
rected, and that the existing law had proved more
unjust and injurious, and had produced more immo-
rality and unhappiness than any other law which had
ever been enacted. The question was, whether their
Lordships would make any atonement and repara-
tion for the injury inflicted by that law as it stood ?
It said to the virtuous matron surrounded with chil-
dren, because when you were a minor 15, 16, or 17
years of age, you did not institute an inquiry into
the conduct of your mother and your grandmother,
you shall be visited by the most- terrible of all penal-
ties, your honour shall be taken from you, and your.
children shall be declared illegitimate. Was it such
a law which ought to be supported, or the repeal of
which ought to be delayed? The Noble Lord argued
strongly 'against the existing law, and asked whe-
ther their Lordships would require that a girl of 15
should understand the law, when even those who
were educated for the legal profession were allowed
to be ignorant of it, or at least to differ in opinion
upon its construction? He trusted their Lot dships
would not suffer the Bill to pass without the retro-
spective clause.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH said, that with the feel-
ings which he entertained of the sacredness of the
marriage contract, he could not consent to the pro-
position of the Noble Earl.
The two first Amendments of Lord ELLENBOROUGH
were then put and carried. Upon the third clause
being read, upon the subjectof property,
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, he must beg
to state his opinion that this clause meant much mote
than the Noble Lord intended it should.
Lord HOLLAND suggested that, with the Noble
Lord's critical accuracy of language, he might
supply an Amendment which would only bear the
intended meaning.
The LORD CHANCELLOR explained, and said,
the object of the Noble Lord (Ellenborough) could
be defeated in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred un-
der the terms of his clause.
After a few observations from Lord REDESDALE,
the clause was put and carried.
The proviso proposed by the Earl of LIVERPOOL
was then put.
The Earl of HARROW BY objected to such a
course, upon the ground that it would give rise to
many suits that never would otherwise have been in-
stituted. Ile moved as an amendment that the words
" to be instituted within twelve months," be left out.
After a few words from Lords ELLENROROOGII
and KING, the Amendment was put and carried.
Upon the motion that the clause, as amended, do
stand part of the Bill, their Lordships divided, when
time appeared—
For thc Clause - - - - 42
Against it
Majnri:y - - - - —l6
- discussion then took place upon the clause relative to
•of banns. Lord nEDIUDALS having some clauses
was agreed, upon the understaatlint that his Lord.
should be ready to-ntorrow, to adjourn the Coln.
that accordingly.

HOMO! OF COIEWONt-,‘
Sir W. LEMON pr7taT Petiden friss certain Coyly of
Thb, in the County of I, prayer's de whole of the
Salt Tax may be repel' .—Ordered to be printed.
Mr. Alderman WOOD presented a Petition front John Knight,
of Manchester, late a prisoner it Lancaster fail, for a political
offence, complaining of ill-treatment.—'lle Petition being reed,
Mr. B. V ILBRAH A M stated, that many of the allegations
of the Petitioner were fallacious.
Nit.. Alderman WOOD could not be in possendon of the real
facts of the case, but the Petitioner appeared to have been put
to hard labour, which, by his sentence, by was not liable to.—
Ordered to be printed.
Sir R. SHAW moved for a Return of the net amount of. Win-
dow and Hearth Tax, paid in Ireland within the last seven
years, distinguishing the amount for each year.—Orderod.
Sir It. SHAW presented a Petition from the Parish of St.
Mary's Dublin, praying a repeal of certain Assessed Taxes.—
Ordered to be printed.
Mr. WESTERN gave notice, that on some day during the
Session be would submit to the House some Resolutions decla-
ratory of the general distress of the country, and particularly of
the Agricultural Classes, and also descriptive of the extent to
which the change in the currency bad operated the present

Mate of the country.
• Mr. Secretary PEEL postponed the Committee on the Alien
Bill to the 24th instant; and gave notice of a motion on the sub-
ject of the Psdice of the Metropolis, for the sth of July.
Mr. S. RICE presented a Petition from the Tanners of Drog-
heda praying a repeal of the Reda Duties on Leather.—Or-
derect to be printed.
Dr. LUSIIINGTON moved, that a new Writ be issued for
a Member to serve in Parliament for the Borough of Camelford,
in the room of the Earl of Yarmouth, now Marquis of Ilert-
ford.—Ordt red.
On the motion of the Marquis of Tscurtxr.o, a new Writ was
ordered to be issued for the return of a Member in the room of
Lord Walpole now Earl of Orford.
The Marquis of TICHFIELD presented a Petition from
the Tradesmen of the town of Worksop, complaining of the in-
, crease of the number of Hawkers and Pedlars.
Mr. HUME thought that it would be extremely illiberal to
adopt any restrictions against hawking and pedling. It was com-
petent to these shopkeepers to become hawkers and pedlars if
they pleased.—The Petition was ordered to be printed.
The Corn Importation Bill was read a third time and passed.
Sir WILLIAM ROW LEY presented a Petition from the
Parish of Milford, in Suffolk, complaining of Agricultural Dis-
tress, and praying for Parliamentary Reform.
Mr. COKE seconded the prayer of the Petition, and spoke of
the respectability of the Petitioners. They had met with every
discouragement front the Magistrates of the County, who would
not convene a Meeting according to their request, and they had
long lost all confidence in the Honourable Member opposite for
the County.—(Henn)
Mr. GOOCH said that the Hon. Member opposite spoke as
though be were the Emperor of the whole Landed Interest of
the Country. He was convinced the Magistrates had acted jus-
tifiably; and as for the Petitioners having lost confidence in him,
they never gave him any confidence, nor he them.
Mr. WESTERN thought that Magistrates acting in this way,
to the interdiction of petitioning ought to undergo to inquiry, in
that House, and were deserving of the utmost reprobation.
Mr. HUME said that was one of the many instances of the
impropriety of putting Clergymen into the Commission of the
Peace.—The Petition was read, and ordered to be printed.

LEATHER TAIL.—IRELAND.
Sir JOHN NEWPORT presented a Petition from the Tan-
ners of Waterford against the Leather Tax, and also against the
mode of assessing it.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he had
always thought the mode of assessing the duty on Leather in
Ireland injudicious, and he was only waiting for the Report
of the Commissioners of Inquiry to introduce some measure
to alter it.
Mr. C. H. HUTCHINSON said any alteration would be
acceptable to the persons interested in this trade in Ireland.
After a few words from Mr. V. FII247ZRALD, the Petition was
read, and ordered to be printed.
A Message from the Lords announced their Lordships' assent
to the Goods Importation Repeal Bill, and certain private Bills.
PUNISHMENT OF HARD LABOUR.
Mr. COURTENAY rose, in pursuance to the no-
tice he had given, to move for leave to bring in a Bill
to extend the infliction of hard labour upon offences
which were not now visited by that punishment. As
many Honourable Members had spoken to him upon
the subject, and entertained a favourable view of the
Bill, he hoped there would be no objection to his mo-
tion. He would briefly state its object, which was
to annex the punishment of hard labour to persons im-
prisoned for certain felonies and misdemeanours.
Mr. M. A. TAYLOR wished to know, whether it
was the intention of the Hon. Member to leave this
new power at the discretion of the Judges ?
Mr. COURTENAY replied, that the punishment
would be applied to specified cases.—Leave was then
given to bring in the Bill.
COUNTY COURT.

Mr. LENNARDpresente4la Petition from certain
Tradesmen and others in London and Middlesex,
complaining of what they described to be malprac-
tices in the County Court.
Mr. COURTENAY was convinced that this Peti-
tion did not proceed from any considerable body of
the respectable Householders of Middlesex. The Ho-
nourable Member deprecated the means which had
been adopted by the Petitioners before the presenta-
tion of the Petition. He contended, that if there was
ground of complaint, a proper application to the
Chief Justice would remedy it. As the law which
established the Court provided a check over its Of-
ficers, he thought persons ought not to be allowed to
come with es-pane statements, for the purpose of re-
cording malicious charges against the Judges of the
Court, without giving them the means of repelling
them. As this was his view of the case, he should
move the rejection of the Petition.
Dr. LUSHINGTON expressed his astonishment at
the course adopted by his Honourable and Learned
Friend, in charging the 4000 individuals who signed
the Petition with malicious motives. They were
called upon to reject the Petition, and to disbelieve
its statements, upon the ipso disk of his Hon. and
Learned Friend. He contended that the subject was
one which demanded attention, and he could not
help feeling some indignation at this attempt to
abridge the right of Petition.
Mr. H. SUMNER supported the Amendment.
Mr. H. G. BENNET contended, that instead of
rejecting the Petition, the House were bound to enter
into an investigation of the complaint. He thought
there was no confidence to be placed in the Court of
King's Bench, as to the regulation► of offices, for that
House was the only power which could keep the
Courts of Law in order. The fees of all the Courts
ought to be reduced. He supported the Petition:
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, that the Act
of Parliament fixed a very summary punishment to
the Officer who exacted more fees than were his due,
namely, that of removing him from his office. If
any of these 4000 Gentlemen could therefore prove
the charge they had made, an application to the
Court of King's Bench was all that was necessary to
have the Act of Parliament enforced. If it was meant
to say that such an application would be disregarded, !
he could only say that such an assertion would be the
most extraordinary one he had ever heard.
Mr. HUME supported the Petition, and contended
that the House ought to go into an inquiry upon the
`charges which it contained. He was surprised at the

course pursued-if the Honourable and Learned Gen-
tleman, considering, that these Courts had been so
frequently accused in that House. He should have
thought that he had been anxious to uphold the cha-
racter of the Court, not only as free from blame, but
above imputation.
Mr. WYNN entirely concurred in the opposition
of his Honourable and Learned Friend to this Peti-
tion. He knew nothing, and cared nothing, as to
whether the complaint was well or ill founded; but
so long as he knew that there were tiibunals ap-
pointed by Act of Parliiment, fur the hearing of these
complaints, he would oppose their being brought be-
fore that House. Such conduct would be turning
justice out of its course, and giving greater facility
for the libelling of private character ; and were they
ever to give way to such a precedent, instead of sit-
ting till July they would sit till Christmas.
Mr. HOBHOUSE had often witnessed the rejec-
tion of petitions by that House, against his private
judgment; but he must saj, that on the present oc-
casion he thought the Hon. and Learned Gentlemen
opposite were carrying the joke too far. It WAS clear
the petitioners thought they had a case of such abuse
as called for a change of the law ; and how was that
to be done if they were to be sent back to those
sources for redress of which they complained, or if'
the House refused to entertain their statement of

that abuse?
Colonel WOOD could not admit that petitions
should be laid upon the table of that house contain-
ing charges against individuals on which it was not
intended to take any further steps. If there were any
thing serious in the allegations of the petitioners, the
proper way to deal with them would be to go into a
Committee of Inquiry. That could not be done this
Session, but rnitiht next, and a Bill to alter the law,

if necessary, be brought in.
Mr. M. A. TAYLOR confessed he did not like
the conduct of Hon. Members who got up in that
House to assist in stifling inquiry into abuses in Courts
of Law. He thought the House could not with
safety to their own characters, reject this Petition. Ac
for that House taking care of the characters of the
Judges, he should say, let them take care of themselves.
Mr. WILLIAM SMITH thought the Petition
ought not to be rejected.
Mr. CURWEN said he was so satisfied from his
knowledge of the individual complained of in the Pe••
titian, that he could satisfactorily answer that com-
plaint, that he hoped the Hon. Gentleman opposite
would withdraw his opposition, and allow the Peti-
tion to lie on the table. It would not be half so satis-
factory to that individual, Mr. Heath, if the House
were to reject the Petition, and thereby deprive him
of all expectation of seeing the charges against him
answered. He was the more induced to make this
request, from understanding that it was the intention
of the Hon. Member presenting the Petition, at some
early period, to move the House to proceed to an
investigation of the contents of it.
Mr. COURTENAY said, that if the Hon. Mem-
ber who presented the Petition would give an as-
surance that he would take some steps to procure an
investigation into the allegations of the Petition, he
would give up his opposition to its being received ;
but without that he could not consent to allow the
Petition to lie on the table.
Mr. LENNARD could not, at this late period of
the Session, give any pledge of the nature required.
Mr. CREEVEY said he thought the Right Hon.
President of the Board of Controul, and the Hon.
Commissioner behind him, seemed determined to
establish the character of that House for insanity—
(4 leugh).—He wanted to send those Petitions to the
Court of King's Bench, the certain consequence of
which would be, that the Chief Justice of that Court
would send them back to Parliament.
Mr. WYNN explained that his objection was not
Ito the prayer, but to the allegations of the Petition ;
and from time immemorial it had been the practice
'to reject Petitions on objectionable allegations.
Mr. ROBINSON hoped, that after what had fallen
from the Hon. Member for Cumberland (Mr. Cut:-
wen) his Hon. Friend (Mr. Courtenay) would feel I
that his objection to the Petition being received was
removed. He begged, however, to state, that I e did
not, by admitting the Petition on the understanding
that it was intended to promote inquiry upon it,
pledge himself to support such inquiry.
Mr. COURTENA Y consented to withdraw his op-
position; but he put it to the candour of the Hon. I
Gentleman opposite (Mr. Lennard) to endeavour to
prove his charge.
The Petition was then brought up, and ordered to
lie on the table.
LICENSING MAGISTRATES.
Mr. JAMES presented a Petition from an indivi-
dual of the name of Briddle, residing in the neigh-
bourhood of Ilchester, complaining of his license as a
publican being taken away on the false representa-
tion of a personal enemy, made to the Magistrates of
the district. The Hon. Member observed that their
conduct would not appear extraordinary when it was
known that they were two of the notor►ous visiting
Magistrates of Ilchester jail. The Petitioner stated,
that he had been deprived of his license upon an in-
dividual stating that the parish in which he was did
not require a public-house, whereas they suffered
great inconvenience for want of one. He defied any
one to state that he had ever been guilty of any dis-
orderly or improper conduct, or permitted such in
his house, and the High Constable who had declared
that to the Magistrates, had been the object of perse-
cution since. The Petitioner also hinted that it was
in consequence of his having joined in the rejoicings
which followed the termination of the proceedings
against the late Queen, that hislicense had been taken
from him.
Mr. Secretary PEEL said, that although the
House might decide against rejecting a Petition on
account of the charges it contained against private
character, yet he was sure they were not disposed to
refuse to hear the answer to charges against an indi-
vidual, having listened to those charges—(llcar).
This he was sure would be the feelhig of the House,
more particularly in cases where the conduct ofollicial
persons, in the discharge of their public duty, Ras
called in question. The Hon. Member, in the pre-
sent instance, had broughtforward a complaint against
two Magistrates, one of whom he (Mr. Secretary
Nei) knew to be most highly respectable, and of the
other of whom he had no reason for suppoaing, the
contrary. The names of those two Gentlemen wcie
Woodford and Phillips, and the presenting of this Pe-
tition having been intimated to them he was prepared

with the answer, to which he entreated the House to
listen, and having done so, he would challenge any
other conclusion from their statement than that they
had acted with perfect integrity, and that the alleea.
Lions of the Petition were false. The statemeni. of
Mr. Woodford, in the letter which he held in his hand,
waa, that Some time preceding the last general li-
censing day he received a complaint from one or the
Churchwardens of the parish of the irregularities cif
Wm. liriddle, and of the disorder and inconvenienee
created in consequence of his improper. conduct in
the regulatiOn of his house. . He Stated that persons
were kept there in a state of intoxication for several
successive days ; that the paupers were encouraged
to spend their parish allowances there in drunkenness
and idleness, and that the parish had been thrown into
great confusion and disorder by these practices. Mr
Woodford's answer was, that although he was not
bound to assign any reason for not renewing a license,
he did not chuse to deprive a man of his means of
livelihood without his being confronted by his accuser,
and told the Churchwarden that he must appear on
the licensing day to prefer his complaint. He also
stated, that he received a complaint from a worries
that her husband had been seduced to remain in this
man's house for three days, which he had never done
before, in a state of drunkenness. He desired her to
go and demand him, upon which she received ill
usage and blows from •the publican. This woman and
the Churchwarden did appear on the licensing day,
and preferred the charges in the man's presence, and
upon their representation the license had been refused.
Now he must say that it was a most shameful insi- ,
nuation that Mr. Woodford had been actuated by po-
litical motives in dischai ging the fuections of his of-
fice in this case; and in answer to that, that Gentle-
man candidly declared, that his opinion was well
known to be adverse to the mode of proceedings pur-
sued towards the late Queen. How then was it pos-
sible that this insinuation could be otherwise than
false? Mr. Phillips gave the same account, and said,
that through the kindness of his solicitor this man
was enabled, a few years ago, to obtain redress for
some injustice he had suffered. It also appeared that
he had been warned for the last three years against
the course he had been pursuing, and told of the con-
sequence of it. He asked then if it eas possible that
individual Magistrates could make a better use of
their discretionary power than these Gentlemen had
done ?e--(Hear, /tear).—He asked too, what feeling
of justice the Hon. Member himself could be actu-
ated by in raising an unfair prejudice from a false in-
ference as regarded this case, by connecting these
Gentlemen with Ilchester jail ?—(Hear, heat). The
Petitioner had received frequent warnings, and after
all was only deprived of his license ueon charges pre-
ferred against him when he was present to answer
thern—(Hear, hear).
Mr. DICKENSON defended the conduct of the
Magistrates, upon whom he thought there was net
the slightest imputation. They had refused to act on
an ex qfficia infot matron, and besides warning the Pe-
titioner before, hart given hie, every chance of ex-
culpating himself on the licensing day.
Mr. BENNET admitted that the statement of the
Right Hon. Secretary (Mr. Peel) was most satisfeca
tory, but he could not help obset ring, that it would
be much better to put in practice the laws against
such disorderly conduct, than take a course v. Itich
deprived a man and his family of their livelihood.
Mr. JAMES, in moving that the Petition be re-
ceived, observed that he never meant to vouch for the
truth of.the allegations of the Petition, and wes net
aware of any unworthy conduct on his part in pre-
senting the Petition. He was told that no coted
be said against the conduct of the Petitioner, and
that there was only one day in the year when his
house was in a disorderly and tumultuous state, and
that was when the Clergy held their meeting t'-ere.
Mr. PEEL said, he had only accused the lion.
Member of unfair conduct in endeavouring to create
a prejudice against thee Magistrates, upon a subject
apart from the merits of this particular case, in talk-
ing about their being the notorious visiting Magi-
strates of Ilchester jail—(Hear).—lle never meant to
say that he was responsible for the truth of the alle-
gations of the Petition.—Petition laid on the table.
IRISH TITHES.
Mr. PEEL would put it to his Hon. Friee‘'. (Mr.
Daly) whether, at the present period of the Session, it
would not be better to postpone his motion on the sub-
ject of Tithes in Ireland ? Every purpose would be
gained by a notice that, in the course of a week from
the commencement of the next Session, he should bring
the subject forward.
Sir E. O'BRIEN sincerely hoped that the motion
would be put off.
Mr. J. RICE thought the motion should come on.
Mr. D. BROWNE hoped the advice of the Right
Hon. Secretary would be adopted.
Sir J. NEWPORT would bring on the motion him-
self, if abandoned by the Hon. Gentleman.
After some remarks on the point of order,
Mr. 41- BROWNE said, that the commutation of
tithes should be made a fundamental measure of
Government.
Mr. DALY said, if he was sure he should not be
opposed next year, he would withdraw the motion.
Mr. GOULIJURN said, that he either should next
Session bring forward a motion on the subject of corn-
mutation of tithes, or state his reasons for not doing s, .
Mr. V. FITZGEItALD hoped that the motio:r
would be postponed.
Mr. C. HUTCHINSON said, that no pledge hal
been given by Government that a specific measure
would be brought forward.
Sir 11. PARNELL stated the motion to be, that
inquiry should take place on the subject. But after
the late declarations of the Attorney-General for Ire-
land, some distinct pledge was necessary, and he
hoped the motion would be proceeded in.
Mr. CALCRAFT stated, that the same decleratiee
made now hal beta m ide by p eceding Secretaries
and Ministers.
Mr. DALY had not the slightest idea of the pro-
position made to him by the Secretary for the Home
1 Department. The statement of the Irish Attorney-
! Genet al was a drawback to the statement of the Riese
' Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goulburn).
Mr. pLuNKETr had only said, that at present' e
did not see his way clearly. But he had never send
that a commutation of tithes was impossible. It
I measure should be introduced that should reconcile
the commutation of tithes with the rights of property,
lthat
rn.tecaistuEr. shouldlF, yr
ohszei have hisa rdszirt.p pio.ht.
Met
disc. ussioa was

I.c Against
• A long disc
the question
to propose, it
aities clauses
=kW( uutil tb