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

FROM TUESDAY'S CIAZETIE.

AAAAA
G. !atom, Stunainster Newton, Dorsetshlre, scrivener, to
surrender June 7, 14, and July 15. at Baslngball-street. At-
torney. Mr. Burfoot, King's Bench-walk, Temple, London.
G. Field, Chichester. and Bognor, Sussex, greeer,' June
14. 19, and July lb, at Besingltall-street. Attorneys,
Messrs-Osbaldestonaad Murray, London-street, Fenehureb-
West.
B. Milne*. Halifax. Yorkshire, grocer, Jane 10, 17, July
lb. at Basinghall•street. Attorneys, Messrs. Watson and
Boa. Beetveriaretroet, Fleet-street. -
J. Beek. Goldsmith's-row, Hackney-road, carpenter, June
10, 17, July lb, at Basinghall-street. Attorney, Mr. Hewitt,
Token Lothbury.
W Cornweli, Trinity-place, Charing-eross, glover. Jane
10, 17, and July 15, at Basinghail-street. Attorney, Mr.
Dennis. Austin-friars.
G. W. Marsh, Hope Bowdler, Shropshire, flannel menu-
facturer, Jane 19, 90. and July IS, at the Royal Hotel. Bir-
mingham. Attorneys., Messrs. Lane end Et @met, Lawrence
Pountney-lane London ; and Messrs. Dieken and Benson,

_ .
Birmingham.
(Dividends and Certificates to-morrow.)

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS.-TUZSDAY.

On the third reading of the Ely Drainage Bill,
Lord CALTHORPE presented a petition against cer-
tain clauses of the Bill relative to the Assessment of
Poor Rates, u being likely to have a very oppressive
operation.
The Earl of HARDWICKE defended the clauses.
Lord CAL'THORPE in reply, said this was a most
material innovation, and moved that the Bill be recom-
mitted.
This motion was negatived,. apd the Bill was read a
third time and passed', ',Om gi
Sir J. Graham and,w e„ Fher.breetrbt op a Message
from the House of ConseauAnesting Copies of the
number of Appeals now before their* Lordships' House.
The LORD CHANCELLOR itsfor•ned the Members
that the House would send an answer by a M u gvr
of its own.
Several private Bills, and among others the Shannon
Bridge Bill, were brought up from the Commons, and
read a first time.
WOOL TRADE. _

The Earl of HAREWOOD presented petitions from
the Woollen Manufacturers of Leeds, Huddersfield,
Halifax, and other parts of Yorkshire, pray' lig that the
duties might be taken off Foreign Wool imported into
this country. The Noble Lord then proceeded to make soave
remarks on the subject to which the petition* referred.'
He conceived that it was due in justice to those persons
concerned in this important branch -of manufacture to'
exempt the raw materials of their trade from exaction, i
particularly when the manufacturers were so numerous
in all parts of the country.—The effect of the tax in
question was, that of our markets suffering very material-
ly. He bad understood that there would have been no
objection to take off this du'y, provided a free export of
wool were allowed; then he wished that some measure'
of& be adopted by which the price of the raw material
'flight be lowered.
Us Earl of LIVERPOOL said he had no objection
vikatever to the petitions being received by their Lord-
telar. It was true that a duty had been laid on the ido-'
I /*dation of Foreign Wool ; and the produce of that
duty far exceeded the sum at which it had been first esti-`'
alga On the tax beintairit proposed, a calculation had
been made that it weelkprilluce 250,0011/. a-year; but it
did in fact now yielakirkpet revenue of 400,000/., !leis);
legally double the sum at Grit estimated. And if their
Lordships looki&igeha,pdventages thus derived to the
menus, he was sure they would hesitate before thee
deadened so large a sum. If it should be maintained
elm* the tax had an injurlons effect on the Woollen
.the
of the country, he would only refer their
Lordships to the It:port which had been wade on the
subject, and there it would be foiled that the export of
manufactured Woollen Gloats from this country had con-
siderably increased since the duty was imposed. If the
inereue had not taken place in certain place., that vas
coning to causes which did not a feet the agricultural in-
tenets of the country. Notwithstandingthe large re.
venue derived from the duty in question, he would Lave
no objection to the repeal of that duty, if the uunsfac•

' did ast.ohjeet to a free tip/mei' weal, and as Mich
111111 gawk ha emmeived it meld be iajarioes
lb the Wends of the agviraltarists, if ha esaseated to
MU* si a dear us importation "Aida *meld be a si-
tzlieeni4o9.lBK &yes. to the lie wield sot
wow enter iota tae goners bow far it might be proper
threw open the trade in wool ; bet as eireesentames
now smed, he esedd Est mason es seek • sonilles as
that et taking 41111. a-year from the release et the
Yrotas...tion* as were ordered
veassaed to li
om eedisewtli• able 4
agaiwt the
Is.
solvent Debtors' wasXei
MARRIAGE BILL.
Os the Order et the nay being moved for the House to
resolve itedf ism a Committee oe the Marriage Act
Anaesthetist Bill,
Tbie Earl of WESTMORLAND rose to state his ob.
*bons to that chase of the Bill which went to easel
oismiegto amtracted by misers without consent of pe-
rmits or guardian.. lo masking these objections, which
he did ow various jpietteds, it was far from his iateatioa
to proemial tiler that valid toad to leases parental
authority ; hat so far as that was soamened, be emseader-
ed the clause altogether nugatory. He trusted Is lived
in amenity where the law ought to be tqaallT dealt oat
to all persons; bet hers it Went to make a &attraction be-
tween the rich sad the poor, sad he hoped their Lord-
ships would serer agree to any law Boerne' as that which
was now proposed In the next place, the proposed
clause would make a material alteration in the law elan
laud. The first maxim of English Legislators, as stated
is Magna Clarta, was solsents lege. Anglia nerteri ; that
principle should always be acted on, and no law should
operate with severity towards any one without the inter
vention of *Jury. He wished to know on what groond
of necessity this clause was istrodni ed. He bad heard
so complaint respecting the law of a are ages • and after
Parliament had, is the last Session, di clared that fulmar
daps should on any account be voidable, he wished to
know on what ground such a provision was now to be
done away with. The just. provision in such cases, was
that of preventing the improper granting of licesees, ac-
cording to the 102 d Canon of the church, Ile objected
to the clause on moral, religious, and legal grounds, and
on the ground of its not being likely to answer the in-
tended purpose. He bad the authority of distinguished
ecclesiastics for saying, that those whom Goo bad joined
should not be separated ; and was it fit that those who
had been united should be separated ? Was it fit that
people in a state of civil society should not know.whether
they were married or not ? It seemed as if a person pro-
fessing the Christian religion might marry two-wires in
Turkey, or as many as Ise chose in France. during the
late Revolution.; but he would put it, whether it was con-
sistent with decorum to violate the sacred ordinances
prescribed by the Christian religion in cases of marriages.
After the most solemn ceremony sanctioned by religion
and law, was it proper that panics who had come toge-
ther as man and wife should be separated, as if no mar-
riage ceremony had taken place, and that their offspring
should be exposed to degradation and beggary? He
should now come to the legal part of the question. The
Bill meant that minors should not marry without consent
_of parents or guardian& That was very moper, but bow
did this Bill provide against such an inconvenience?—
According to this Bill, the offspring of marriage twin&
aimed is secret, might be cast off destitute of all the rights
of leitiltisate birth ; and all this might be done independ-
ent of the trill of the parties, and upon the instigation
of other parties. Besides, there might be cases in which
a guardian gave consent, and if it should afterwards turn
out that he was not legally a guardian according to the
Act of Charles 11, that consent was null and void, and the
marriage would he dons away. In the nest lilacs it
would be impossible to ascertain from this Hill what con-
sent was, and whether that which the parties considered
to be consent, could afterwards hold good. Now. he
wished to knoo whet was to be the state of the husband
durieg this temporary occupation of a female.
Here the LORD CH.INCELLOR rose to speak to
order. The question before the House was, whether
the Bill should be committed? if any Noble Lord
wished to propose a new clause, he might, in the pre-
tent stage, move an iostruction to the Conuniitee to in-
' troduce such a clause; but when a clause already in
the Bill was to be opposed, the pr pe • stage to object to
it was when the Bill came into a lAtermit•ee, and there
never was any instance of an instruction given to a
Committee to leave out clauses that were already io a
I Bill.

—..Cord WESTMORLAND—Then I shall object ti the
House going'into a Committee on the Bill.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH conceived that it retie as
competent to any Noble Lord to more the rejection at.
the insertion of any clause.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL, sold the question was
merely one of save ; and the usage of -Parliament
.was
sueb as huh breaspsaiilfd by his. Noble and Lew ned Friend
on the
The-Earl of HIIIItOWBY ermined himself to the
nine effect.
Lord WESTMORLAND proceeded. He wished to
know what right a husband whose marriage was likely
to he disputed, could have over the property of the
wife; and what was eventnally to become of that pro•
petty? What was to be the case of a trustee wbo in
virtue of a marriage should sell property by the Aim.
tion of the husband ? Was he to be responstble ? Was
the Bank liable to make good property sold out of the
funds? And if an estate was sold, by direction of the
husband, was the purchaser of that estate to give it
up on the marriage being invalid sted ? Fathers and
guardians under such a law might commit acts of tue
greatest cruelty and injustice; it would aSord them a
pretext for the grossest invasions on the property of
others. Then so far as rel ant to the prevention of im-
proper marriage& the law would. be completely nuga-
tory ; for if the parties were determined to live together,
they might be married again in Scotland or in France,
Then the only effect of the law 10/0111.! be, to enable
men to act fraudently, and profligately, to obtain pos-
session of the propertyof females, or. of their persons;
and then to desert them in an unprincipled and 'crivej
saner. these grounds he should object to the 11.11
Wes. this o4en.eteas done away.
Lord 13146N1/OROUGH saw he should not object
to the Houses gang into a Committee ; but he shoo Id
oppose the Bill altogether if it out of the Commit-,
tee with the clause in question. • •
Lord WESTMORLAND said lie was ready to give
up his opposition to the Bill going into a Committee.
Lord POWEItSCOURT said a few words which
were inaudible below the bar.
The house then febolved itself into a Committee.

• Lord ELI:ENI3OROUthI said lie wishrtl to call the
att•ntion of the Right Reverend PreLars to the cause
which authorized the publication of banns in chapels.
The Di*loop of eilEsTEtt said that this clau.e rustle
It compulsory on the incumbent to authorize the pabli-
fatiou of banns jn chapels; he thought it better.to have
t►at peremptory part out of the Bill, es one that en-
croached do the rights of the incumbent; and be moved
an amcatlinent to that effect.

Earl ROSSLYN said lie was desirous that the diScussion
be that clause might be adjourned to another day.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL objected to any adjourament;
and approved of going into the then.
The Bishop of CHESTER opposed the clause, sob ct
la. his opinion was contrary to the spirit and tenor of
the Christian faith The words of Scripture were expliet
" Let not man put asunder those whom Goo has join-
ed." The D.lsine Law also said that man should not put
sway his wife hut for the crime of adeltery. The con-
clestots to which most persons came on that subject was,
that marriages were !poi; when conformable to the laws
of GOD, and the laws of man. Those latter were cilantro-
able, but the laws of GOD were fixed and eternal. He
would, therefore, adhere to those permanent laws. He
would consent to any penalties, or punishment of ti,e
guilty parties. It was with surprise that he heart the
clause again submitted to the eonsideratioo of their Lord-
ships, after the repeated discussions which were had on it
last Session. That vacillation of opinion was not credita-
ble to their Lordships. No man ass less inclined to glass
offence than he was, but he should repeat that it was
with something approaching to astonishment, that he saw
that clause offered again, because he was of opinion that
those whom GOD joined, man should not separate.
The LORD CHANCELLOR sopported the clause:
No one denied the propriety of adhering to the laws of
GOD, bet If one was to rely on those laws alone, he
would no longer live in this country. Before the year
1756, the consent of the parties was all that was neces-
sary to a valid marriage, and by the doctrines of the
Bight Rev. Prelate, all the previous marriages only
were goo 1, because they were according to the laws of
Goo. But the question for their Lordships' solution
was, whom did lion join? There was nothing, as far
as he could find in the Gospels, which forbid the Na-
tional Association from prescribing' rules and forms of
marriage. They had a right to define in what mods
marriages were to be solemnized. He besought the
Right Rev. Prelate to reconsider the dangers of the
dactrine which lie laid down. By inference tetras that
do :trims, ns marriage since 1;56-was a good marr.age.
I hey had a right to guard against female, as well as
male seducers, for hr could find many cases in which
females wre the seducing parties. If the ductrire of
the Right K d. Prelate was to prevail, not only
that clause, but niue-tenths of the Bill ought to be
left out.

The Bishop of CHESTER explained .that• what he
said. was that every marriage made according to the
laws of man was good, unless when oppond to the laws
of O.:D.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL sail that Aar the fullest
consideration, be was of the saine opinion which he ex-
press d last year, and that ni to the inexpediency of
making marriages dissoluble. His objections to the
clause were not so much in a religious as in a motel point
of view. The Legislature had a right to prescribe
forms, which the parties were to comply with. In other
clauses of the Bill it was laid town that itnless • mar-
riage was solemnized in the House of GOD, it DU no
marriage. In all countries it was competent for man to
lay down the regulations of marriage, and to say what
form was to be followed. On moral grounds as well
as expediency, the Legislature hail a right to prescribe
the forms. He ohjeeled to the principle of the chose:
'There were two means suggested to prevent clandestine
marriages, one was by absolute nullity, unless this
forms were complied with, the second was by voile.
bility. He objected to the latter, because the ohji-ce
aimed at would not be effected. They first idling I the
marriage at the altar, and then they came and declared
it void. They allowed the parties; to offer up the vow at
the altar, and afterwards left them in suspense far twelve
months whether tney were married or not. If mar-
, riages were to be dissoluble at all, Lis opinion was that
they should be sn dissolved by a nullity, and riot by
making lie n vui lable. The parties formerly *ent in a
chaise and four and crossed the Tweed, but now they
' had a cheaper conveyance by steam. It would be•betteP
to declare those marriages null at once, than suffer them
to be contracted, and then proceed to avoid them. The
clause was also directed against tnarriag'es by licensesi
and yet all the instances of clandestine marriages which
came within his knowledge were marriages by banns.
Leaving open marriages by banns, leaving open Scodaoli
leat:ng open the steam-boats, he would ask whi. good
was in their provisions? When the tuArriage was com,
pfeted, there was uo mending the matter by dissol►ing it.
It would he better the the parent or gua7dian to ha►e no
choke in such a case, because such a choice as proceed,
inz to a dissolution of such a marriage, would be a pain.
fel responsibility. lie could contrive no reason for the
elitism, but he fully concurred in the clan.e inflicting pe-
nalties, and deprivation of property, on the parties who
married aithont the consent of parent or guardian. He
was satisfied the House would agree with him that tins
ought to do all in their putter to prevent clandestine mar.
rages, but when such inarri iges are coLupleteJ, it would
be best to leave them so.

Viscoant POWERSCOURT opooeed the eansft.
The Archbishop 0! CANTERBURY expressed a hope
that their Lordeips would not be sdrpriben if he felt some
uneasiness at the oppositiuu to the cause, hi the introdve-
Hon of which in t. e Committee he was instrumental. He
was not crost;uately welded to the clause, bat if their Lord.
ships wished to maintain any parental antho,ity, they.onght
,to adopt it. If they threw out that clause, :My at Goa