borough on a former night, yet on the showing of the right hon. secretary who introduced it, he should now vote against the bill. He agreed with the right hon. gentleman, that it was highly desirable, in the present state of the world, that this country should offer an asylum to the persecuted of all nations and of all parties. He farther agreed with the right hon. gentleman, that it was the duty of the government to do all that in them lay, to prevent this country from being made the centre from which the tranquillity of other countries might be disturbed, with which countries we were at peace. But the right hon. gentleman had stated there were 25,000 aliens in England-that the powers given to the secretary of state had been exercised only in four instances-and he allowed, if exercised in a sweeping manner, the probable abuse would be unbearable. Now, if there were any great conspiracy going forward, it really appeared that any use of these powers so limited would be ineffectual to their object. But, in fact, the number of political emigrants in England was extremely small; and for the sake of keeping some slight check over the proceedings of these persons, nearly 25,000 others people for the most part having affairs, and being many of them as it were domiciliated in this country-were to be placed in a situation of insecurityor imagined insecurity; which was pretty much the same thing as to the feelings of the individual. He knew the measure was regarded by foreigners with great uneasiness; and such being the case, no countervailing advantage appearing to be secured by it, he should vote against the bill. The question being put, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair," the House divided: Ayes, 142; Noes, 66. List of the Minority. MARRIAGE ACT AMENDMENT BILL.] On the order of the day for the third reading of this bill, Lord Stowell moved, that the first clause, which establishes the principle that marriages once solemnized are indissoluble, be omitted. He contended, that civil society had a right to prescribe what was a valid marriage, and that it could never have been the intention of the right reverend prelates who had spoken on a former night on the subject to maintain that improper marriages were purified and made good by the ceremony of the church, notwithstanding all that might have preceded it. He then took a general view of the measure, and stated that the cases which had been urged as its ground-work, were not so hard as they had been represented. In most of them cohabitation had ceased for many years, and the annulling of the marriage was sought either as a relief from the debts and persecutions to which one of the parties had been subjected by the licentiousness of the other, or as a cheaper process than a divorce bill. He complained that all the good produced by the marriage act as it now stood, and the misery from which he had relieved fathers and families, were kept out of view, whilst a few cases of hardship were blazoned forth with detestation and horror. The present measure said to minors and adventurers, we put difficulties in your way, but once get to church and you may enjoy the fruits of your fraud and imposture. A bill founded on such a principle afforded a The Lord Chancellor said, he would divide the House on the question, if it was only to record his opinion of the mea premium to unlimited marriages, which would more than counterbalance the securities which it provided for the prevention of improper marriages. Lord Ellenborough, after so many days had elapsed since the nullity clause had been rejected by the unanimous sense of the House, was not prepared for this funeral oration in its praise. It had been rejected in consequence of the opinion expressed by the right rev. prelates, that marriages once solemnized ought never to be broken, and he had not heard one word since, in favour of its revival. The learned lord spoke of the present bill as giving premiums to undue marriages; he (lord E.) on the contrary, thought that the existing act gave those premiums. It induced men who were desirous of obtaining a woman's person, to marry her, knowing that her marriage could be broken whenever they pleased. The present bill not only prevented such immorality, but deprived adventurers of the prize which they had attempted to gain; for it took away all the property from them, and sent them to pass the rest of their lives in Botany Bay. The learned lord seemed to think that marriage was ordained, not for the satisfaction of the persons married, but for that of fathers and mothers. Lord Holland said, it was with much surprise he had heard the learned lord describe this bill as a repeal of the ancient law of marriage. What, the ancient law which commenced in 1754? The fact was, that the bill restored a part of the ancient law of the country. The learned lord would punish every fraudulent marriage with nullity; but that very nullity which he thought capable of preventing fraud was really the premium for committing it. In a few instances the dread of nullity might affect the guilty party; but in 99 cases out of 100 it fell on an innocent victim. Both on the ground of reason and precedent their lordships were justified in passing this bill. The clause was agreed to. The Lord Chancellor moved an amendment to the retrospective clause, providing that marriages obtained by license, when both parties knew that the putative father was living, and had not given his consent, should not be valid. Lord Ellenborough thought that the question of the knowledge of both parties, independently of any other objection, could scarcely ever be proved in a court of justice. sure. The Earl of Liverpool was not friendly to the retrospective clause as it stood. He wished an exception had been made, saving all suits pending. He could not, however, approve a clause such as that proposed by his learned friend which depended upon proof of a nature extremely difficult to be obtained. Their lordships divided; Contents, 18; Not-contents, 68: Majority against the amendment, 50. The Lord Chancellor then proposed a clause for rendering valid, deeds, assignments, and settlements made by persons having claims on property affected by this bill. He should first propose it without the words "upon good and valuable consideration," and if rejected in that shape, would propose it with those words.. The Earl of Liverpool thought this qualification necessary to the retrospective clause. The Earl of Westmoreland conceived that it would lead to an inextricable labyrinth, and would, in a still more odious manner than the clause which had just been rejected, legalize marriages, but deprive children declared legitimate of the property to which they were entitled, because a third person had willed or conveyed away what had never been his own. The Marquis of Lansdown contended that the clause proposed by the learned lord would produce a monstrous state of things. It would declare children legitimate, but would disinherit them of their property: it would people that House with titled beggars, enjoying the honours of their ancestors, but stripped of the means of supporting those honours. If their lordships adopted this proviso, they would leave existing possession subject to endless litigation and fraud. Lord Ellenborough hoped, after their lordships had agreed to the retrospective clause, that any attempt to render it nugatory by provisos like the present, would prove unavailing. The course proposed was one, which, as guardians of the public morals, their lordships could not adopt; for it would introduce a system of left-handed marriages in the true German style-marriages which gave legitimacy, but not property. Lord Redesdale contended, that to de stroy reversionary rights retrospectively, would be downright robbery. The House then divided: Contents, 27; Not-Contents, 51; Majority against the clause, 24. A second division took place on the same clause, but with the addition of the words, "for a good and valuable consideration." Contents, 31; Not-Contents, 48; Majority against the clause, 17. The Lord Chancellor then said:-My lords, ten days ago, I believe, this House possessed the good opinion of the public, as the mediator between them and the laws of the country: if this bill pass tonight, I hope in God that this House may still have that good opinion ten days hence. But, to say the best of this measure, I consider it neither more nor less than a legal robbery; so help me God. I have but a short time to remain with you, but I trust it will be hereafter known that I used every means in my power to prevent its passing into a law: On the question, that the bill do pass, the House divided: Contents, 41; NotContents, 18: Majority, 23. PROTESTS AGAINST THE MARRIAGE ACT AMENDMENT BILL.] The following Protest was entered on the Journals, against agreeing to the first enacting clause: "DISSENTIENT :-Because it appears to me, that the withdrawing the effect of nullity from the marriages of minors, had without the consent of parents, is likely to produce more and greater mischiefs than such as can fairly be considered as resulting from the general operation of the subsisting Marriage Act. "STOWELL." The following Protest was entered against passing the said bill: "DISSENTIENT:-1st. Because the bill proposes to repeal retrospectively a law which has endured and been enacted upon nearly seventy years, governing the rights of persons and of property; and such repeal is, therefore, a dangerous precedent, destroying all confidence in rights founded on existing law, and threatening, by its consequences, the destruction of all law. "2nd. Because the injustice and impolicy of repealing the law retrospectively, is acknowledged by the several qualifications introduced into the bill to limit the effects of such retrospective repeal; and yet clauses offered further to limit such effects were rejected, and many incon !veniences foreseen therefore remain unprovided for, and there may probably be many unforeseen, and to which human foresight cannot extend. "3rd. Because, whatever evils may have arisen from the effects, in some instances, of the law proposed to be repealed, the evil of a retrospective repeal of a law which has so long endured is much greater, considered as a precedent, which may be used to justify the grossest injustice. "ELDON, C. REDESDALE, “SHAFTESBURY, COLCHESTER." "DISSENTIENT:-1st. For the above reasons, and also because the bill is not, either with respect to marriages heretofore had without the consent of putative fathers, or heretofore had without the consent of natural and lawful fathers, founded upon misapprehension of the law creating any such general practice, as in my judgment can authorize the House to legislate, as in this bill, retrospectively with respect to such marriages. "2nd. Because the House, having refused to insert clauses in the bill saving vested rights, and rights acquired by purchasers of estates for good or valuable considerations, from persons by the law of the land entitled to sell or settle such estates, appears to me, by this measure, to have acted contrary to the principles which have hitherto secured to the subjects of this country their property, and to have rendered the bill, if otherwise fit to pass into a law, such as no reasoning can sanction, and no precedents can justify. "ELDON, C. "SHAFTESBURY. "COLCHESTER." "For the second reason :“ VERULAM, STOWELL. "SIDNEY, CAMDEN." HOUSE OF COMMONS. SMALL NOTES BILL.] On the order of the day, for the second reading of this bill, Mr. James observed, that by the law as it at present stood, Bank of England One pound notes would cease to be a legal tender after the 1st of May next. He wished to know whether the present bill would make such notes a legal tender beyond that period. The Chancellor of the Exchequer re Mr. Bright thought the motion of the hon. member was of a very important nature, and that the country was deeply indebted to him for bringing it forward. It appeared to him to be only necessary to bring the act in question before the House to obtain the repeal of it. He particularly complained of the manner in which it had been smuggled through the House. plied, that notwithstanding this bill should pass, every man might be called upon, after the 1st of May next, to pay his just debts in the current coin of the realm. Lord Folkestone thought this a partial repeal of Mr. Peel's bill. Its object was to get one-pound notes into circulation. The House by passing it would incur afresh all the dangers of multiplied forgeries. He therefore trusted they would pause before they gave their sanction to it. Mr. H. Davis supported the bill, on the ground that the currency was not abundant. Mr. James said, that as the people were to have the option of receiving either bank notes or sovereigns, those who were so silly as not to demand gold in place of paper, deserved whatever might happen. He thought the bill would sanction a return to everlasting payments in paper, and he would divide the House upon it.. Mr. Curwen hoped his hon. friend would not oppose a measure which was calculated to afford great benefit to the country. He knew that people generally preferred small notes to gold. The House then divided: For the second reading, 47; Against it, 4. EXCISE LICENCES REGULATION BILL.] Mr. Wodehouse commenced by observing, that in 1802, five shillings covered all the expenses to which the maltsters were liable for their licences. Afterwards a gradual increase had been made in the price of them, until they now cost 4/. 10s.; and, by the last act, every maltster was compelled to take out separate license for every malthouse which he had, unless it happened to be contiguous to another, which was also in his possession; so that instead of having 4. 10s. to pay for his license, he might have to pay ten times that sum. The effect of this act, which was miscalled a law, and which had been smuggled through parliament in a very strange manner this session, had been highly grievous to the persons interested in the malt trade. As it would be an absolute scandal upon legislation to allow such an act to remain on the Statute-book, and which had obtained a place in it without sufficient consideration, he asked leave to bring in a bill "to repeal so much of the Excise licences act of the present session, as regards the carrying on of trade in more than one place." Mr. W. Smith seconded the motion. Mr. Lockhart said, that in consequence of what had occurred with regard to this bill, it was his determination to move, next session, that it be a standing order of the House, that no bill, authorizing any taxation, or the regulation of any taxation, should be read a second time without being previously printed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer contended that the act in question had not been hurried through the House, and declared that nothing could be farther from his intention upon any occasion than to take parliament by surprise. He was glad that there was a clause in this act enabling the House to reconsider it this session. The object of that clause, he would frankly confess, was, to make the tax local as well as personal. Mr. W. Smith insisted that the bill had been smuggled through the House, like several others introduced by the Treasury. Mr. Lushington denied that the bill had been improperly hastened, and said, that at the desire of the hon. member for Bristol, the third reading had been suspended for a week, as he wished to have an opportunity to look into its provisions, and yet he allowed the bill to pass in silence. The bill went to prevent harassing suits, and the hon. member for Bristol would find, that if it were repealed, his constituents would be in a worse condition than before. Leave was given to bring in the bill. REPEAL OF THE HOUSE AND WINDOW TAX.] Mr. Hobhouse said:-In rising to propose any reduction of the taxation of the country, I am aware of the many objections which may be made to me, and of the many difficulties which naturally oppose any such proposition. I am aware that it is said, and undoubtedly with some reason, that nothing can be more vulgar, as nothing can be more easy, than to point to the diminution of the public burthens as the only measure that can make the nation happy and prosperous, The topic is, I must confess, sufficiently 5 A ministers have, indeed, on more than one occasion, declared, that not only the state could not afford to lose any portion of its revenue, but that the people would not be benefited by paying less to the state. I repeat, sir, that if the necessity of reducing taxes has been too much dwelt upon by one class of politicians, the contrary opinion has been carried to a much more ridiculous and unheard-of extent by their opponents; and in proof of this I need quote nothing but the re 'trite, and the expediency of relieving ourselves from any demand comes so home to every man's business and bosom, that the common declaimer may generally be sure of finding, when on that subject, a willing audience. But if this topic has become rather threadbare out of doors, I cannot but think that the opposite mode of argument has suffered as much from repetition within the walls of parliament. The writers and speakers of former times contented themselves with assuming the propriety of each man contributing some-tractions and confessions of his majesty's thing to the necessities of the state-as he thereby sacrificed a small good for the sake of a great advantage. But it has been reserved for our times to hear it declared by the gravest authorities, that the alleged sacrifice is in itself no sacrificethat it is on the contrary in itself an advantage-that the individual contributor is better even by the act of contribution -in short, that forced taxation like voluntary charity, It blesses him that gives and him that takes." But the paradox has been pushed even farther than that. We have been told even from the seat of judgment, that a great national debt is a great national blessing-that what ruins individuals is useful to a state, and consequently, that the taxation which the ignorant so much deprecate, so far from being a misery and a curse, is but an additional proof of the prosperity and happiness of the people. To such lengths has this assertion been pushed, that the impatience of any portion of the community to get rid of some of the demands made upon them on the part of the government, has been ascribed to the most unaccountable stupidity-to the most lamentable ignorance of their own happy condition, in short, to that perversity and fretfulness of temper which it requires the utmost wisdom and perseverance of parliament to control. The present session of parliament was ushered in by an express declaration of Mr. chancellor of the exchequer, that, to reduce taxation might even aggravate the distress, which distress, having been long denied, it was now necessary to allow did exist. Some subsequent explanation of that assertion has been given; but I am sure of the words-I am sure of the sense in which they seemed to be used, and in which I am confident they were taken by all sides of the House-his majesty's ministers themselves. Not only have * Debates, April 3. |