having moved the third reading of this bill,

wished to offer to the hon. and learned gentleman a suggestion that did not proceed from himself alone, but which was the general opinion of a number of hon. and learned friends of his, who all agreed with him in approving of the principle of this bill, but who strongly objected to one part of it. That suggestion was, as to the expediency of omitting the second clause, which dispensed with the necessity of parties giving their residences.

thought that the suggestion of the hon. and learned member would come more properly after the third reading. The great merit of the present bill was, that it reduced the law of marriage to a certain system, because it did away with those vague and indeterminate provisions of former acts, which were so strongly objectionable. It was aimed also, very effectively, against clandestine marriages, by publication of bans; which publication, under the existing laws, it was almost morally impossible could ever reach the ears of those whom the law intended it should reach.

proposed, that the bill should have an ex post facto operation, in cases where marriages had been contracted under the ages of twenty-one, and where they had no issue.

opposed the clause, on the ground that the House could not pass such a clause on any principle of justice.—

was anxious to introduce a clause to prevent a marriage between a minor and an adult, from being in any case liable to be annulled at the suit of the adult. It was a most disgusting and revolting fact, that in a great majority of cases, the proceedings were instituted by the husband, who had attained twenty-one at the period of the marriage; and, as the bill stood, the power would still remain to him, until the expiration of six months after his wife's attainment of the age of legal majority. Every principle which induced the House to approve of the bill as it stood, would justify its going the length he suggested; for nothing could be more repugnant to reason, decency, and justice, than the practice he wished to prohibit; unless indeed it were the circumstance, that in a civilized age and country, the law should so long have continued to permit, and thus to sanction it,—a permission and sanction in no respect necessary for securing the genuine object of the marriage act, which was designed mainly for the protection of minors. That act could not have been intended to furnish, as it did, the means of accomplishing the ruin of an innocent and virtuous female, who perhaps, after resisting all the arts of seduction, relied with the unsuspicious ignorance of youth on the validity of a marriage offered to her by a person of full age, while that person having gained the ends of his passion, more effectually than by means which would have incurred the severest inflictions of the law, was enabled with impunity to reap a double advantage from the perjury by which he had obtained the solemnization of the marriage rites. The alteration he suggested would also render the bill more conformable to the law on the subject of marriage in other respects; for a mutual contract or promise of marriage between an adult and a minor, was so far binding on the adult as to subject him to an action for damages, though the minor remained free from such liability Under the provisions of this bill, the minor would still remain at liberty until a sufficient period had elapsed after the age of legal discretion, but that the adult should also remain so, the shadow of a reason did not occur to his imagination.

said, he felt the force and justice of the observations which had fallen from the hon. gentleman, but yet trusted he would not press the amendment he had proposed. A great amelioration, he admitted, it would be; but as the mischief complained of, arose out of the law as it had long stood, and a great deal had already been done by the bill, which, even as now framed, had not passed through the House without much objection; he thought any material extension of its principle might still further endanger it in another place.

said, he quite agreed with the hon. gentleman who suggested this amendment, in thinking that the law which gave such an undue advantage to persons of full age, was in a most objectionable state. The bill, however, as it stood, would tend much to diminish the grievances resulting from the marriage act, and he thought it better therefore not to increase the risk which it might yet have to encounter before it finally passed the legislature. On this ground he hoped the hon. member would withdraw his proposition.

said, he so entirety approved of the bill as far as it went, that though he thought the time which the law had existed formed no apology for it, and though he could not surmise a reason why, in another place, the clause he proposed could appear to render the bill more objectionable, he should be happy to defer to the judgment of the hon. members who wished him to withdraw it.

said, he could not let the motion be carried without entering his protest against its precipitate introduction, and the principle it proposed to substitute instead of a better one. He thought the means it afforded of instituting and carrying on suits to avoid impro- per marriage contracts were entirely too limited.

rose, pursuant to notice, to move for leave to bring in a bill to amend the act of last session for appointing a commission to inquire into the abuses in Charity Schools. It had been his intention to open the object of the bill to the House at present, but he had been induced to postpone doing so till the second reading. He proposed bringing in the bill, having it printed, and letting it lie over till after the recess. He ought to apologise to the House for having delayed this measure till so late a period in the session. His reason was, that the House might be in possession of the information contained in the reports of the commission, the last of which was lately laid on the table, before calling on them to enact any new measures. The noble lord then moved for leave to bring in a bill, to amend the act of last session, for the appointment of a commission to investigate the application of charitable funds, and to extend the powers of the said act to Charitable Foundations.

rose to second the motion. He had, in the first place, to thank the noble lord for delaying the introduction of the bill, grounded, as the delay was, on reasons so satisfactory; and next, for adopting the suggestion which had proceeded from himself, of forbearing to open the nature of his bill till the second reading. His motive for seconding the motion was this—because he thought the amendments it proposed exceedingly desirable, as it went first to enlarge the powers of the commissioners, and secondly to extend the objects of the commission; both which objects had been originally well secured in his bill of last session, though afterwards in a great measure given up. The only ground of difference that could arise between him and the noble lord was, that possibly he might think the present bill did not go far enough; but as that would be a proper subject of discussion at the second reading, he should willingly postpone any further observations till that stage.

having moved the second reading of this bill,—

said, he was not disposed to give the bill his support, as its operation would, in his opinion, be very injurious to parishes. He hoped the hon. gentleman would consent to withdraw the clause, which imposes on magistrates, in case of their refusal to grant a license, a written ground for that refusal. The House must see that in certain cases it might be necessary to withhold licenses, without its being necessary to call on magistrates to assign in writing their reasons for such refusal. He objected, however to the bill generally, and should move, that it be read a second time "this day six months."

said, that from his own experience he knew the present licensing system was much abused. He knew several instances wherein licenses had either been withdrawn or refused from political motives, particularly in those places which were the immediate scene of contested elections. He considered the bill of the highest importance, and therefore he hoped his hon. friend, because he might not think all obtained that he wanted, would not therefore oppose the progress of a bill which promised to effect so many advantages.

entirely concurred with the opinion expressed by his hon. friend, that the bill, in its present form, was most objectionable. There were many cases in which the reasons for withdrawing or withholding licenses could not be assigned either before a bench of justices or a jury.

thought a clause rendering it imperative on magistrates to assign the reasons of their conduct to publicans, was throwing a slur on their character.

could not agree with the last speaker, in supposing this bill would throw any stigma on magistrates, and he confessed he had never anticipated such an objection. He could not see why the magistrates should refuse to give their reasons, unless indeed they were disposed to say with Falstaff, that they would not give reasons "on compulsion." There was a bill already in existence which called on them for such reasons, namely, the present Insolvent act, which authorised the court here to call for the reasons on which the magistrates acted in the quarter sessions in the country. The magistrates could incur no expences in defending their conduct at the sessions; on the contrary, it was his duty to come forward boldly, and show that there were most satisfactory grounds when he refused a license. If any thing could possibly tend to fix a stigma on that body, or excite a suspicion of their acting from interested motives, it would be the very circumstance of their shrinking from inquiry, and being unwilling to explain their conduct. He implored gentlemen now present, who might happen to be in such situations, not to shrink thus from inquiry, but to accede to the motion.

thought until as strong a case was made out against the country magistrates, as he regretted to say, had been made out against those in the metropolis, he should oppose the bill; although, if applied where it was necessary, he should vote for it. The machinery of the bill was also faulty, and went to entail a very heavy expense upon the county. It provided that after a third conviction for improper conduct, the magistrate should send the case before a jury; but he would ask, who was to pay the expense of the trial? The hon. gentleman would reply, the county; but if this was the case, it would have the effect of materially increasing the county rates, which were already a great burthen, He was satisfied the existing laws had answered the purpose completely, and he should therefore oppose the present measure.

saw great inconvenience would result from obliging magistrates to give written reasons for their conduct. Counsel, he had no doubt, would be employed to dissect such statements and make them appear improper, while the best motives and purest feelings might have actuated the magistrates. He did not object, however, to going into a committee on the bill, as some of its principles were good, and many of its provisions would be found useful in the metropolis.

thought the provisions of the bill should be applied to the cities of London and Westminster only. It was inequitable in those cases where it would interfere with chartered rights.

thought the bill would have a most pernicious effect. The instances of abuse of the discretionary power vested in magistrates by the present law, were extremely few, and those few were amply compensated by the excellent effect of them on the behaviour of publicans, and the morals of those who frequented their houses.

said, that under the existing system the will of the magistrate was law—"stat pro ratione voluntas." He hoped, however, the feelings manifested in the House on the clause respecting that class of persons, would induce his hon. friend not to press it, since it might have the effect of causing the bill to be lost, and he should extremely regret if the metropolis were deprived of its advantages.

opposed the bill. The examination of magistrates would, in his view, be found very objectionable, while it would tend to expose those persons entrusted with very responsible duties to unnecessary odium.

hoped, that as the clause respecting magistrates was so much opposed, his hon. friend would not press it. The bill contained so many excellent provisions, that he should be sorry the benefit of it should be lost to London and Westminster.

said, that no slur was attempted to be cast on the magistrates, much less any intended degradation—Degradation! Could it be a degradation to the magistrates to have an appeal made from their decisions, when the courts of law constantly appealed from each other's decisions, when every day's practice showed it to be familiar both in and out of that House? In the country places generally he did not think the conduct of the magistrates was other than became English gentlemen. But to the disgrace of lord lieutenants of counties in the neighbourhood of London, far different persons were appointed to the magistracy. The scandalous abuses tolerated by them need not then to be related, for every hon. member, who had taken the trouble to inform himself on the subject, must have long since been satisfied of the disgusting fact. It was perfectly notorious that the magistrates in London had deprived many honest men of their property, while they licensed their own public houses, knowing them at the same time to be converted into brothels of the worst description. There was, beside, no law granting them a discretion to take away a license, although there was a low enabling them to refuse one. The hon. member then cited a case from Burrowe's Reports, confirmatory of his position, in which lord Mansfield had decided that a magistrate who had taken away a license, was guilty of an act for which he should be punished. And although some gentlemen in the House appeared to hold a different opinion, he still could not help relying more on the opinion of an able judge than on the opinions of those who now differed with him. The bill before the House made the detection of improper houses easy; while such was the existing law, that the most improper persons had only, if dispossessed of their houses in one place, to repair to another, when for a few shillings or pounds, they might be sure of obtaining a license. But, every county in the kingdom was nearly as guilty as the metropolis. Whereas, by certain clauses in his bill, such abuses, and such enormities, as had long existed, would, in a great measure, be prevented. Besides, his bill went to do away the forgery of sureties, recognizances, and petitions, which were often signed by paupers, vagrants, and vagabonds of every description, to the great injury of the revenue and fair trader. Indeed, many of the arguments urged against the bill were little more than the rechauffé edition of those which he had often heard, and which had no later than a few days since, been personally stated to him. He should not, however, press the clause extending to country magistrates, not because he did not think it in some degree necessary, but because he would not risk its application to the abuses that reigned so widely and injuriously in the metropolis.

objected to the principle of the bill, which, by attaching the office of the justice general, as was proposed, to that of the president of the session, would give to a civil judge a criminal jurisdiction. He wished, therefore, that the bill should be altered, and that, at all events, it should not be discussed during the absence of the lord advocate.

said, the bill created new duties, which would occasion great expense to the judge who was to perform them, while there was no provision made to answer it. He did not see the propriety of continuing the office as an effective one, after the demise of the nobleman who at present held it as a sinecure, and at the same time withdrawing the salary.

concurred with the two speakers who had preceded him, and requested Mr. D. Gilbert to withdraw his bill.

professed himself unacquainted with Scotch law. The bill was put into his hands with a request to bring it forward; he had done so; but finding the sense of the House unfavourable to it in its present form, he should ask leave to withdraw it, in order to bring it forward at a future time in a more improved form.

rose and observed, the noble, disinterested, and patriotic manner in which the noble marquis had relinquished the extensive emoluments of this office, was a magnanimous sacrifice to the service of his country, which it was impossible for the House to pass over without some signal mark of its approbation. He had sacrificed, in effect, a much larger sum than the marquis of Buckingham had done in a similar way; for, considering the noble marquis's time of life, and reckoning on the ordinary calculations of longevity, the amount of what lord Camden had thus generously sacrificed could not be less than 100,000l. After a very eloquent panegyric of the generous and patriotic conduct of the noble marquis, he said, he thought the least the House could do, was to recognise it by a public vote of approbation and thanks, in which he was confident of the unanimous support of the House. He concluded by moving, "That this House doth acknowledge and highly approve the public spirit and disinterested conduct of the most noble marquis Camden, in making, during his life, this large sacrifice of private fortune to the service of his country, and that it becomes this House to record with due commendation such an instance of distinguished munificence, so honourable to the giver, and so justly intitled to public gratitude."

said, that not being present at the former discussion, he now merely rose to express his applause and admiration of the conduct of the marquis of Camden. He was glad that the House would hand down to posterity the expression of their sense of an act so truly noble, and so deserving of imitation;

after expressing his opinion of the conduct of the noble marquis, proceeded to suggest, that the House should not stop at merely recording their sense of the disinterested act which he had performed, but should present an address to the Prince Regent, praying that his royal highness would be pleased to bestow some signal mark of favour on the marquis of Camden.

disagreed altogether with the hon. gentleman who spoke last, as to the course he suggested. He thought the act of the noble marquis truly great, and his great and noble reward would be found in the thanks of the House and the applause of his country. There was a noble simplicity in the act, which he would wish to let stand on its own merits. No mark of honour that the throne could bestow could raise the noble marquis higher than his own act had done—an act the more truly patriotic and disinterested, when it was considered that the fortune of the noble marquis, though respectable, was not affluent. It was honourable to the feelings of the House, that this was not taken up as a party question—that it was not guided by any part sentiment—but that the universal voice of parliament, echoing as it did the voice of the country, thus proclaimed, its sense of the noble marquis's conduct.

said, that as to the conduct of the noble marquis, there was but one feeling; it was a sacrifice as unexampled, as it was disinterested and pure; and though his noble friend did not court public notice, yet nothing, he was convinced, would be more gratifying to his feelings, than the unanimous expression of the approbation of the House. He hoped therefore that the hon. gentleman would not throw any difficulty in the way which the House were inclined to pursue.

said, he rose, pursuant to notice, to call the attention of the House to the present mode of administering justice in Wales. The hon. member then proceeded to point out the abuses which existed in the present system of administering justice in that country, and pointed out the inexpediency of having a separate jurisdiction, where the whole kingdom was governed by the same laws. He concluded by moving the following resolutions: "1. That to keep up a distinction of judicature between people inhabiting different parts of the realm, conduces of itself to no positive advantage; that the original motives which made the ancient separation of Wales from England, prudent, and even necessary, no longer exist in these days, and that no new political event has occurred to render the continuance of it beneficial. 2. That it is highly expedient that the administration of justice, and the judicial establishments of Wales, should, as nearly as possible, be assimilated to those of England. That it is highly expedient that farther provision should be made, in order to secure the independence of the Welch judge? 4. That it is highly expedient that the Welch judges should not have seats in this House.

said, that the committee who had sat on the subject had gone deeply into the question, and he could not but regret that they had not brought in some specific resolution. He objected to the present motion as of too sweeping a nature; and, besides the difficulty attending the introduction of the English system of laws into any country, the twelve judges of England were excluded from the House merely because they constituted part of the other House. Such was, however, not the case with the Welsh judges, and he therefore saw no reason to exclude them from the House. He should move the previous question.

entered into a detail of the circumstances which took place on the committee, and supported the motion.

contended that the Welsh judges had often been appointed more for parliamentary purposes than for the administration of justice. He supported the motion, as he conceived the system required much amelioration.

opposed the motion, as he saw no necessity for such a change; besides, there was no application made for it from Wales.

contended, that the system ought to be revised and amended. He knew a case where a judge was consulted in his private character a few days before judgment, and on his giving judgment a few days after, a Welsh attorney held up a paper, saying, "My lord, here is your opinion given to me on such a day, and it is quite contrary to the one now delivered." He was reprimanded, but still persevered, declaring it was a very odd thing the judge should take his money one day for an opinion, and the king's money for a different opinion the next day.

said, the report of the committee was deserving of the highest consideration, it having been composed of most respectable and enlightened individuals. He thought the House should be extremely cautious in interfering with the administration of justice, and vindicated the character of the professional men in the county he represented. On the whole, he believed the judicature was an essential blessing to the principality, and should be sorry to see it removed.

concurred in the object of the resolutions, but recommended his hon. friend to withdraw them, and bring them forward in another shape. A specific measure, founded on the same principles, would, he thought, deserve the approbation of the House.

consented, and the resolutions were withdrawn.