had hoped, that Government would not impose on the people of Ireland such a harsh and arbitrary Bill, and he submitted whether it would not be more satisfactory to the country if the Jury Bill were first passed, in order that it might be seen whether all the objects proposed to be attained would not be affected by that Bill. He hoped Government would be induced to defer the present Bill; but if they would not consent to that, he should endeavour to convince the House, that the Bill was wholly unnecessary. If the object of the Jury Bill were to cause impartial justice to be administered to the people of Ireland, it was wholly unnecessary to bring forward this measure. The object of the present Bill was to give the power to the prosecutor, in all cases in which it was apprehended that impartial justice could not be obtained, to remove the trial to the neighbouring county, or to Dublin, upon application to the Judges. Now, if the Bill were to operate fairly, the same privilege ought to be extended to the prisoner. [The Solicitor General: So it is.] If that were so, he should show that the Bill was unnecessary. They had already seen the effects of partial legislation in Ireland. Now, a prisoner could not make an application to remove the trial until after the indictment was found, because otherwise he could not know whether he would be tried or not; and then, as the Assizes would be sitting, he would be hurried to his trial without having an opportunity to apply in the regular way for a removal of his trial: whereas the prosecutor could at all times be prepared to apply for a removal of the cause. Again, the Bill gave the prisoner no advantage that he did not previously possess, but a great advantage was given to the Crown prosecutor, who could, on the most trifling grounds, obtain a removal. No case had been made out to convince him that there was such a defect in the existing law as to justify the present measure. It might be said, that in some parts of the North of Ireland there was a reasonable suspicion that Juries had not done their duty; but that did not Show, that the law was bad. This new measure would not restore the confidence of the people, or give greater security that justice would be more impartially administered, and therefore he should give it his decided opposition.

said, he hoped that the Jury Bill, to which the hon. Member referred, and the present Bill would go hand in hand together; they were in perfect harmony, and he hoped they would pass—and pass for the benefit of Ireland. He had nothing nearer to his heart than that justice should be administered satisfactorily. The present Bill was perfectly in accordance with the spirit of the Constitution; and, far from being opposed to Trial by Jury, would support it, by giving impartial and satisfactory trials. By the common law of England, the Court of King's Bench possessed in this country almost all the powers which were given by this Bill; but the powers given by this Bill were more safe and more for the benefit of the accused, than any given by the common law. The Court of King's Bench, upon being informed that a fair trial could not be had, might change the place of trial either for felony or mis- demeanor, and upon the application of the prosecutor or of the prisoner. He knew an instance in which his right hon. friend near him (Mr. Littleton) prosecuted a person for a misdemeanor, in the county of Stafford, in which case he (the Solicitor General) was counsel; the defendant applied to the King's Bench to remove the trial to Gloucester, on the ground of his right hon. friend's extensive influence in Staffordshire; and it was tried in Gloucester, and the defendant was acquitted. He could also instance the case of the King v. Thomas, for murder, which, on application, was removed from Rochester to Maidstone. There was also the recent case of the King v. Hodson, which, at the defendant's request, was removed from a distant county to London. The Bill introduced no new or dangerous power. It took from the parties the difficulty of removing the trial to another county, which now existed, by enabling any two Judges to appoint a trial in a county wherein justice might be done, with the great advantage of obviating the necessity for that bargaining and huckstering which were now practised, before any application to the Court of King's Bench for removing a cause to a distant county could be carried into effect. And not only would there thus be a great saving of expense, but the case might be moved directly. There would be a difference in the operation of the law as contrasted with England; when, according to the strict letter of the law here, the venue could only be changed to the adjoining county. By this Bill, however, a case might be taken from one of the most remote counties, and tried in the county of Dublin. In Scotland, this course had already been adopted, as it was customary in that country to remove the venue from any county, however distant, to the High Court of Justiciary in Edinburgh, and no complaint of the system had been made. That great partiality in striking a Jury had been practised in Ireland no man could doubt, and it was one of the objects of the Bill, to avoid all possibility of partiality. Under these circumstances, he should give it his entire support, and declare his conviction in full that it accorded strictly with the spirit of the Constitution and the statutory law.

should lament to see the Bill become a law, because he believed it to be unnecessary. He was sorry to see the same feeling continuing, which prompted the Coercion Bill. He objected to this measure upon principle, and from a conviction that it would have no good effect; but although he objected to it himself, he would not divide the House, as he thought it would be scarcely fair to do so after the feeling which the House had evinced at the first reading.

said, the hon. Gentleman entertained an erroneous opinion with respect to the feelings of the people of England towards those of Ireland, as evidenced by the Acts of that House. He was convinced, that if such scenes as had unfortunately disgraced and disturbed that unhappy country had taken place in any county or counties in England, the Legislature would not have been less prompt, nor the people less willing to have had such counties placed under coercive laws. And nothing, he was convinced, could be more necessary than a change in the system of empanelling Juries. The necessity for that change was proved from what was so well known on the subject as regarded striking for Juries, both in the South and the North of Ireland.

could not see how any reasonable objection could be raised to the Bill, as it secured the Trial by Jury in a manner more secure than any Jury Act could be passed. It also secured that country against the repetition of those offences which have been so lately prevalent in Ireland. On that ground he supported the Bill, being perfectly sure there was nothing in it unconstitutional, and that it would be found most beneficial for Ireland.

could not agree with the noble Lord, that this was a beneficial law for Ireland. He saw the same spirit pervading it that suggested the coercive measure. If there was any necessity for the measure, it ought to have been carried long since. He should like to ask, whether there had been any defect in the administration of justice, either at the Spring or Summer Assizes in Ireland? In his opinion this was a violent alteration of the law, and would take away one of the greatest safe-guards—the Trial by Jury. There was no precedent for such a measure, except that which had occurred in 1772. He hoped, if the measure were passed, it would not be made universal, as he was of opinion it ought to be applied only to those counties that required it.

thought the Bill a most salutary measure, and he should therefore give it his support. He, however, agreed with the hon. and learned Member who spoke fast, that it ought to have been brought forward at an earlier period of the Session.

rose, to propose the second reading of the Tithes (Stay of Suits) Bill. He wished that the hon. and learned Solicitor General had taken on himself the task of introducing this measure. He knew that it was a difficult and delicate thing to legislate on such a subject, and he hoped, that whatever defects of detail might be found in his Bill, the House would not on that account throw it out, but would join with him in the attempt to amend them. He was convinced, that the consequences of the evil for which this Bill was to provide a remedy would be most mischievous to the cause of religion, good order, and morality. The clergy said, they had been driven to this step by the Government themselves. He did not exactly understand that; but of this he was sure, that the proceedings which he now sought to stay would produce such an effect all over the country, as to indispose the people properly to receive a fair and equitable measure for a general tithe composition. It had been heretofore customary, when plaintiffs proceeded for the recovery of tithes, that a few cases were selected, the decision upon which was considered to be binding upon the whole; but it had unfortunately happened that, by the Act passed last year commonly called Lord Tenterden's Act, no plaintiff could recover for tithes due, unless the proceedings were commenced, as against every individual party, within a certain period. In consequence of this Act, in Kendal, there had been 1,500 suits entered for tithes, and ten individuals were included in each suit; and in the county of Cumberland, as many as 150 persons were named in each suit. By this system an immense expense was entailed, and it was the bounden duty of the House to take some steps to check that expenditure. He should propose by this Bill to stay all proceedings begun since the commencement of Lord Tenterden's Act to the end of next Session, and to provide that in all suits entered of ten persons each, only two should be considered as necessary parties, the others to be bound by the decision in that case. In the other cases, in the parishes of Cumberland, he should propose a similar rule to be applied. It would be a saving of expense to all parties. He proposed this, because, although he was aware that actions on policies of insurance were consolidated, he knew of no precedents of that sort with regard to actions for tithes. He again declared, that it was difficult to legislate on this subject at all, and that legislation of the nature he now proposed could only be justified, as in this case it was, by strong necessity.

was understood to say, that the object of the Bill, so far as it went to stop litigation, might seem to be good; but that its effect would be to deprive the parties concerned of all remedy whatever. An unjust clamour had been raised as to the number of suits instituted. The fact, that they were so numerous was not owing to the clergy, but to the provisions of the Bill of last year, which had rendered them absolutely necessary.

said, that he had heard nothing of clamour raised against the clergy—he had heard of regret—he had expressed regret at these proceedings, and he did so again. As a friend to the Church, he deplored to hear that 1,500 suits had been instituted in one parish alone. If they were allowed to be proceeded with, the consequences would be most lamentable; tithes would become odious; payment of them might be suspended, and all hopes of a just composition would be at an end. He was firmly of opinion, that tithes were as-much property as any other thing, and ought to be protected. The setting aside of a long-established modus was a calamity, for the land in such a parish had been bought and sold over and over again under it. The tithes, if impropriate, had also been bought and sold, and by setting aside a modus, the tithe-owner would get what he had not bought, and the land-owner would no longer have what he had honestly paid for.

earnestly wished, that some general measure should be speedily introduced to set the question of tithes at rest. As to this Bill, he regretted the hon. Member (Mr. Blamire) had not brought it forward much earlier, and that he had not sooner moved for the returns he had moved for last night respecting the number of suits commenced for the recovery of tithes. On the present occasion, the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (the Solicitor General), as on some others as he thought, had gone a little further than, from his high station, he was justified in going. That hon. and learned Gentleman had said, that, in Kendal parish alone, no less than 1,500 actions had been commenced for the recovery of tithes, whereas it appeared there were but 150 actions, although against 1,500 persons. Certainly 150 actions were a great many; but, let it be recollected, that the clergy had no alternative than that of either bringing the actions, or abandoning their right to tithes. He was not prepared to say, that some Bill, similar to the present, was not called for; but he thought it would be much better that Ministers should take upon themselves the responsibility of bringing in some general measure to regulate the system of tithes, and that, in the meantime, all actions should be postponed, reserving to parties interested their present rights, until the subject was set at rest by Parliament. That would do more than anything else to quell the angry feelings which the bringing of so many actions had created.

had no objection to the principle of assimilating the law of England and Ireland on this question, but he considered the mode of doing it as it was done by this Bill to be absurd.

supported the Bill, the object of which was to oblige the Sheriff to Select Juries fairly and impartially.

took the same view of the Bill. It would secure the selection of a better class of Jurors, and a more impartial mode of selection.

approved of the Bill generally, but he did not agree in that part which left the selection to irresponsible persons.

wished the assimilation had had taken place long ago, and regretted that it was not now carried to a greater extent.

would not say anything on the Bill, as he knew nothing about it, but he hoped that, as it was intended that next Session the House should sit from ten o'clock in the morning to five o'clock in the afternoon, the public business would not be huddled up in this manner, so that Members could not find time to make themselves acquainted with it.

said, the Bill was one which seriously affected the industrious classes of the community, and others whom hon. Members would have no opportunity of consulting upon a measure introduced at so late a period of the present Session. The Bill, it was true, came down from a Select Committee of the House, but the Report of that Committee strongly induced him to think that it was highly desirable to defer this Bill until the next Session of Parliament, for it was at complete variance in many points with the provisions contained in the Bill now under consideration, particularly as regarded the hours at which the beer-shops should be kept open, and other police regulations detailed in the report. The advanced period of the Session made it impossible that these points could be provided for in the Bill; and he was fully of opinion, that much benefit would accrue from deferring legislating on the subject until consideration could be fully given to all the alterations in the present law which the Select Committee had recommended. But he also objected to the Bill, because it would double the amount of duty, and in this way was nothing more than an indirect tax upon beer, for the produce of the increased license-duty to the revenue, he was told, would amount to 100,000l. per annum. He thought it was too much, when the Government, in communicating the details of the savings they had effected, should have taken credit for the reduction of the price of beer, and thus indirectly propose a new impost, as indisputably was the effect of this additional licence duty. He, however, waived all these topics, and was content to put his opposition on the ground that the Bill affected persons in an humble station of life, who could not be consulted at this late period of the Session on its provisions. Under all the circumstances he was distinctly of opinion, that acting upon the recommendation of the Select Committee, that the beer-shops should be put upon the same footing as to hours and police regulations, all of which it was at present impossible to carry into effect, the Bill ought to be deferred until the next Session; and he should therefore move, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months; and he did so without wishing to press the House to a division, but in the hope, that the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would see the impracticability of pressing the Bill at present, and would consent to a postponement.

confessed he could not answer the complaint of the hon. member for Bridport, that the Bill had been introduced at so late a period of the present Session, but any delay that had occurred in bringing in the Bill was attributable to the indisposition of his noble friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, shortly after the Select Committee had made their Report. Admitting fully the late period at which the Bill was brought forward, he must observe, that the hon. member for Bridport had not dealt fairly with the provisions of this Bill, the objects of which were founded upon the opinion that it was better to fix a tax, even such as that which had been deprecated, than to leave the granting of licences to the loose arbitrium which prevailed at Quarter Sessions. The Bill had not been introduced on the ground or in consideration of any pecuniary result to the revenue, though he would admit, that this point could not be a matter of indifference. He also would admit, that, with respect to hours and police regulations, it was desirable that the beer-houses should be placed on the same footing as the public houses, and that a uniformity in this respect should be established. It was for the House to say what, even at this period of the Session, should be done with this Bill; but, whatever might be the fate of the measure, he was convinced, that if the Government had done nothing with the Report of the Select Committee when laid on the Table, they would have been open to obloquy; and if, again, the Government had consented to that which was recommended by many Magistrates for the regulation of the scale upon which houses should be licensed, the opposition to the measure would have been still stronger. As he had already said, whatever might be the fate of this Bill, he was unwilling that it should go forth without the explanation he had offered.

said, that, looking to the impossibility of passing the Bill that Session, and looking to the fact, that the noble Lord brought it forward to show that he wished to do something for the good of the public, he should say but a very few words upon the subject. The Bill was one of very great importance, as it affected millions of men, and in a very sensible way, too, since it touched upon their comforts. If the right hon. Gentleman thought that the evidence of the Report alluded to attributed the great increase of crime to the beer-shops, the right hon. Gentleman had not read the Report with the attention he (Mr. Cobbett) had read it. The evidence of that Report—excepting the evidence of one or two of the clergy and of two hired overseers—did not attribute the increase of crime to the beer-shops. There was another thing in the Report that ought not to have been published—it was a scandalous libel, and which might be made more offensive, since it could be copied with little danger. He alluded to the shameful evidence of an exciseman, which was one of the grossest libels he ever saw upon paper. The parties were named in the libel—they were two men and two women. The latter were accused of adultery, and the former were said to be partners in the crime, and their characters painted in the very worst light. He was not surprised that the prying, envious, and disappointed exciseman of a village should have given such evidence; but he was greatly astonished that the Committee should have allowed such evidence to be printed. In his opposition to the Bill he was completely disinterested. It would not affect him—it would lay no tax upon him; indeed the noble Lord could not tax him in the way of drink, unless he chose to lay a tax on cows' udders. He hoped that he should hear no more of the Bill for the present Session.

said, that the opinions unfavourable to the present Beer Bill were not confined to the clergy alone. There were Gentlemen whom he had known for the last thirty or forty years who attributed to that Bill the increase of the crimes of sheep-stealing, poaching, and other offences. They said, that those crimes were not so frequent before the existing Beer Bill had passed into a law. If the hon. member for Oldham would look into the evidence of the Report of the Committee, he would find the names of the gentlemen he alluded to. That the present Bill made people drink somewhat more was not astonishing. By the Bill good beer was made more general; and when it was good, it did not give persons the stomach ache; and adding to that its being sold at a low price, it was not surprising, that a little more intoxication took place. However, he saw no further evils in the Bill, and he thought that a great deal that was said against its bad effects arose out of an angry feeling on the part of his fellow Magistrates. Beer-sellers could get licences without applying to the Magistrates—they could obtain them from the Excise—so that they were not so subservient to the Magistrates, and passed them without condescending to take off their hats to them. This feeling of independence and lack of courtesy was the cause of angry feelings on the part of his brother Magistrates; and he believed that the beer-shops were allowed by the Magistrates to run riot and become mischievous, in order that there might be an excuse for putting them down. If the measure before them were allowed to pass, nine-tenths of the beer-shops would be put down, because it would be impossible for them to get the six sureties required, in order to have a licence. If the six sureties were taken from all England, it would be possible to get them, but two were to be of the parish in which the beer-shop was to be opened; and he would be prepared to show in Committee, if the Bill should reach that stage, that it would be impossible to get those two sureties. The influence of any neighbouring Gentleman or nobleman would prevent it. He thought, that if the noble Lord let matters stand as they did until next year, that the small country beer-shops, which were the chief causes of crime, would die off. He should, therefore, though reluctantly, vote against the second reading of the Bill.

supported the Bill, in common with the Grand Jurors of the county with which he was connected, he conceived the effects of the existing law to be most pernicious, and he was satisfied that on sound principles of Legislation the present Bill could not he objected to, inasmuch as it would work injustice upon no individual.

concurred with the hon. member for Bridport, that so important a Bill as that under consideration should not be pressed forward at the present advanced stage of the Session.

supported the Bill, and expressed a hope that the Government would persevere in pressing it forward during the present Session, as it would have the effect of putting down nine-tenths of the beer shops now in existence under the present law—"a consummation," in his judgment, "most devoutly to be wished." He, however, thought the Bill would not be complete without the addition he purposed proposing in the Committee, to prevent the consumption of beer upon the premises.

said, that the Report of the Poor-law Commissioners, which attributed the riots and outrages of the year 1830 to the beer-shops, was alone sufficient to call for some legislative interference with regard to their regulation. He trusted the noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would not abandon the present Bill.

bore testimony to the liberal spirit which had been manifested by the Select Committee on whose Report the Bill had been introduced, and contended, that even the evidence of the three clergymen of the Church of England referred to by the hon. member for Oldham was sufficient to justify some change in the law. If the measure was persevered in, he should give it his support, though he thought it would have been more desirable that it should have been submitted to a fuller House than was at present collected.

said, that since the passing of the Act respecting beer-shops he had not, owing to his occupation with official business, had an opportunity of acquiring practical information on the subject. He must say, however, that according to all the information which had reached him, it was plain that however the statements might be highly coloured or exaggerated in some instances, there could be no doubt that universally, in all parts of the country, the increase that had taken place in crime had been attributed to the beer-shops. Under such circumstances, the question was, whether the present system of beer-shops did not require some alteration and regulation. During the last two Sessions, though great complaints had been made with regard to the effects of the Beer Bill, he (Lord Althorp) had opposed the making any alteration in it, conceiving that it was due to it, as an experimental measure, to wait and see whether the evils which were attributed to the operation of it might not ultimately disappear. But, now that they had had the benefit of experience on the subject, and that it was found that those evils, instead of diminishing, had greatly increased, it appeared to him, that Parliament was bound to provide a remedy by adopting some measure for the better regulation of those beer-shops. He greatly regretted, that, in consequence of the late period at which the Committee that had been appointed on this subject had made their Report, the present measure of Government had been brought forward at such an advanced period of the Session, that it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, should it be opposed, to carry it through in the present Session. He was anxious to state the grounds on which he thought that the principle of this measure should be now affirmed by the House. The Committee took a very correct view as to the remedy for the evil which now existed, when they proposed that the station in society of the persons to whom licenses for keeping those beer-shops were granted should be raised somewhat above its present level, but the manner in which they recommended the House to arrive at that desirable end appeared to him to be by no means a practicable one. They recommended that the amount of the rate should be made the test for granting or refusing a licence. Now, it was evident, that the same amount of rate in a country district might be much higher in proportion than a similar amount in a town district, and it was also well known, that in different parts of the country, the rates were extremely different. The mode recommended by the Committee, if adopted, would allow the Magistrates in different parts of the country to fix the rates, and the consequence would be, that, in a great number of districts, the option of licensing those houses would be left altogether in the hands of the Magistrates. He did think that the power of licensing those beer-shops was much too large, too extensive, and too important a one to be committed to the hands of the Magistrates. It was upon that principle that the late Government had introduced the Beer Bill, which he then advocated as a measure for opening the trade in beer. In the Committee which sat upon that Bill, he had endeavoured to persuade the members of it to recommend to the House some measure for regulating the power of licensing; but on finding, when the Bill came back to the House, that the Government had made up their minds that no such power of regulation should be adopted, as he wished well to the measure, he thought it better not to oppose it, or to throw any impediments in the way of its passing. The great difficulty was, to provide a good mode of regulation, that would insure the comparative respectability of the persons keeping those shops, while it would not interfere with the freedom of the trade. The test, then, that this measure proposed was, that the persons applying for licence to open those shops should give security to pay any penalties that might be imposed on them. It was conceived, that that was not a hard condition to impose upon them. With a view to raise the station of such persons, the present Bill proposed that a high amount of licence duty should be demanded from them. That might not be perhaps so advisable a mode for accomplishing that object as taking the amount of rate paid by them, but, for the reasons he had already stated, it would be absolutely impossible to fix its amount. He was persuaded that, in a great many districts, the raising the amount of the licence duty would be attended with the best effects. He was anxious to see the principle of this Bill at all events affirmed by the House on the present occasion, by its assenting to the second reading of it. He should speak hypocritically if, supposing that there was any opposition to be offered to the measure, he should say, that there was any possibility of passing it this Session, All he desired was, that the House would affirm the principle of the Bill now, in order that when regulations with regard to beer-shops should be proposed next Session, this decision of the House might be appealed to in support of them. It would be the imperative duty of Parliament to legislate on the subject next Session, and, by affirming the principle of this Bill now, the House would only decide that some alteration in the law was absolutely necessary. It was on these grounds and for these reasons that he wished the House to agree to the second reading of the Bill.

would recommend the postponement of the measure until next Session, there were so many objectionable provisions in it. Without wishing at all to disparage those Magistrates who had given evidence before the Committee, he could not avoid saying that their evidence exhibited a singular character of one-sidedness, and of jumping to conclusions by no means warranted by the premises. Poaching they said had increased—rick-burning had increased—crime, in short, of all kinds had increased, and the whole was attributable to the estab- lishment of beer-shops! On cross examination, indeed, those witnesses acknowledged that wages had been lowered, and that pauperism had increased, and that the poor rates had increased. So here was ample cause to account for the increase of crime without applying to the post hoc, ergo propler hoc, principle to the beer-shops for an explanation of the phenomenon. The truth was, that the witnesses, with an absurdity which they did not seem to perceive, charged all the increase of crime to the reduction that had taken place in the price of beer. Now, with regard to the alleged increase of crime, he could state that, in the county of Chester, crime had materially diminished, as was evidenced by the Assizes during the last year. He believed that the same fact had been made apparent at most of the Assizes throughout the country. Of this, at all events, he was sure—that taking into account the increase that had taken place in the population of the country, taking into account the increase of pauperism, and of general distress, there had been, comparatively speaking, a decrease in the amount of crime throughout the country. But to attribute any increase of crime that might be alleged to have taken place to beer-shops, and beer-shops alone, was, to say the least of it, a most fallacious assumption.

, in rising to move for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal the Act of 12th George 3rd, cap. 11, called an Act for the better regulating the future marriages of the Royal Family, said, that his object was, to procure the repeal of an Act from which, as experience had proved, no good, but much mischief, had followed. He had intended to introduce to the House the opinions of many persons, both in that and the other House of Parliament, expressed at the time of passing this Bill, with regard to the propriety of such a measure. Many potent reasons were then advanced against it, and he must say, that the balance of wisdom was to be found in opposition to it. The Bill had been originally introduced, not as a national, but as a court measure, and it had been proportionably hurried through Parliament, for, though introduced into the House late in February, it was passed on the 3rd of March. The Bill provided that no member of the royal family should marry without giving notice to the King in council twelve months before, and that such marriage should be only valid if Parliament in the meanwhile should express no disapproval of it. He thought that such restrictions upon the exercise of their choice in the selection of their partners for life by the members of the royal family were exceedingly mischievous. It placed the male members of it especially in a situation different from the rest of the world, and in a situation that by no means conduced to the morality of the country. This Bill had been passed because two royal Dukes had married Englishwomen. The Act, in restricting the choice of the members of the royal family, had done an immensity of mischief. He would just mention one or two instances in proof of the assertion. The Duke of York never saw his wife until he was married to her, and the consequence was, that they were soon separated. His affections had been won by another woman, perhaps an unworthy object. That House shortly afterwards rang with discussions about Mrs. Clarke, to the no great promotion of morality or the edification of the country. The late King, too, married a foreign princess whom he had never seen, and the results, the disgraceful results, were too well known to the country. He would call the attention of the House also to the pernicious and tyrannical effect of such a measure upon the female members of the royal family, who were thereby prevented from marrying the objects of their choice, and were necessarily debarred, in many instances, from gratifying their inclinations. The effect of the measure had been to make our princes send to Germany for wives, instead of selecting them amongst their English countrywomen. When George 3rd came to the Throne he was made to boast that he was the first English King of his race. It was true that he was an Englishman by nativity, but he was not so by principle. His German mother infused into him principles that had subsequently caused the greatest evils to the country. She it was who taught him that he should be a king—that was to say, in other words, a German despot; and the war with America, and the war with France, were entirely owing to the impressions he had derived from his German mother. In his opinion this evil ought to be remedied. He believed it was a maxim of the Constitution that foreigners should not be allowed to exercise any office of power or trust in this country, and, in accordance with that principle, he would say, that no foreign influence should be allowed to have authority in this kingdom. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for leave to bring in a Bill.

observed, that the hon. Gentleman had brought forward this Motion at an extraordinary late period of the Session, and with more business before the House than it could well dispose of.

said, that he had no intention to press the Motion, if the noble Lord would allow the Bill to be introduced, and read a first time.

said, that this was a subject of the greatest possible importance, and that he should be wanting in his duty if he allowed even the first reading of such a Bill without the subject undergoing the fullest and most complete discussion, which it would be impossible to obtain for it at this period of the Session, and in the present state of the House. He was well aware, that there were grave authorities who had disapproved of this measure; but there were also high opinions in favour of it, and a measure of such importance was not to be touched upon light consideration. He would not now go into the details of the question, for he hoped that the hon. Member would not persist in his Motion.

said, that the only argument he had ever heard against allowing the members of the royal family to marry English wives was, that their doing so might give a preponderance to particular families in the country. In the present state of the country and of that House, he did not look upon such an argument as of any importance.

was anxious not to permit the idea to go abroad, that the Act in question prevented the marriage of members of the royal family with English women. That was a vulgar, but a gross mistake, with regard to it. The Act provided that no descendant of George 2nd should marry any subject without the consent of the reigning Sovereign, but if the consent were given, the marriage would be valid. The hon. Member should be aware that, by the common law of England, independently of the Marriage Act, the reigning Sovereign had always the right to control the marriages of his children and heirs, and of the heir presumptive to the Throne. The Royal Marriage Act only provided that no descendant of George 2nd should have a right to marry without that consent. The law of England in that respect appeared to him to be just and salutary.