said, that he rose to present three petitions affecting the conduct of the Executive Government in Van Dieman's Land, and he hoped therefore that the House would permit him to make a short statement on the subject. The first petition was from Mr. W. Bryan. The petitioner stated, that in the year 1830 he was appointed a magistrate in that colony; that in 1833 a servant of his was sentenced to death for cattle-stealing, and that while the said servant was in prison, awaiting the execution of his sentence, a magistrate of the colony of the name of Littleton was heard to make remarks on the conduct of Mr. Bryan, and to say that Mr. Bryan ought to be hanged instead of his servant. On hearing of this the petitioner sent a message to Mr. Littleton, demanding an explanation, which the latter refused. The petitioner then wrote to the Executive Government, demanding; an investigation and an inquiry into the charges against him, which if true ought to be established. That inquiry was refused him. The petitioner then gave in his resignation of the office of magistrate. It was not accepted; but in the most contumelious manner his name was erased from the list of magistrates. The petitioner went on to state, that in November, 1833, all the assigned servants (as the convict servants were called) in his employment were withdrawn from him, by order of the Government, and that as this occurred in the middle of the sheep-shearing season, their loss was a great hardship to him. He then brought an action in the civil courts against the Governor and Executive Council for the loss he had sustained, but that, as the court decided on sending his action to an interested tribunal, he refused to go before it, and directed his solicitor to stop proceedings. He then, previous to his leaving the colony for England, put an advertisement in the papers, announcing his intended departure, and challenging inquiry into his conduct. The petitioner complained of the irresponsible power lodged in the hands of the Governor of Van Dieman's Land, particularly that of taking away, without any specified cause, the assigned servants in the employment of any particular individual. He, in conclusion, prayed the House to introduce British laws and British institutions, especially trial by jury, into that colony, and to make various improvements in the judicial department there.

said, that it was perfectly true that Colonel Arthur did erase the name of Mr. Bryan from the commission of the peace, and removed the assigned servants that were in his employment. The latter power was one that was necessarily vested in the hands of the Governor of a penal colony, for the purpose of maintaining discipline amongst the convicts, and though the propriety of its exercise in a particular instance might become a fair question for consideration, he (Sir George Grey) was sure that no one would call in question the necessity for its existence. He would not on this occasion go into a statement on the part of Colonel Arthur, in answer to the allegations of the petitioner. The vindication which Colonel Arthur had made of his conduct to the Colonial-office was perfectly satisfactory to the Government, and for the present he would leave the House to form its opinion of that conduct from the statement of the petitioner himself. He would merely add, that he would move that the despatches of Colonel Arthur relating to the erasure of the petitioner's name from the commission of the peace, and to the dismissal of his servants, be laid before the House.

said, he had now to present the petition of Mr. Henry Melville, of Hobart-town, Van Dieman's Land, proprietor of the Colonial Times newspaper, complaining of the sentence passed on him for an alleged contempt of court. In presenting this petition, he begged to say that the hon. Baronet (Sir G. Grey) had last year expressed his disapprobation of a similar exercise of power on the part of a court in Newfoundland. The petitioner stated that a person of the name of Bryan had been prosecuted by the Government for the alleged offence of cow-stealing, and that a suspicion prevailed in the colony that he was persecuted because he was a relative of Mr. Bryan, the former petitioner. Some strong remarks on the subject having appeared in the petitioner's paper, he was brought before the court in Hobart-town, and subjected to interrogatories, one of which was whether he was not the author of a certain article in his paper. The petitioner having first protested against the principle of compelling him to answer such a question, stated that he was. He was then sentenced to be imprisoned twelve months, to be fined 100l., and to give sureties for his good behaviour. It was certainly true that there had been since a remission of the petitioner's sentence, but it was necessary that there should be an expression of the public feeling in this country on the point, in order to curtail such an exercise of the prerogative as was here complained of in our distant colonies. The petitioner prayed for a remedy for such an evil in future. He had also to present a petition from the free inhabitants of Hobart-town, praying the attention of the House to Mr. Melville's petition. He must acknowledge that there was a technical objection to the reception of the latter petition, as all the names to it appeared to be written in the same hand. There was no doubt, at the same time, of the petition being a genuine document, and he was equally certain that the persons whose signatures were to it, and who were all individuals that took part in public affairs in Hobarttown, had authorised their being affixed to it. He thought it right, however, to say how the matter stood.

said, that Mr. Melville having written what was considered a libel on the Court of Justice in Hobart-town, the court took it up as a contempt of court, and without the intervention of a jury sentenced Mr. Melville to fine and imprisonment. His Majesty's Government last year, after consulting the law-officers of the Crown, had expressed their decided disapprobation of the practice in reference to a case that occurred in Newfoundland. The statement which he (Sir G. Grey) made on that occasion in the House having reached Van Dieman's Land, the governor immediately remitted the sentence on Mr. Melville, and before a memorial from Mr. Melville reached the Colonial-office, they had received the governor's despatches announcing the remission of his sentence. With regard to the interrogatories put to Mr. Melville, the practice was an unusual one in this country, and the Government here was not prepared to countenance it. They had also given directions that such a practice should not be continued in the colonies. With regard to the other petition, it was clear that the signatures were not original; at the same time, he had no doubt that such a petition had been prepared and signed in the colony, and that the present was a copy of it.

petition to lie on the table.

presented a petition from John Byrne, complaining of the conduct of James Cuffe, of Creagh, a magistrate and deputy-lieutenant of the county of Mayo. The petitioner alleged that he was a native of that county, and was following his occupation as a ballad singer, when he was arrested by Mr. Cuffe, and committed to gaol by him and other magistrates. He therefore prayed for an inquiry into the circumstances of his case, and" that the House would adopt such measures as would prevent a similar violation of the rights of the subject.

said, before he adverted to the charges contained in the petition, he must beg leave to thank the hon. Member for the courtesy he had shown in postponing the presentation of the petition at an earlier period, and also for his having given him notice of his intention of presenting it that day. The petition was from an individual, calling himself a native of the county of Mayo, whereas he is a ballad singer, residing in Pill-lane, in the city of Dublin. This person brought charges against Mr. Cuffe, a magistrate and deputy-lieutenant of the county of Mayo—he accused him, in the first place, of having deprived him of his liberty without just cause, and also of unjustly depriving him of his property. He had had the pleasure of Mr. Cuffe's acquaintance for thirty years, and he could take upon himself to say, that Mr. Cuffe was incapable of acting unjustly towards any individual. The facts of the case were simply these:—Mr. Cuffe went into the town of Ballinasloe on the day in question, and found this Byrne, to whom the epithet of "a missionary of mischief" might with more justice be applied than it had been to a respected friend of his by the noble Lord opposite—Mr. Cuffe found this man in the market-place surrounded by a large mob, to whom he was singing ballads of a treasonable nature. Mr. Cuffe cautioned him against pursuing such a course, and told him that if he continued so to disturb the market and irritate the minds of the people, he would, for that day, at least, keep him quiet. Mr. Cuffe proceeded to another part of the town, and on his return in an hour afterwards, he found Byrne similarly occupied, and, in order to preserve the peace, he committed him. Mr. Cuffe, before committing him, again remonstrated with Byrne, but he openly declared his determination to continue to sing these treasonable ballads, in spite of the magistrate. Mr. Cuffe finding him so resolved, called to a constable, and desired him to take the man to the Bridewell, and directed him to have Byrne detained until the market business should be over, and to let him be discharged at seven o'clock, and at that hour he was accordingly liberated. In the observations which he had to make, he should not put forward any statement that was not supported by affidavits and certificates. He held in his hand the affidavit of the constable who took the man into custody, and of the bridewell-keeper; he had also the certificate of the chief constable as to the conduct of the petitioner. The constable who took the man into custody swears "that he was outside the Court-house, in the market-place of Ballinasloe, and that he there saw a man named Byrne, who had collected a large mob about him, and was singing ballads of a political character, very likely to inflame the minds of the persons about him." The petitioner charged Mr. Cuffe with having deprived him of his property; but the constable positively swore "that Mr. Cuffe did not take from Byrne any of the ballads, nor did he desire this deponent to do so, nor did this deponent tale any of them." The bridewell-keeper had also made an affidavit, and he swore that Mr. Cuffe did not take any ballads from Byrne, nor did Byrne complain or allege that Mr. Cuffe had done so. The bridewell-keeper further swore that he purchased some of those ballads which, on reading, he conceived to be in language calculated to create riot. There was another circumstance connected with this petition, to which he should briefly advert. A certificate was appended to the petition. signed by six Roman Catholic clergymen, verifying the truth of the statements contained in the petition. [Mr. Browne: He had detached the certificate from the petition.] But the priests had signed a certificate as to the truth of the statements contained in the petition, notwithstanding they had no means of knowing whether they were there or no. The bridewell-keeper swore that he had read a copy of the memorial of Byrne to the House of Commons, with the names affixed to it of several Roman Catholic clergymen—none of whom, with the exception of the rev. James Machale and the rev. Peter Hughes, came that day to the bridewell. The House would see that only two out of the six were competent to speak of their own knowledge of the transaction. The House would bear in mind that the bridewell-keeper had sworn that the language in which these ballads were couched was of such a nature as was calculated to create riot; and yet for the honest and conscientious discharge of his duty in preventing a riot, a respectable magistrate was to be dragged before the public, his motives misrepresented, and charges preferred against him, totally un-sustained by facts. He felt it to be his duty to stand forward and put the conduct of Mr. Cuffe in its proper light, and he felt that the magistrates of Ireland had a right to demand of that House its marked disapproval of the line of conduct pursued on the present occasion. If Mr. Cuffe had done wrong, the laws provided a redress— but he would protest against the unfairness of dragging the most respectable persons in the country to the bar of that House on the unsupported testimony of the most worthless of mankind. He should take the liberty of reading a letter from a most respectable clergyman, named Anderson, giving his description of this Byrne, the letter was as follows:

"Ballinrobe, June 8, 1836."

"I have just read that a petition has been forwarded to Mr. Dillon Browne, M.P., for this county, for presentation to the House of Commons, in which the conduct of Mr. Cuffe, as a magistrate, is reflected upon for having committed to gaol John Byrne, a ballad singer, on the 16th of May last.

"I did not happen to see this man on that day, but I did on the following; and I can assure you, that Mr. Cuffe's conduct in committing him was highly proper, at least in my judgment, and that of all the respectable persons in the town; for I have never seen so depraved a character as Byrne seemed to be. His savage yells, blasphemous vociferations, and rebellious defiance of the authorities, rendered the exhibition he made of himself awfully revolting to the community."

He had now endeavoured to discharge his duty to his friend Mr. Cuffe, as a magistrate and a gentleman, and took upon himself solemnly to state his firm conviction that Mr. Cuffe was quite incapable of acting oppressively or unjustly towards any individual. He conceived that the reception of such a petition reflecting upon the character of a most respectable magistrate, and unsustained as the charges were, would form a bad precedent, and he should therefore move that the petition be withdrawn.

was anxious, as the hon. and gallant Colonel had talked of seditious ballads, to know whether he had seen or could produce them. Perhaps he could inform the House whether they belonged to the same school with that of which they had heard so much, and of which two of the lines run thus:—

"Put your trust in God, my boys,

And keep your powder dry."

had only stated, that he held two affidavits in his hand, from the two officers to whom he had alluded, stating that the petitioner had been singing treasonable and seditious ballads; he had never said that he had seen any of them. And when the hon. Member for Middlesex measuring others by himself, tried to convict him of telling an untruth, he would appeal to the House and the recollection of hon. Gentlemen as to what precisely he did say.—A particular ballad having been alluded to by the hon. Member, he must say there could be no doubt each differed very widely in his notions of sedition—so much so, indeed, that what he considered seditious, the hon. Member would perhaps not only not consider seditious, but highly useful and creditable to him in the particular course he endeavoured to pursue. He had only in conclusion to say, as to any reflections thrown out upon him or upon that party with whom he had formerly been connected, and with whom he ever would act, he should treat them—not to use a stronger word than the forms of the House would allow—he should treat them, considering the quarter whence they came, as they deserved.

had presented the petition without at all reflecting or intending to reflect on the character of Mr. Cuffe. The case, however, demanded an inquiry, and he hoped the Government would communicate with the local authorities, and properly investigate the matter. He was not surprised to hear the hon. and gallant Colonel defending the conduct of magistrates who had violated the law.

interposed. The hon. Member had no right to charge the hon. and gallant Colonel with an intention to defend magistrates who had violated the law.

begged, if what he had stated were considered at all out of order, at once to apologize to the House; still, however, he could not but think the hon. and gallant Colonel had shown much anxiety that the spirit of liberty should not be extended to the county of Mayo.

considered it quite clear that a gross neglect of duty had taken place on the part of this magistrate; for if any offence had been committed by the petitioner, why had he not been sent to trial? But though sent to gaol, no criminal charge had been lodged against him, and the ballad described as treasonable and seditious, was carefully kept back. He was sorry to see, that while in this country every one put himself forward as the advocate of the poor, in Ireland there was no hope of justice for the oppressed.

protested against the time of the House being wasted with such matters. If any injury had been done to this individual, he could bring his action at law against the magistrate. The attention of Government should have been called to the subject, and they would no doubt have directed the necessary inquiries to be made.

asserted the right of every man to petition the House, and expressed his surprise, that among the papers with which the hon. and gallant Member was furnished, one of the seditious and trea- sonable ballads was not found. The whole gist of the question was, whether the bal- lads were or were not such as had been described.

maintained, that the House of Commons was not the proper judge of a question of this kind, and that resort ought to be had to the proper tribunals provided by the Constitution, There was too strong a disposition at this time to pass by the regular tribunals for the administration of justice, and to appeal to the House.

referred to the use sometimes made of ballads in debates in Parliament, of which he had himself witnessed a very recent instance. If any information had been sworn before Mr. Cuffe, he might have been justified in the course he had pursued; but here it was merely suggested, that the language of the ballads was seditious and treasonable. There certainly was no better judge of treason and rebellion than the hon. and gallant Member; but he had not answered the question where any of these seditious and treasonable ballads were to be found. The right hon. Member for Monmouthshire had asked if this were a fit question for the House? Undoubtedly, if a magistrate exceeded his duty by committing a man, the party injured could appeal to no more proper tribunal. The right hon. Gentleman's knowledge of the forms of the House was great and accurate, but he knew very little of its great constitutional powers. If an individual were aggrieved, he had a right to state his grievance to the House. Here it was evident that the law had been violated, and the liberty of the subject improperly restrained; and he trusted that the Lord Chancellor of Ireland would take care to investigate all the facts of the case.

said, the time of the House ought not to be occupied with trifling complaints of this nature. The question was not, whether the ballad was treasonable or not, but, as stated by his hon. and gallant Friend, whether Mr. Cuffe, in the discharge of his duty as a magistrate, had acted wrong, when, upon his own responsibility, and apprehending a disturbance of the public peace, he had committed for a short time to prison the individual through whose means that breach of the peace was likely to occur. Would English gentlemen like such complaints as these to be made against them, as magistrates, upon such grounds? He most earnestly, and once for all, protested against the doctrine, that the poor man could not procure legal redress in Ireland, and in the present case no attempt was made to seek redress by the ordinary course of the law, if any grievance at all existed, which he was persuaded was not the case.

added, that the magistrate had acted upon his own personal cognizance, that Byrne was singing treasonable ballads.

was understood to say, that he had seen the ballads, and that he could find nothing treasonable in them. Without the production of them, the case could not properly be decided.

said, that the state of the public business at this period of the session, was such as to induce him to move that the House should sit on Thursday next, at twelve o'clock.

seconded the motion.

thought, that this was a motion which ought to be supported by some reasons adduced. It ought to be remembered that many important Committees were still sitting, which would prevent many hon. Members from attending in their places during a day-sitting of the House. He himself was engaged on a most important Committee, that on agriculture, which had now sat four months, and had not yet concluded its Report. Other hon. Members were engaged on equally important Committees, such as those on the subject of joint-stock banks, and the question of slave apprenticeship, and it would be unjust to them to proceed with important measures before the House itself during their unavoidable absence.

did not doubt the importance of the Select Committee to which the right hon. Baronet had alluded, but he must observe, that there were measures of equal importance now upon the table, which it would be impossible to carry through this session without that opportunity, which a day-sitting of the House afforded, being given to hon. Members charged with those Bills. He had been intrusted with a measure relating to the government of the town of Poole, which was deeply inter-resting to those who sought its benefits, and which they could not obtain except by a concession of his present motion.

said, that he had been an advocate for the morning sittings, but experience convinced him that their continuance would have been highly disadvantageous.

was also unfavourable to morning sittings.

moved the third reading of the Registration of Births Bill.

rose to move an amendment. In doing so he wished it to he understood, that he had no objection to the Bill, so far as it went to remove one of the grievances of the Dissenters, in giving them a system of registration. Nor did he wish to oppose that which was essential to the interests of this country, the establishment of a complete and general system of registration of births, marriages, and deaths. But while fully and cordially concurring in these two objects, he did not feel debarred from expressing his opinion on the provisions by which this Bill proposed to carry them into effect, especially if they imposed additional burdens upon the members of the Church of England: or, still farther, if they gave a parliamentary sanction to the omission on the part of such persons of a rite, which their Church inculcated as essential to the happiness, both present and future, of its members. He would, therefore shortly state the nature of the objection which he felt to one of the provisions of this Bill and the amendment which he intended to propose for the adoption of the House. As the Bill at present stood, it required, that upon the birth of every child the parent should furnish to the registrar the name of that child. Thus it imposed upon members of the Church of England the necessity of naming their children before bringing them to the baptismal font. He should propose an amendment in Clause 19, which should require the parent to give in to the registrar, upon the birth, of a child, every particular which the clause as it stood at present required, with the exception of the name. If that were acceded to, he should then propose, in Clause 23, to omit some words at the commencement of it, and to introduce others, requiring that within a certain time after the baptism of a child the parent should communicate to the registrar the certificate of baptism, in order that the name might be inserted in the Registry. We adopted precisely the provisions which the Bill now contained, enabling parents after having given their child a name in the first instance to alter it after baptism. No greater difficulty, therefore, would attend his plan than attended the provisions of the noble Lord for altering names. With regard to persons who conscientiously objected to the celebration of the rite of baptism according to the ritual of the Church of England, he proposed that a declaration should be given to the registrar, that they did so object, accompanied with the name of the child to he inserted in the Registry. By this process he thought the noble Lord would attain his objects as effectually as by the Bill as it now stood: while at the same time he would exonerate the members of the Church of England from the necessity of naming their children independently of their baptism at the font. He (Mr. Goulburn) was anxious not to propose any thing which might bear even the appearance of pressing upon the consciences of Dissenters; but he did not believe they had in any petition to that House required, or that they would require, that the members of the Church of England should be, by having any additional burden imposed upon them, induced to violate one of the rites of that Church to which she attached the greatest possible importance. It was, in the opinion of all members of the Church who reflected on the subject, of great importance, that the act of naming a child should not be severed from the rite of baptism; and he need hardly suggest, that if such a severance prevailed in practice, it might lead some persons to omit the rite altogether. He entreated the House to look at the awful responsibility which this involved. Let the House reflect upon the situation to which the conscientious incumbent would be reduced by this Bill as it at present stood. By the law of the land at present baptism must be public—in the church: it required this, because it considered, that not only the welfare of the infant, but the instruction of the spectators, should be regarded in the administration of the rite of baptism. And though private baptism was in particular cases allowed, it was an exception to the general rule. Under this Bill, if it passed as it now was framed, the incumbent would be either compelled to induce his parishioners to violate the law, or to bring their children to be privately baptised before the period arrived at which they were to be registered. Let the House remember, that upon the due performance of the rite of baptism depended the performance of some of the most solemn ceremonies of the Church: the rite of confirmation—the visitation of the sick—and, still more, the burial of the dead. And let them reflect for a moment upon the responsibility they would incur, by giving a parliamentary sanction to the omission of the rite of baptism, if, without having been baptised, a child being afterwards brought to the burial ground for interment according to the ceremonies of the Church of England, and the incumbent, acting conscientiously according to the directions of his Church, and the requirements of the law, should upon ascertaining that circumstance be compelled to harrow up all the feelings of the weeping relatives and assembled friends by declining to read the burial service, so instructive to the bearers—so consoling to the relatives! Speaking to an assembly the majority of whom belonged to the Church of England, he (Mr. Goulburn) hoped he should not be considered presumptuous in pressing this amendment upon their attention. He assured the House, that in doing so he was actuated by no earthly motives but those which he had stated, and he was supported by the opinions of many entitled to respect for their judgment and conscientious conviction. He begged to move, that in Clause 19, page 7, after the word "child" the words "except the name of the child," be inserted.

said, I shall not enter into any lengthened discussion upon this subject, I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman has stated as to the importance of the rite of baptism, but it does seem to me that he has made out no proof that the effect of this clause would be, that children would not be brought to the font; and I do not see any reason why those who believe the administration of the rite of baptism to be essential to the welfare of their children, should not bring their children to be baptised without being under the necessity of resorting to a private baptism. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman has given one reason which clearly shows that the inducement to members of the Church of England, to baptise their children, will be as strong when the Bill is passed as at present. If the reading of the burial-service depend upon the due performance of the rite of baptism, and if the incumbent on learning that that rite has not been performed, is compelled to harrow up the feelings of relatives and friends by refusing to read the service; why surely this will operate very strongly, as inducement to parents to take their children to be baptised. And I really cannot see why the mere inserting of their children's names in a public register, should be of itself an act which would prevent them from so doing. As I see, therefore, no reason whatever to apprehend the consequences which the right hon. Gentleman anticipates from this Bill, I cannot consent to adopt his amendment.

said, with respect to what the noble Lord seemed to think, that the rite of baptism would be as much regarded, if the Bill passed as it was now, he (Sir Robert Inglis) would remind the noble Lord that the name under this Bill must be given within, a certain number of days, whereas at present, any interval within six, or even sometimes twelve months might elapse before the rite of baptism was administered to a child. The noble Lord had said, that the refusal of an incumbent to read the burial-service, on the ground that the deceased had not been baptised, would operate as an example to induce in others attention to that rite. But then let the House remember that the injury was done to the child in the mean time. All that he (Sir Robert Inglis) asked on the part of the Church was, that in framing a measure of relief to Dissenters, the noble Lord would leave to its members the enjoyment of a registry with which they were content; and not make the Bill (as it was now) a Bill of pains and penalties against those persons, by imposing on them an additional burden of trouble which they were not now obliged to take, and compelling them to pay a fee which they were not now paying; by maintaining at their expense a system which they did not desire; and thus holding out a temptation to them to forsake or neglect a rite to which their Church attached great importance, — in order to attain an object not connected with the spiritual, but the mere temporal advantage and convenience of a distinct class of his Majesty's subjects.

objected to the mode in which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to carry his object into effect; the postponement of the naming the child till after baptism, would in his opinion be a most circuitous method, and one which would throw great difficulties in the attainment of the general object of the Bill. And as to the ground on which the right hon. Gentleman proposed his amendment, viz. that the Bill as it stood now would encourage the omission of the rite of baptism, he (Mr. Ewart) was quite convinced that conscientious persons would never omit the rite of baptism merely because of that Bill, and those who were not conscientious would not be rendered more attentive to the rite by reason of the amendment of the right hon. Gentleman.

agreed with his hon. Friend, the Member for Liverpool. The object of the Bill was misunderstood by Gentlemen opposite. It was not to promote the observance of a religious rite, but to supply, by means of a general registry, statistical information, which it was highly necessary for the advantage of the community that the state should possess.

hoped the amendment would be pressed to a division, and expressed his regret that he should hear such a sentiment as that expressed by the hon. Member who had just sat down with respect to marriage. He trusted that a respectable minority would support the valuable amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge.

said, he could not perceive in the whole of the Bill one provision which had the slightest tendency to prevent or discourage compliance with any of the rites of the Church of England, or even to render compliance with them more onerous than they were at present. The complaints of hon. Gentlemen opposite might apply to some Bill existing in their own imagination; but to the Bill before the House, they had no application whatever. The hon. Baronet, the Member for Oxford University, had assumed that all the members of the Church of England were content with the existing system of registration. Whereas, it must be obvious to every one having any experience in these matters that they suffered as much from the evils of that system as the Dissenters; with respect to the amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for the University of Cambridge, did he mean to make his provision compulsory or optional upon parties? He (Dr. Lushington) apprehended not compulsory, but if it were made optional, he asked was there not a probability almost amounting to certainty, that numbers of persons would not go back to the registrar with the name of the child who had been baptised, to be inserted in the registry? And would not then the whole object of the registry be frustrated,—the securing the identity of the persons registered? He (Dr. Lushington) saw no reason for this amendment upon a religious ground. If he were discussing a Bill which in his opinion was calculated to injure the Church of England, by appearing to encourage neglect of her rites on the part of her members, he would not hesitate, as a member of that Church, in giving it his opposition. But he must say he could see no tendency of that kind in the Bill before the House. He was yet to learn that the compelling members of the Church of England to register the name of their children before baptism, had a tendency to encourage their omission of that rite altogether.

said, it was gratifying to observe, that this discussion had been carried on in a tone and temper worthy of the House, and suitable to the gravity and importance of the subject under consideration. It had been admitted on the opposite side, that it would be a great evil, by any legislative enactment, to relax the sense of the importance which at present attached to the performance of the baptismal rite. The question then was, whether such was likely to be the result of this Bill. He did not think that the object of those who framed the Bill was to bring the baptismal rite into disrepute or abeyance. His complaint was, that they undervalued and overlooked the probable practical working of the measure. By law and usage the name of the child had been associated with the baptismal ceremony. This was and had been the universal practice of the Church of England. It had also, he believed, been the practice of the Roman Catholic Church; and if he were not mistaken, the majority of the Dissenters looked upon baptism as essential in naming their children. What was proposed by the Bill? By a legislative enactment, to sanction the naming of a child without the baptismal ceremony. Could that be looked upon by the unthinking and uneducated in any other light than as a disregard of that ceremony? An Act of Parliament separated the naming of the child from the baptismal rite, and made the registration as valid as the ceremony. This might not be productive of any evil consequences amongst the upper and more respectable classes, who would most probably resort both to the registration and the baptism; but what would be its effect upon the great mass of the population? Would it not be an inducement to them to rest content with having the name entered upon the civil record? Many plausible arguments had been used in support of the measure, and amongst others this, that where there was a true sense of religious feeling, the ceremony would be resorted to. Now it was of the utmost importance, that where this religious sense did not exist, the House should, as much as possible, indicate its necessity. It was impossible to say how the feeling in favour of the religious observance could be best created; but surely the omission of the ceremony, as proposed by this Bill, was not the way to promote it. It had been urged, that if registration were not enforced in the manner pointed out by the Bill, the trouble of effecting the registration would render it difficult to obtain a perfect record; but would not the same argument hold good the other way? If the avoidance of trouble would prevent registration, would it not also prevent baptism? By this Bill was encouraged the omission of the rite. Not by a direct obligation, but by sanctioning the omission of that which the great mass of the people at present considered of great importance. By passing a law in contradiction to that feeling, they were led to suppose that the legislature disparaged the ceremony. Why violate, in that manner, the consciences of a great mass of the people? Suppose there were a large body of Dissenters placed by this Bill in the position which those of the Church of England hold now. Suppose they said, "We do not want any change. We wish to retain the ceremonial. Legislate as you please for yourselves, but leave us as you find us." Should not they say, in answer to this just demand, "Seeing the importance which you attach to this ceremony, we will not do any act which would have a tendency to desecrate it in your opinions, or to violate that which you hold sacred." He objected, then, to this part of the Bill, because it violated the conscientious opinions of the members of the Established Church, and he never could consent to the omission of a rite which that Church considered so solemn and necessary. He would merely state further, that he gave his cordial support to the amendment of his right hon. Friend.

was very sorry that parish-clerks should suffer from the operation of the Bill; but he did not see how he could provide compensation for the losses they might sustain, as he could not tell to what fees they were legally entitled, and what they had legally received. Hereafter Parliament might take the case into its consideration, and give such compensation as the circumstances seemed to require.

called the noble Lord's attention to another case, which was not less hard than the case of the parish-clerk's, namely, that of those gentlemen who served parochial cures, not only in the metroplis where the evil chiefly prevailed, but in all great towns. The income of these gentlemen was in many cases derived from the fees received upon births and marriages, and he, therefore, hoped that the noble Lord would not refuse to hold out the same hope to them which he had permitted parish-clerks to entertain.

remarked, that one of the most valuable pieces of preferment in the metropolis would, if this Bill passed, hardly be worth holding.

remarked, that the parish clerks stood now in a better position than they did in the morning, for the noble Lord in alleging that he did not know what the amount of their losses might be, and whether their fees were legal, impliedly promised that if their losses were ascertained and their fees were shown to be legal, he would do something for them. This would, no doubt, be very acceptable to them, for a Minister's promise gave great satisfaction to the parties who received it.

moved the addition of a clause, whereby it was required that in all cases where marriages were solemnized not in a church or chapel according to the rites of the Church of England, the parties should make the following declaration:— "I do solemnly declare that I have conscientious scruples against the solemnization of marriage according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England.'' The right hon. Gentleman said, that there were Dissenters as well as members of the Church of England, who thought a religious ceremony requisite to the validity of a marriage; and nothing more was required by this clause than that those who considered marriage as purely a civil contract, should make a declaration to that effect. The object of the clause was to prevent members of the Church of England from adopting this form, which might have serious consequences, and to limit it to persons who really had conscientious scruples upon the subject. He did not wish to enforce forms which were objected to, but members of the Church of England were convinced of the necessity of retaining the awful denunciations against improper marriages, which would be omitted in the mere civil contract. All he asked the House to do by this clause was, that where marriages were to be celebrated as a mere civil ceremony, the persons requiring them to be so performed should make this declaration. The effect would be, that marriages in registered buildings would be confined, as they ought to be, to persons who had conscientious scruples against the ceremony as solemnized by the Church, and the same awful denunciations which now existed in respect to marriages so solemnized would be retained as regarded all members of the Established Church, who would be bound by the same obligations as at present, and instructed in the same duties.

said, that if this clause was adopted, it would defeat the great object and principle of the Bill. If he understood its principle and intent, it was to afford relief to the great body of Dissenters by having them that to which they had a clear righ—the power of contracting marriage without being subject to a religious test; and he understood this clause to be a religous test. A great many persons attended Dissenting chapels who did not cal them yes Dissenters, and who communicated with the Church of England; but the great bulk of the Dissenting body claimed the right he referred to, and he would state the footing on which they claimed it. They considered the rite to celebrate marriage according to their Own rites and ceremonies as a natural right, and that Parliament itself had no title to prescribe forms and ceremonies for that rite, except so far as the general benefit of the community required the prevention of clandestine marriages. The Dissenters said, and he said with them, that the right of marriage was given by Providence, and it was not for man to impose restrictions on it. He would go a step further, and say that, as to marriage, the Dissenters had a right to be put on the same footing with the members of the Church of England. They had a right to have chapels in which they could solemnize marriage, according to the forms in a manner most binding to their own consciences, and Parliament had [no right to force them to declare that they conscientiously disapproved of the proceedings of the Church of England. They claimed the right of marriage without being compelled to unfold their religious opinions. The right hon. Gentleman wished to violate this first and greatest of rights, for what advantage? The argument of the right hon. Gentleman was, that, in his opinion, the addition of a solemn religious rite, gave to the measure a binding and obligatory force. The Dissenters say, we do not think so. The right hon. Gentleman had assumed that there would be no religious ceremony. He had no reason for so assuming. The great majority of Dissenters would solemnize their marriages with the same feelings as members of the Church of England. There was another point upon which he disagreed with the right hon. Gentleman. He had never yet heard that in any country in which marriage was deemed a civil contract with the religious ceremony, it was not considered an obligation binding upon the consciences of those who entered into it, and he had never yet heard that it was considered capable of being dissolved because one party might say, "I will not fulfil the contract," and the other might repudiate it. There was no reason to anticipate any of the ill consequences which the right hon. Gentleman had imagined. This proposition would necessarily lead to many inconveniences. Marriages between parties not belonging to the same communion, as between a Dissenter and Churchman, and vice versa, were of daily occurrence. If a Dissenter married the daughter of a Churchman, was he to make an ex parte declaration that he disapproved of the ceremonies of the Church of England? Was the exposure of the circumstance of husband and wife being of a different faith, likely to be productive of any advantage? He opposed the clause for this reason, that it went to do that which was directly contrary to the spirit and feeling of the Bill from beginning to end.

said, that the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman would have been more suitable if this clause had been proposed on the first introduction of the Bill, but it was inconsistent with the Bill as it now stood; for the very same test which his right hon. Friend proposed as a protection to the Church of England, was actually, totidem verbis, introduced into the Bill as it stood, with the sanction of the noble Lord. In the 18th Clause were these words—"I do solemnly declare that I have conscientious scruples against marrying in any church or chapel, or with any religious ceremony." If the hon. and learned Member had adverted to this clause, whatever other objections he might urge against that of his right hon. Friend, he would not have objected to it because it introduced a test.

said, that such a clause would deprive the Bill of all its efficacy. If he stood alone, he would divide the House against its adoption. The right hon. Member for the University of Oxford had certainly shown that the Bill, as it stood, contained a provision of a similar character. He (Mr. Baines) was shocked and astonished when the right hon. Gentleman read it; and how it came there he was utterly at a loss to conceive. He hoped, however, that the House would fulfil the pledge which they had given to the Dissenters, and would strike out so obnoxious a clause. The right hon. Gentleman had no right to call on the Dissenters to declare that they had a conscientious scruple to the performance of the marriage ceremony according to the rites of the Church of England. They could not make such a declaration. They might have a moral objection—they might have an objection of feeling; but they could not say they had a conscientious objection. To attempt to pass the Bill with such a clause would be to confer a benefit with a very bad grace; and he was persuaded that it would be rejected by the Dissenters. In some cases in which the general interest, or the interest of (he Church, might be supposed to be endangered, a test might with less impropriety be required"; but here the whole affair was between the parties themselves, and therefore it was impossible to imagine a more ungracious proceeding.

agreed in opinion with those who had said that the words of the clause would deprive the Bill of all efficacy as a relief to the Dissenters. The great majority of the Dissenters claimed the performance of the marriage ceremony in their own chapel; but if this declaration was necessary, it was impossible for the great majority of the Dissenters, who might not have conscientious scruples, to take advantage of the Bill, which would thus be rendered nugatory. The hon. Baronet, and the hon. Member behind him, had taken advantage of the clause which related to the civil contract; in which a declaration had been introduced, it was said, with his sanction. It had been introduced on bringing up the Report, prima facie, in consequence of what had fallen from the right hon. Member for Tumworth. He had understood that the hon. Baronet stated, that he preferred to vote, and he did vote, for all the clauses which recognised marriage as a civil contract before the superintendent, without any religious ceremony; but he had contended that it should not be the policy of the State to encourage members of the Church of England and of the different sects to consider this as a civil ceremony merely; and that the effect of that clause went beyond its intention—that it was intended for the relief of persons objecting to marry in the Church, and according to any religious rites, and who claimed to regard marriage as a civil contract only; but the right hon. Baronet's argument was, that its effect would be not only to allow such marriages, but to encourage, contrary to the policy of the State, the making the marriage ceremony a civil ceremony. He had had no communication with the right hon. Baronet out of the House, but he owned that it struck him that there was some force in what he stated, and a declaration had been accordingly introduced into the Bill. This had undoubtedly! given an advantage to the hon. Baronet, who said, that the words so introduced | were a justification of the words proposed by the right hon. Gentleman; but they did not appear to him to afford such a justification; but if he was told, that the words in this clause must be maintained unless the others were struck out, he should have no hesitation in stating which course he should prefer to take. He admitted the force of what had been stated by the right hon. Baronet, but if he was told that it was inconsistent to admit the words in the 18th Clause, and to resist the clause proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, he should have no hesitation in rejecting the words in this clause, and in voting for the exclusion of the words in the other clause. He did not think that the words in the 18th Clause introduced anything like a religious test into the Bill; but it seemed as if they were so considered, and he preferred restoring the Bill to the state in which it was in the Committee, to introducing a clause so liable to objection, and so fatal to the object of the Bill, as that proposed by the right hon. Gentleman.

rose to support the amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goulburn). He was ready to concede to the Dissenter every thing that the Dissenter could fairly require; but he apprehended that the Dissenter was not ashamed of his dissent, and that upon the most solemn arrangement of his life he would not wish to deal otherwise than openly and fairly; and he apprehended further that the Legislature had a right to require from the Dissenter, as well as from the member of the Established Church, an observance of that form of marriage which should be supposed to be most binding upon his conscience. The proposition of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Goulburn) went only to this: that before a man was permitted to disengage himself from any religious ceremony in matters of marriage, he should declare that he entertained either a religious or a conscientious dissent from the form prescribed by law. He (Mr. Law) thought that proposition to be perfectly reasonable. The noble Lord had intimated his intention of rejecting the clause; he must concede to the noble Lord the merit of consistency and of pliancy to his party. Was it not the pressure of the moment upon his flank that induced him to abandon the clause? The Legislature had no right to unchristianize matrimony. It had been said we should be liberal to the Dissenters; was no liberality to be shown to the Church of England? All that was required was, that before going to a marriage-broker, a declaration of religious scruples should be made.

said, he was no advocate for the desecration of the marriage rite. But what was the object of an oath? The object was to bind the conscience, and the State, in prescribing oaths, was compelled to allow persons to appeal to false gods and even devils. The object of an oath and of a marriage ceremony was to bind the conscience, and to make it obligatory on those who contracted marriage to observe the duties consequent upon it.

begged to remind the House, that the principle on which the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) introduced his Bill on a former occasion was, that marriage ought only to be regarded as a civil contract, and not as a matter of religious ceremony. He certainly thought that the Legislature ought not in matters of this kind to strain the conscience of any man.

thought that the solemnity of marriage would be degraded, and a series of evils be inflicted on the community at large, by the adoption of a Bill of this kind, He had no hesitation in declaring that as his conscientious belief; and upon that ground he felt it to be his duty to protest against the measure, as one of a most mischievous and most dangerous character.

expressed his determination to vote against the proposition made by the right hon. Gentleman, and to support the clause proposed by the noble Lord.

rose for the purpose of requesting the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goulburn) not to persist in his motion. He thought that the noble Lord was entitled to the gratitude of the Dissenting body for the course he proposed to pursue.

hoped that nothing which proceeded from the opposite side would induce the noble Lord to disappoint the expectations which had been raised in the mind of every friend of religious toleration. If he did, it would go forth to the country, that the Government which was afraid to oppress the great Dissenters, was not unwilling to oppress the small. The Dissenters at large would feel that dust and ashes were mingled in what was offered to them as a boon, and a gross insult would be conveyed to them, where they had looked to receive a favour.

thought it quite unnecessary, however natural it might be, for the noble Lord to disclaim having had any communication with him on the subject of this clause; still, however, he was desirous of adding his positive declaration to the assurance of the noble Lord, that all which had passed between them had transpired publicly in that House. Having made his proposition, to which at the time no human being made any opposition, the noble Lord, from a perfect conviction of its justice, had voluntarily, and without any communication with him, adopted and introduced it as a clause in the Bill. He repeated, the noble Lord had given no intimation whatever of his intention to introduce that clause, and therefore it had been forced on him by no hostile display on the part of those on that (the Opposition) side of the House. He merely stated, that it would be a great satisfaction to the religious community to come to an arrangement upon this subject, without making any distinction between the members of the Establishment and the great body of the Dissenters; and the arrangement which he wished to see effected with respect to marriage was this— there being no objection whatever on the part of the members of the Church of England to be married according to its ceremonies, he was anxious to leave the members of the Establishment bona fide exactly as they now stood, he would not interfere with them at all; no human being, a member of the Church of England, having expressed any objection to its rites; he did think it unjust, in giving relief to the Dissenters, unnecessarily to interfere with what gave universal satisfaction to a church. At the same time, he had no hesitation in saying, although the avowal might possibly subject him to the disapprobation of some, that the arrangement he also wished simultaneously to be made was one which would give entire relief and satisfaction to the feelings of the Dissenters. He wished to see Dissenters placed on the same footing as the members of the Church of England; he wished to see their religious ceremonies held, in point of law and practice, as of equal obligation with those of the members of the Church. He believed this Bill would effect that object. Indeed, it appeared to him. that this Bill possessed an advantage over that which he had introduced, because, requiring as it did, that in almost all cases the ceremony should be performed in places of worship, it certainly appeared to give an additional sanction to the contract of marriage. The words proposed by his right hon. Friend were intended with the view, not of wounding the feelings of the Dissenter, and requiring from him any religious test which could be considered as a mark of the slightest inferiority, but to guard against the possibility, in giving relief to the Dissenter, of interfering with the practice of the Church of England, which gave entire satisfaction to its members. As the Bill now stood, the Attorney-General had stated, that it was not the intention to interfere with the rights of the Church of England, and the object of his right hon. Friend's proviso was merely to guard against the embarrassment which might possibly arise in certain cases, the members of the Church remaining precisely as they now stood, bound to conform to rites with respect to which they had expressed no dissatisfaction; that the religious ceremony of the Dissenter should be equally respected, and all should join in discouraging, or at least in not encouraging, exemption from the religious ceremony. He saw no connexion whatever between the amendment of his right hon. Friend and the proviso contained in the 18th Clause, with respect to which the noble Lord had announced his intention to strike it out of the Bill altogether rather than agree, in consistency with the proviso the noble Lord had introduced into the Bill, to the amendment of his right hon. Friend. Now, he did not think there was any occasion for anticipating the dilemma contemplated by the noble Lord. If his right hon. Friend's proposition were negatived, the noble Lord would have an opportunity of fighting manfully in defence of his own proposition, and he hoped the noble Lord would not on that occasion be shamefully deserted by those who sat behind him. But he hoped the disagreeable alternative would not be presented to them, and he ventured to prophecy that the noble Lord would be enabled success" fully to resist his right hon. Friend's sug- gestion, and then to rally round him powerful body in defence of his own proposition. That was his prophecy; but the noble Lord, before committing himself, might at least have waited until the painful dilemma had occurred. In fact, there was no necessary connexion between the two propositions, and there were many persons who might dissent from his right hon. Friend, and still cordially approve of the proposition of the noble Lord. What, he asked, was the proposition of the noble Lord? It stood thus:—We invite you to perform the religious ceremony—we tell you, members of the Church of England, that it is open to you to be married according to the rites of the Church; and with respect to you, Dissenters, we will register your places of worship, and respect your religious ceremony. But there may be a limited class, whose conscientious scruples are so excessively fastidious that no church, no chapel, no Dissenting meeting-houses, no registered place of public worship will please them; and we say to you, you also shall have an opportunity of being married; our wish is to encourage the religious ceremony, but not to enforce it; and therefore all we ask of you is, to say, that you dissent from the Church of England. Anything more reasonable, by way of respect for other men's religious opinions, he could not very well conceive. Could any man deny, taking an enlarged view of society in general— could any man deny that it was for the benefit of the public at large that the marriage contract should be enforced by the religious ceremony, and that the policy of the Legislature should be to encourage it? He, for one, was prepared to give his assent to the proposition of his right hon. Friend; but, at the same time, he did not think that those who objected to it were involved in the slightest contradiction if they still declared their wish to afford some encouragement on the part of the Legislature to the religious contract. This was a matter in which the Church of England had no separate interest. If, therefore, the clause proposed by his right hon. Friend should be rejected, he still hoped, without any reference to party considerations, there would be a prevailing feeling in favour of the very mitigated and qualified enactment of the religious contract afforded by the noble Lord's proviso, superadded to the civil one, so that the noble Lord would be enabled to main- tain the clause he had adopted without compulsion on his own deliberate opinion, because the suggestion of his political opponent was founded in truth and justice.

said, that whatever might be the fate of the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman, he hoped the test in the 18th Clause would be excluded, because it was most offensive to those for whose benefit the Bill was said to have been intended. He should certainly oppose that part of the clause in question.

said, that after the intimation given by the noble Lord, and the decision which the House had come to on the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for the University of Cambridge, he should content himself with simply moving the omission of the declaration contained in the 18th Clause.

said, that after the advantage which had been taken of the words of that declaration, and the inferences which had been drawn from its introduction by the hon. Gentleman opposite, he could not but feel that the words were contrary to the general principle of the Bill, and, therefore, not wishing to sanction any deviation from its principle, he thought it would be much better to omit them altogether.

thought the clause as it now stood in the Bill ought to remain unaltered.

maintained, that he had not intended to bring any charge of inconsistency against the noble Lord for having introduced into the Bill a proviso contained in the 18th Clause. He only wished to urge the adoption of his right hon. Friend's clause, in order to bring the provisions of the Bill in harmony with each other.

was anxious to point the attention of the House to what must be the state of marriages, with respect to the Church of England, if this proviso were adopted. As the Bill at present stood, including this proviso, there was nothing to prevent the son or daughter of any member of the Church of England from contracting the most imprudent marriage, and having it celebrated without any-religious ceremony whatever, or in a Dissetting meeting-house. That was an evil. It opened a door within the pale of the Church of England for the contraction of marriages civilly and in a clandestine manner. But if this proviso were removed, they would go a step further, and declare that marriage migh be contracted in contempt of every religious ceremony which heretofore had sanctified it, and in this way any individual who wished to seduce a girl might go with her at once to the superintending registrar, the sanctions hitherto surrounding marriage being entirely dissolved, and marry her in a clandestine manner.

rose to ask the hon. Member for Leeds, if his present vote were consistent with his speech on the occasion when the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, introduced his bill to the House, which bill the hon. Member approved of.

said, it was consistent. He had approved of the bill of the right hon. Baronet, but he had slated at the time that he should have liked it better if it caused the civil contracts to be accompanied with a religious ceremony. He now supported the Bill of the noble Lord, because he thought it went farther towards the attainment of his wish in that respect, than the measure of the right hon. Baronet —[an Hon. Member, "Not by law."] No not by law, but he was so certain, that the civil contract would be seldom unaccompanied by a religious ceremony that he felt satisfied.

It was just the kind of Bill which was at total variance with the course pursued by the hon. Gentleman last year. The objection of the hon. Gentleman to the bill which he then introduced was, that it did not impose on Dissenters the necessity of a religious ceremony. ["No, no," from Mr. Baines.] He would read to the House the hon. Gentleman's speech made upon that occasion.—

"Mr. Baines wished to unite his tribute of acknowledgement to the right hon. Baronet at the head of his Majesty's Government, for the friendly spirit towards the Protestant Dissenters in which this measure was conceived, and for the clear and satisfactory manner in which he had conveyed his sentiments to the House. He did not think that there would be felt amongst the Protestant Dissenters any objection to the bill, as far as related to constituting marriage a civil contract, or to the registration of their marriages through the medium of the magistrates; but there might be objections to some of the details; though those he hoped might, without much difficulty, be removed. He was afraid that there might be a jealousy created throughout the community, by requiring that the marriages of some should be celebrated by a religious ratification, whereas with others that it should be only a civil contract. To give the greater solemnity to marriage in all cases, he thought that some religious service ought to be ingrafted upon the civil contract, and that the service should be performed by the minister of the religious body to whom the parties were attached."^✶

Did he propose that? He did not go that length. All he asked was, if the party should object to the religious rite, they should precede their entering on the contract by stating that they did so object. That was all. The hon. Gentleman thought they ought to have had by law a religious contract superadded to the ceremony. His words were—"To give the greater solemnity to marriage in all cases, he thought that some religious service ought to be ingrafted upon the civil contract, and that the service should be performed by the minister of the religious body, to whom parties were attached." By his Bill, he left the parties at full liberty to take that course. It was left altogether voluntary, He must say, as the Bill now stood, it did a positive injustice to the members of the Church of England. He was desirous throughout to give full satisfaction, and afford not only a full remedy for every grievance, but believing that no remedy would be effectual unless it consulted the fastidious feelings of Dissenters, he was desirous of seeing them fully respected. But the Bill had now assumed quite a different aspect, and while it provided for the relief of the Dissenter, passed a gratuitous and most intolerable insult on the feelings and principles of the members of the Church of England. The noble Lord had, out of his own good feeling, introduced this clause under the impression that it would be more comfortable to the feelings of the religious part of the community, both of the Church of England and the Dissenters;

^✶Hansard (Third Series) vol. xxvi. p, 1097,

he had now, at the instigation of those behind him, abandoned it. He was satisfied that the course which the noble Lord had pursued was without precedent on the part of one who attempted to be the leader of that House.

said, that he had not suggested that there should be a legal obligation. The word "law" was not introduced into the Bill. He had expressed, and still felt, an anxiety that the marriage rite should be attended, and he believed that, under the provisions of this Bill, it would be attended in almost every case, with a religious ceremony. That feeling he entertained then, and that feeling he entertained now. He should not have thought so humble an individual as himself entitled to obtrude his opinions on the House, had they not been brought so prominently forward. With respect to the Bill now passed, he would say it was a Bill calculated to give content and satisfaction to a body of persons who had at all times been anxious to enjoy the privileges to which they were entitled, but it deprived the members of the Established Church of no privilege which they now possessed. Did hon. Members mean to deny that? Would not members of the Established Church be at liberty to go to Church to have their marriage solemnized as before? The noble Lord was much more able to defend his own conduct than he was, and, therefore, he (Mr. Baines) would not trouble the House by attempting it.

wished to ask the hon. Member for Leeds, if, in sober earnestness, he conceived that no wrong was done to the members of the Established Church by allowing their sons and daughters to marry by mere civil contract—that was to say, to allow the son of any gentleman in England to marry the housemaid by civil contract?

replied, that if the son of a gentleman chose to marry the housemaid, he was at quite as much liberty to do so in the Church as in any other place.

observed, that the hon. Member for Leeds had held himself out as the representative of the Dissenters. He was surprised, indeed, that the organ of a body to which he knew that many conscientious and religious men belonged, should stand up in his place the advocate of a measure which would enable not only the sons of members of the Established Church, but the sons and daughters of Dissenters, to leave their places of worship in order to contract a clandestine marriage, and go to the office of a registrar, they being presumed to have some religious impressions from having attended a place of worship all their lives, and yet the registrar not being permitted to ask them why they came there, and what objection they had to be married in a place of worship belonging to their own religious body.

thought, that the Dissenters would feel deeply grateful to the noble Lord for his conduct to-night.

said, that however grateful the Dissenters might be to the noble Lord, he was quite sure that the members of the Church of England would feel anything but grateful. Agreeing with his right hon. Friend below him in the exposition he had made of the consequences of the omission of these words— looking to the most extraordinary and unprecedented conduct of the noble Lord, the Secretary of State, which he would take the liberty of saying was unworthy of a Member of the Government, or of a Member of that House—after his desertion of a clause which he had himself, on his own responsibility, introduced; and after this violation of the principles which he had himself professed with reference to this Bill, he should feel that he was wanting both to his own principles, and to those of the Established Church, if he did not move that the passing of this Bill be postponed to this day six months. He agreed with the principle of the Bill as originally introduced; but he thought, that by the omission of the words in question, the Church of England was placed in the situation of an inferior, and he must therefore press his motion.

said, that the noble Lord having been pleased to cast a censure on his conduct, he really thought himself obliged to remind the noble Lord of what he seemed to have wholly forgotten— namely, that the Bill which he now proposed to be passed, was in the same shape and on the same principle as the Bill as originally brought in. If he had introduced such a proviso as that which was just left out—if he had laid much stress on it, and said that he thought it was a necessary part of the Bill, then perhaps the noble Lord might have been justified, in that state of the facts, in using the terms which he had employed. But the noble Lord had supposed that to be a fact which was not so. He having introduced the Bill in the same form in which he now proposed that it should pass, a discussion arose in Committee, in the course of which it was suggested that this Bill might be offensive to the members of the Church of England, and a course was proposed by which this objection might be in a great degree obviated. In compliance with this suggestion, although it made no part of his original proposal, and though he would have been well content to go on with the Bill without such an alteration, he introduced a proviso to obviate the objection he had mentioned. Far from realizing his expectations, however, the result had been directly contrary to what he anticipated, since, instead of obviating objections, instead of conciliating those who had hitherto declared themselves the opponents of the Bill, it was declared that if that proviso were introduced, a further proviso was necessary, and one which put an end entirely to the efficiency of the Bill. When he found himself thus disappointed in the effect which he wished to produce, when he found that the proviso was objected to by many of his own Friends, objected to by many Protestant Dissenters, as being, in their opinion, contrary to that religious freedom, of which he and they had ever been the steady supporters—was he, then, to maintain it in the Bill, not to conciliate those who had declared that they were not conciliated by it, and who appeared to make it a mere groundwork for destroying and vitiating the Bill? He did not consider himself in the least bound, however reasonable he might think the proviso in itself, to adhere to it, and he had therefore determined on restoring the Bill to the shape in which it originally stood. If he was justified in proposing the Bill to the House in that shape, and in stating that these were the principles on which he wished to found it, he was equally justified now, at the last moment, in supporting it on the same principles, and with the same provisions which it at first contained.

thought that the Bill imposed great hardships on the members of the Established Church. He thanked his noble Friend for making the proposition which he had offered to the House.