laws, and a most just one he considered! it, was the monopoly which they gave to landholders, to the exclusion of those who were not landholders or proprietors of freeholds to the value of 100%., or leaseholders to the value of 150l. per annum. The bill before the House maintained the land-owners in possession of all their former monopolies, and gave them a new one in addition; by declaring that they alone should have the right to sell game. It was not enough that they alone should be allowed to kill game, but it must be proposed to make them also the exclusive traffickers in it. Were magistrates at present too much divested of power and patronage? Those who thought so, would do right to vote for the present bill; for it would increase the patronage of justices of the peace. It provided, that no person should buy a single head of game, unless he obtained a license from a magistrate at petty sessions. That was one of the greatest objections to the measure in his mind. If another bill should be brought in to legalize the sale of game, by making it private property absolutely, and declaring every man to be the owner of the game which was bred and nurtured on his own ground, he should know how to deal with it. Such a bill might be liable to objection on many grounds; but it at least would be free from the objection which he had to the present measure; namely, that it was inconsistent with its own principles. Being of opinion that the bill under the consideration of the House was radically defective, fundamentally improper, and inconsistent with itself, he felt himself bound-opposing still the present system of the game laws-to vote against it.

Mr. S. Wortley expressed himself anxious that some change should be made in the game laws, the first step to which was to legalise the selling of game. No man could doubt but that the markets were abundantly supplied at present; and the effect of the existing law was, to throw that supply into the hands of poachers. He did not mean to contend that poaching would be put an end to by the measure before the House, or by any measure that could be devised; but it was reasonable to expect, that as the risk increased, and the temptation diminished, poaching would diminish also. As to the qualification to kill game, the sooner it was placed upon the system which prevailed in Scotland the better it would be for the country.

Mr. Secretary Peel said, he was an advocate for the present measure, though he would allow that he was originally prepossessed against it. He did not ima gine that the power of granting licenses for retailing game was given to magistrates for the purpose of patronage, but only because there were no other persons in whose hands that power could be so fitly placed. The introduction of the legal proprietor into the market, would pro tanto have the effect of preventing the illegal sale of game. For these reasons he should support the bill; not as the best measure that could be devised, but because it went some way towards correcting the defects of the present system.

Mr. Tennyson supported the amendment in a speech which was inaudible in the gallery, in consequence of the im patience in the House for the question.

Sir T. Ackland rose amidst incessant cries of "question." He expressed his sorrow, that the learned member for Winchelsea could not give his support to this bill. He trusted, however, that the learned gentleman would not oppose the measure at its present stage, but would wait to see its details after it came from the committee. If he did not then approve of the bill, he could reject it on the third reading. The existing laws were so bad, that if the house allowed them to continue for another twelve months, it would be giving its sanction to a system of crime and bloodshed.

The House divided: For the second reading 82. Against it 60. Majority 22. The bill was then read a second time.

were only one witness to the will, which, by the act of Charles II. required two, then the guardian was not legally appointed, and the marriage was invalid. What, he would ask, was to be the state of the husband during this temporary occupancy of the person of the woman? Was he to have marital rights over her property? Could he buy, sell, or receive rents?

it

had increased. He admitted that, with respect to some parts of Europe, that was not the case; but it was very doubtful whether that could be imputed to the operation of this tax, or whether it did not arise from those causes which had affected the agriculture of the rest of Europe as well as our own. The question then stood thus: with respect to revenue, the tax was productive; while, as it regarded manufactures, it was not injurious. As to the justice of the tax, he would only say that he was willing to give up all the advantage of the 400,000l. a year to the revenue provided the manufacturers would agree to the free exportation of wool; but so long as they objected to the one, he should not feel justified in giving up the other. He thought this no more than fair as it regarded the interests of agriculture. The manufacturers had been made fully acquainted with the views of government, and, under the present circumstances, he did not feel justified in supporting the prayer of their petition.

Ordered to lie on the table.

MARRIAGE ACT AMENDMENT BILL.] On the order of the day for going into a committee on this bill,

The Earl of Westmorland rose to move, that it be an instruction to the committee to leave out the clause relative to the voidability of marriages. He did not object to the principle of that clause with any view of lessening parental authority, nor with any desire to take away from minors the protection which it was calculated to afford them; but he opposed it, because it was entirely nugatory, so far as regarded the ends proposed. He objected to it also because it was an alteration of the law of the land, without necessity. The alteration at the time of lord Hardwicke's bill being brought in was necessary, as there was a grievance then to be redressed; but he had heard of none now existing. He objected to the measure on moral, religious, and legal grounds; and also because it was nugatory and inoperative to any beneficial purpose. The noble earl argued the question at some length, on the grounds he had stated, and particularly dwelt on the legal difficulties arising out of the clause, as respected the consent of the parents or guardians. If the mother were not a widow, though professing to be one; or if the guardian were not duly appointed, the marriage would be invalid. If there

The Lord Chancellor suggested whether was competent to the noble earl to move an instruction to the committee to leave out a clause. He did not recollect any instance of it. It was of constant occurrence to move instructions to committees to insert clauses; but if it were competent to the noble lord to move to leave out a clause, other noble lords had the same right, and might exert it; so that the house would never get into the committee.

The Earl of Westmorland said, if he was out of order, he would put himself right by opposing the going into a committee on the bill. If the Bank Directors allowed stock to be sold out, or if g trustee allowed an estate to be disposed of, under the authority of the husband, de facto, were they to be, responsible? This was a very serious part of the question; and if money were lent upon the security of such property, he believed no person, however learned in the law, could state what would be the event of it. That the clause would be nugatory for all good purposes would be obvious, when their lordships recollected that there were steam boats to Scotland and to France, and that a secret marriage by bans might easily be effected. If the husband desired to be legally married, he had nothing to do but to be married over again, as he had the possession of the person of his wife, and might take her where he pleased. This clause, in its operation, had been compared to offences against the state. Now, in cases of high treason, the mercy of the sovereign could mitigate the sentence of the law, and restore the forfeited estates; but the penalties by this clause were irrevocable.

The House resolved itself into a committee, on the clause for allowing the bishop, with the consent of the patron and incumbent, to authorise the publication of bans in any public chapel.

The Bishop of Chester feared that the necessity of the consent of the patron and incumbent, would render the clause inoperative.

pride, and disappointed avarice: on the other side, the ruin and degradation of an innocent female, and the bastardizing of her children. Could these considerations be placed in fair opposition? Could the House pause in deciding on which side the greater moral evil would be suffered, or hesitate to reject the clause which would produce it? It was with surprise and concern he had seen this clause, which last year had been discussed at so great length, become again the subject of a debate. This vacillation in the legislature he could not think creditable to the House, nor beneficial to the morals of the people. Could there, he would ask, be a greater anomaly than that the marriages of minors by bans should be valid, and their marriages by licence not valid? For these reasons, and for many others, he must say, in the emphatic language of Scripture," Those whom God hath joined together, let no man put asunder."

The Lord Chancellor observed, that if the doctrine laid down by the right rev. prelate could be supported, the House would have nothing to debate upon. But the question was not whether man should put asunder those whom God had joined, but whether God had joined them. Now, unless he had mistaken the whole tenure of the Old and New Testament, there was nothing contained in them which could be taken to prevent national societies from prescribing the forms by which marriages should be held good. If it were otherwise, there was not a nation on earth, since the Christian era, which had not concurred in this profane practice which the right rev. prelate denounced. He did not mean to give any opinion with respect to the clause itself; but he had thought it right to say thus much on the doctrine which the right rev. prelate had laid down. Every noble lord who had spoken on this subject, had said something of the tenderness with which the interests of females should be regarded in the bill now before the House. He had no sort of objection to this, but he wished that some care should also be extended to the males. It happened to him, in the discharge of his judicial functions, to see frequent instances of the necessity of this provision. In one of recent occurrence, the daughter of a bricklayer, a woman 32 years of age, with several illegitimate children, had prevailed upon

a youth of 17, of high family and rank, to marry her. He should like to know what their lordships would do with a case like this. But, if the doctrine of the right rev. prelate were correct, they were legislating on a question, upon which they had no right to legislate.

The Earl of Liverpool said, he entertained now the same opinion as that which he had expressed last year; namely, that it was inexpedient to suffer the dissolution of marriages which had been once contracted. He was quite ready to admit, that marriage was an institution of God; but he knew also, that every nation had decided the forms and modes by which that institution should be kept up, and that the institution would in itself become nugatory, if a compliance with those prescribed forms and modes should not be enforced. The preceding clauses of the bill, which had not been objected to, also recognized this principle. With respect to the forms, he was ready to say, that in a choice between those which were too easy or too difficult, he should not hesitate to prefer those which were too easy. In the first place, he objected to the principle of the clause altogether, even if its object were right; because there were two ways of accomplishing it-the first by nullity, and the other by voidability, both of which principles were of directly opposite natures. Although nullity was sufficiently objectionable, it was less so in principle than voidability. It was easy to see how the present clause had originated. The House had both these difficulties before them: they resorted to this clause by way of compromise; and, as usually happened, the compromise was more of a real difficulty than the other two. If de facto a marriage did take place, and the parties coming to the altar had made the vows there tendered to them falsely and knowingly, the marriage was null and void. But, the most preposterous part of the proposed law was, that if you asked the parties one month afterwards whether they were married, they would be compelled to answer, "We don't know; for the validity of our marriage depends upon the act of a third party, over whose proceedings we have no control." It was inconceivable to his mind, how such a state of things could be compatible with the principles of the law. He knew that, in some cases, there must be a nullity; but