lordships' bar, and claiming freedom of speech as their undoubted privilege; but now, for the first time, he found that that privilege was to be made use of to prevent his majesty from exercising his just prerogative. The publication of what was said in that House was a breach of their lordships' privileges; and yet they now found that a report of what was spoken there was made the ground of declaring the unfitness of the noble earl to hold a particular office. It was said, that the noble earl's political opinions differed from the political opinions of others; but was that a fair reason for excluding him from public office? or holding him up as a man unfit to serve his sovereign? If his policy were wrong, or if his conduct were not worthy of approbation, who were responsible for his proceedings? Why the government that appointed him; and if anything were wrong, let that government be questioned on the subject. It appeared, however, that the ministers were not to be held responsible, they were not to be questioned on this point of policy, but their ambassador was to be made the 'scape-goat-he was to be sacrificed to the caprice of individuals. With respect to the king's prerogative, he would say that this was the first time he had ever heard of an appointment of the crown being questioned until the office was actually taken. It would have been time enough to have objected, when, by some act of the noble earl, the peace of Europe seemed likely to be disturbed. Those who were in such a hurry to censure, ought to have waited till they had some fair ground of complaint. This was an innovation on the constitution; and where were they to stop? This proceeding, he contended, was a direct interference with the prerogative of the Crown. If this were the first, where would the last be? Encouraged by this success, would not the present attempt be followed up by others? These were times in which they had little to trust to beyond standing firmly by the constitution of the country. He called on their lordships, therefore, to make their stand somewhere, and they could not make a better stand than on a question which affected the prerogative of the Crown. CHAP. VI. Bill Proposed by the Ministry to regulate the Marriages of Dissenters -Approved by the Dissenters-Ministerial plan for the Commutation of Tithes in England-Committees on the Military Expenditure of the Colonies, on Sinecures, and on Education, reappointed-Report of Commission regarding the Church of England-Bill for improving the Administration of Justice in Ecclesiastical causes- -Sacrifice of Patronage by the Prelates-Bill for the better Maintenance of Discipline in the Church of England-Petition against the Alleged Interference of Government Officers in the Chatham Election-Motion to refer the Petition to a Select Committee carried against Ministers— Motion for an Address to the Crown to grant a Charter to the London University, enabling that Institution to confer Degrees in Arts and Law, carried against Ministers-The Ministers challenge a direct attack by a Motion for a vote of Want of Confidence; the Opposition decline it. 0% N the 17th of March sir Robert Peel introduced the first important measure of the government, being a bill to provide relief for those dissenters who objected to having their marriages performed according to the rites of the church of England. After stating how the law now stood and the nature of the objections which were made to it, and admitting the policy and justice of removing these objections where they were sincerely entertained, he proceeded to say that it appeared to him there were only three modes by which the object of the dissenters could be attained. One was, an alteration in the ceremony of the church of England; but this would be doing violence to the consciences of those who adhered to the doctrines of the church, and entirely approved of the ceremony. Moreover, the intended effect of such an alteration could be obtained only by a concomitant enactment, declaring that all marriages must be solemnized according to the altered form. For, if the form of the church of England were altered in the first instance, and parties were then left to marry according to what rite they pleased, it was clear that nothing would be gained; and, on the other hand, if it was made compulsory on all to marry according to the altered form, he believed it would be found impossible to establish any rite to be performed in the church of England by an English clergyman, which would be satisfactory to the whole dissenting body. He would, therefore, dismiss from further consideration the idea of giving satisfaction to the dissenters by any change in the liturgy, so far as it was connected with the marriage ceremony. The second mode of relief which had been proposed, was to enable dissenters to perform the marriage ceremony in their own chapels. This was the plan which had been most frequently attempted, and the last attempt to work it had been made in lord John Russell's bill of last session. That bill provided, that the bans for the marriage of a dissenter should be published in a church by a minister of the established church, in the same manner as they were published at present; that a declaration of the fact of such publication should afterwards be given by the minister of the church, and that the dissenter should then be allowed to celebrate the ceremony of marriage in a dissenting chapel duly licensed for that purpose. The bill also enacted that a license should be issued for the solemnization of marriages in any dissenting chapel, provided that an application for such license should be made by twenty householders; and the quarter sessions had no power to withhold the license if so applied for. The bans of marriage having been previously published by a minister of the church of England, the dissenter was at liberty to have his marriage solemnized in one of the licensed chapels. With respect to registration, the bill provided that the minister, teacher, or preacher, who officiated in the licensed chapel, should keep the registry of the marriages; that the book should be provided at the expense of those who frequented the chapel for the purpose of worship; and that, after a certain period, the registry should be transmitted to the registrar of the diocess, to be kept by him. Now, it was enough to say, that this bill had been rejected by the dissenters, as being altogether unsatisfactory. In one of their petitions last ses sion, containing a solemn and decided protest against the bill, they opposed it,-first, because they objected to the celebration of marriages in places of worship exclusively; secondly, because they objected to the publication of bans in parish churches, and to the granting of licenses by surrogates; and thirdly, because they felt that the affixing the license granted for the solemnization of marriage in some conspicuous part of their places of worship would give rise to feelings which it would be better to avoid exciting. The bill was unsatisfactory also to many members of the established church, who objected to be made the instruments of performing the preliminary ceremony of the publication of the bans, in respect to a rite which it was proposed should cease to be sanctioned by the religious forms of the church of England. This second mode, therefore, having so signally failed, after so recent a trial, he would now state to the House the principles on which he proposed to found a bill for the purpose of giving relief to the dissenters. It appeared to him that by far the most efficient and least objectionable mode of giving that relief was, to propose two ceremonies, one a civil ceremony, and the other a religious ceremony; taking care to encourage as far as possible the religious ceremony, but not imposing it as an absolute and essential condition of the validity of a marriage. He would make the civil ceremony an indispensable preliminary of marriage the security which he would require on the part of society. He would fain hope, however, that the ceremony of marriage would not, in consequence, be divested of its religious character; he believed that it would not. He believed that so much importance was attached to the religious rite by the dissenting body, that they would, in almost all cases, superadd the religious to the civil ceremony; and he doubted not that the religious sanction so superadded would be more efficient as a sanction, if left to be imposed by the parties themselves, according to such forms as were most acceptable to them, than if prescribed in the nature of a fixed ceremony by the legislature. Every one must desire to see the religious sanction possess a solemn and binding character; but was it probable that it would have the effect of solemnity, or be of a binding nature, if it were not precisely in accordance with the conscientious feelings of the parties on whom it was imposed, and if on the contrary, it were prescribed and determined by law, to which they would be compelled to submit? It would be impossible for the legislature to impose one fixed form of religious ceremony; it must be varied to suit the different opinions of the different bodies of dissenters. The religious ceremony that would suit the unitarians would not suit the independents or the baptists. But it appeared to him, that if the legislature were to leave the different dissenting bodies to superadd to the civil contract of marriage such religious observances as were in accordance with their peculiar opinions, nothing of the value of a religious sanction would thereby be lost. In acting on this principle he was acting in precise conformity with the principle of a bill which passed the House of Commons in the year 1827, and which proceeded in the House of Lords to a third reading, and which was then postponed only on account of the advanced period of the season. The bill, which related to unitarians, was introduced by Mr. W. Smith, and it directly recognised the principle on which he now proposed to proceed. That principle was likewise recognised by the law of England previous to the marriage act of 1754. The law of England did not require, as an essential and indispensable condition of the validity of the marriage contract, the performance of any religious ceremony. In the famous case of "Dalrymple v. Dalrymple," lord Stowell, then sir W. Scott, laid down that principle, and in support of his opinion he referred to the judgment of lord Holt, in the reign of queen Anne, in the following terms: "It was said by lord Holt, and agreed to by the whole court, that if a contract be per verba de præsenti, it amounts to an actual marriage, which the very party themselves cannot dissolve by release or other mutual agreement, for it is as much a marriage in the sight of God as if it had been in facie ecclesiæ." In Wigmore's case the same judge said, "that a contract per verba de præsenti is a marriage, so is a contract per verba de futuro; if the contract be executed and the man take her, it is a marriage; and they cannot be punished for fornication." Lord Stowell stated, that in the ecclesiastical courts, as well as in the common law, "the stream ran uniformly in the same course.' Things continued on this footing till the marriage act of 1754, which was not intended to give the ceremony of marriage a religious sanction, as a religious sanction; but was only intended as a precaution against fraud and clandes " tine marriage. The principle was also recognized by the existing law. Indeed, the marriage act of 1754 did not impose the religious ceremony as an indispensable condition in all cases, for that act expressly provided that its enactment should not extend to the cases of the jews and quakers. In some of the possessions of the British Crown marriages could be performed without the intervention of a minister of the established church; in Ireland the presence of a member of the church of England was not necessary to give validity to marriages; neither was it necessary in India. How, then, could this principle be best applied? The dissenters had objected to the bill of last session, that it required the publication of bans in churches and by ministers of the established church; but if he could devise any other mode, which, while it would give effectual notice, would relieve the dissenter from the necessity of conforming to the religious rites of the establishment and spare the conscientious feelings of a minister of the church the pain of assisting in a ceremony which was in opposition to the forms prescribed by the establishment, he thought that the object he had in view would be effectually answered The form he intended to propose would be very simple; and if, when he had laid his views on this question before the House, this was found not to be sufficient, why then let the dissenters join with him in framing one which would answer the ends better. If there were two parties who had an objection to the form of marriage as solemnized by the church of England, they would have with in their power the remedy which it was the object of the bill to secure to them. But he did not wish to make this enactment compulsory on all who conscientiously differed from the doctrines of the church. He did hope that, the impediment of pride being removed, the dissenter, when it was no longer absolutely necessary for him to be married according to the forms of an establishment to whose doctrines he could not subscribe, would in many instances not avail himself of the kind of relief proposed by the bill. He did not wish to repudiate and reject the dissenter from joining in the performance of the common rites and ceremonies of the establishment, if he thought proper to do so; but, on the other hand, if he objected to those rites and ceremonies, the bill would give him a full and satisfactory remedy. He proposed, then, that the two parties intending to be married, having resided for seven days previously in some hundred, should present themselves before a magistrate at a given period, for the purpose of entering into a civil contract,that they should acknowledge the contract in his presence, and that there should be an acknowledgment in writing of the contract by those who would then be standing in the relation of husband and wife to each other. The acknowledgment might take place not later than three months after such residence, and not earlier than fourteen days. He preferred a single magistrate for this purpose; because, when it was considered with what feelings persons would come to enter into this engagement, and the nature of the parties attending at the petty sessions, the value of the remedy would be much impaired by requiring the |