714 provisions; and he was convinced that the rife, now scarcely ever occurred. Ho advantages of such a force would counter-wished that every other county in the balance any little increased expense. It kingdom would follow the example of appeared to him that by passing the pre- Leicestershire in this respect; for he was sent measure they would be taking a re- convinced that the proposed Bill would trograde step. By the establishment of a afford but a very poor substitute for the county constabulary force, a trained body rural police. of men were placed under one chief, and were able to act in concert all over the county, whereas whatever powers might be granted to the parochial constables under this measure, the fact remained that they would be locally disconnected, and, in all probability, would be engaged in trade. It was, therefore, with considerable difficulty that he could give his assent to the second reading of this Bill.

marriages solemnised in the church with the marriages among members of the out going through the regular canonical Established Church, but to remedy what forms. People belonging to the Church was considered by Dissenters a hardship. of England who did not take out licences, The first clause of the Bill provided that but who had their banns published, had no notice of marriage need be read or pubto give three weeks' notice, and he (Mr. lished before the Poor Law guardians of Henley) did not see any reason why Dis- the parish, or transmitted to the clerk of senters in the same class of life should not those guardians, and its object merely was be subjected to a similar ordeal. He saw that Dissenters should no longer be subno reason why they should be able to go jected to a most unjust stigma. With to a registrar and obtain a certificate with regard to publicity, Dissenters could not out any further trouble, and without in provide for this, as Churchmen did, by most cases any inquiry being made, and means of banns. Dissenting ministers then go to the clergyman and insist upon would not be willing to take upon thembeing married without going through the selves the functions of a civil officer by ordinary canonical observances. The cler- proclaiming the banns; but persons who gyman might know that there were im- wished to know what marriages were about pediments to the marriage-obstacles to take place could apply to the office of which rendered it unfit and improper that the registrar. As the law at present stood the marriage should be solemnised, and yet a member of the Church might get a according to this Bill he would have no licence and be married on the same day, option. He should be glad to know whe- while he provided in this Bill that a ther it was the intention of the Govern- Dissenter should give twenty-four hours' ment to let the Bill go through.

MR. COWPER said there were many objections to the provisions of the Bill, one of which was that it limited the amount of publicity. The Bill repealed the publicity now given, by requiring marriages to be announced to the board of guardians -in many cases, he admitted, a most unpleasant proceeding--but it did not provide a security that marriages about to take place should be made known so as to give opportunity for the interference of those who might be able to detect the impropriety or illegality of the marriage. The Bill provided that notice was to be given to the superintendent registrar, who, it was assumed, would make it public, but in this there was obvionsly no sufficient security. He was surprised at the fourth clause of the Bill, which declared that when two parties lived in separate districts it should be sufficient if notice were given in one district only. He could not see why the amount of publicity should be halved in that manner, it would remove a very obvious security. In licences a notice of seven days was now required. The Bill proposed to reduce the time to twenty-four hours, which he thought objectionable; on the whole it appeared to him that the objects the Bill sought to accomplish would be obtained at a considerable amount of risk, and he trusted the hon. Gentleman would not press the measure at the present moment.

MR. CHEETHAM explained that the object of the Bill was not to interfere with

notice.

MR. WALPOLE said, the more they examined the Bill the more they would find that it was drawn to encourage clandestine marriages to a very great extent. The Bill took away the notice from the only place where it at present existed, but substituted no other which would secure equal publicity. The second elanse would enable two minors to make an oath or declaration that there was no impediment to their union, that they had resided fifteen days in a particular place, and that the consent of those persons whose consent is required had been obtained. It would open a very wide door to perjury. Another clause took away the publicity which was properly required from members of the Church of England; while another (the 14th) provided that after any marriages by licence should be solemnised, it would not be necessary to have any proof of the validity of the marriage beyond the production of the licence-that no evidence should be given in opposition. That was contrary to all the laws and the constitution of this country.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL thought that, omitting all question of Churchman or Dissenter, if they enacted a law by which the publicity of marriage was taken away, very great evils would ensue. The hon. gentleman was fairly entitled to press a Bill by which the declaration now required to be made before a court of guardians should be done away with, and it was very natural that Dissenters should feel that

MR. MALINS said, his hon. Friend (Mr. L. King) proposed to abolish the customs of London and York, which established a different distribution of the estates of freemen of the city of London and persons residing in the city of York from that which applied in other parts of the kingdom. He (Mr. Malins) agreed in the desirability of abolishing customs that in

this was an objectionable mode of securing | He thought that was bad. If the mover publicity; but then it was only proper would withdraw that portion of the Bill that some substitute for that publicity he would support it. should be provided. The hon. gentleman said that dissenting ministers would not like to proclaim banns, and of course no one would wish to impose on them a duty which they thought they could not properly perform, and which was connected with civil functions; but there ought to be some way or other by which society should be protected. While of opinion, therefore, that the relief of Dissenters from any-terfered with the general law of the land, thing which was galling to their feelings was a proper object of legislation, he agreed with the right hon. gentleman opposite that the Bill had better be postponed for the present, and its provisions reconsidered.

MR. HEYWOOD hoped the House would allow the Bill to go into committee pro forma, and then the amendments could be introduced.

MR. T. CHAMBERS was favourably disposed towards the object of the Bill, but the Bill contained some provisions which were quite unnecessary to attain it, and which might injuriously affect all classes, Churchmen as well as Dissenters, and hoped the hon. Gentleman would adopt the suggestion made to him.

MR. CHEETHAM having expressed his acknowledgments to the House for the spirit in which the measure had been received,

Committee deferred till Monday next.

PERSONAL ESTATES OF INTESTATES

BILL.

and he thought that that part of the Bill which related to advancements made to a child by a father, and advancements made by a mother, was also unobjectionable. He was not disposed to dissent from the principle of the Bill, but he considered. that some of its details, affecting the rights of heirs-at-law, were open to objection.

MR. LOCKE KING expressed his readiness to accede to the suggestions of the hon. and learned Gentleman, with the view of amending the clauses to which he had referred. He thought the abolition of the existing customs would place heirs-atlaw in a much more favourable position than they held at present.

MR. NAPIER considered that it was advisable, whenever it could be done, to have uniformity of legislation for the United Kingdom, and asked whether it was intended that the Bill should extend to Ireland?

MR. DUNLOP thought that the hon. Gentleman had, on the whole, done wisely in taking that course, but he regretted that the objection had been made. The

Order for Committee read; House in Scotch law was much more accordant with Committee,

On Clause 1 being read,

MR. HENLEY asked if the Bill had the approval of the Government? It would completely alter the distribution of the personal property of intestates, and he hardly thought it safe to proceed with a measure of so sweeping a character unless it had received the sanction and approval of the law officers of the Crown.

MR. COLLIER said, it appeared to him that the Bill was intended to secure three objects-first to abolish certain peculiar customs; second, to place the children who had lost their mothers on a footing with those who had lost their fathers. Those two objects he thought beneficial. But there was a third object in which he could not agree, namely, the distribution, making all the children equal to the heir.

justice than the English; and he was sorry that it had not been adopted. He had himself passed a Bill through the House which assimilated the Scotch law with that of England, except upon this point; but that he could not prevail on himself to give up.

SIR FREDERIC THESIGER suggested that some inconvenience would be occasioned if the Bill came into operation immediately upon its passing. He thought its operation should be delayed for, say a period of three months, in order that persons who had made dispositions of their property depending on the existing local customs might be enabled, if they thought fit, to alter the distribution of their estates.

MR. MONTAGU CHAMBERS observed that this Bill was most admirably drawn, presenting a view of the state of

Clause agreed to.

Clause 10 postponed, in order that the words might be inserted to extend the operation of the Bill to Ireland.

Other clauses, with some amendments, agreed to.

On the Motion of Sir FREDERIC THESIGER,

A Clause was added to the effect that the Bill shall not come into operation till the 1st of November, 1855; and the House resumed.

NEW SOUTH WALES GOVERNMENT-
WASTE LANDS (AUSTRALIA) ACTS RE-

PEAL BILLS.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL moved for leave to introduce two Bills, one

"To enable Her Majesty to assent to a Bill as amended of the Legislature of New South Wales, to confer a constitution on New South Wales and to grant a Civil List to Her Majesty." The other

the law which was at once intelligible, that the noble Lord, by the course which not only to lawyers, but also to persons he had adopted, would not do the thing he who were not lawyers, and he would re- proposed to do. He presumed the noble commend it as a model to all parties who Lord meant to give to these Colonies cerwere concerned in the preparation of Par- tain constitutions; but if he carried the liamentary Bills. Bill in its present shape he would not give any constitution at all, and the vote of that House upon the subject would be perfectly null and nugatory. This might seem an extraordinary statement to make with respect to a Bill brought forward, no doubt, after consideration. As he stated the other night, the Colonial Cuncil acted under limited authority; for these Colonial councils were not like the Imperial Parliament, possessing full and undivided authority, but their authority was a limited authority, derived from Parliament; and if the coun cils went beyond their powers their act would be void, and it would not be in the power of the councils to pass it, or of Her Majesty to give assent to it. Well, the council of New South Wales in the present case had passed an Act repugnant to a number of laws already in force in the Colony, and therefore that Act was clearly void, because the council had attempted to do that which the authority delegated to it did not empower it to do. The Bill being sent home, the noble Lord, having curtailed it by striking out that particular part to which the colony attached the utmost importance-finding it a nullity as it were, and yet cutting something out of it-proposed now to make it lawful for Her Majesty to assent to it. But, even if Her Majesty did give her assent to the Bill, that would not make it a valid law, binding on the people of New South Wales. For by what authority could it be binding? Certainly not by the authority of the Act of Parliament constituting the Legislative Council, for the powers of the council were confessedly exceeded in the Bill they had sent home; nor could it be by the authority of the Bill which the House of Commons was now asked to pass, for that did not assume to make the Bill of the Colonial Legisla ture valid, but simply to enable Her Majesty to give her assent to it. The only result of passing this Bill, therefore, would be to leave matters just as they stood. To constitute an assent there must be the concurrence of two wills on the same subjectin this case, of the will of the Legislative Council on the one hand, and of Her Majesty on the other. But the noble Lord had altered the Bill which the Colonial Legislature had sent home, and then he proposed to give power to Her Majesty to

"To repeal the Acts of Parliament now in force respecting the disposal of the Waste Lands of the Crown in Her Majesty's Australian Colonies, and to make other provision in lieu there

of."

His Lordship said that the Bill referring to the Constitution of New South Wales was substantially similar in its provisions to that in regard to the Colony of Victoria, which a few nights since he obtained leave to introduce.

MR. LOWE said, the great importance of the subject, and the novelty of it to many persons, as well as the mistaken course, as he thought, which the noble Lord had adopted in respect to this matter, must be his excuse for delaying the House a short time upon the first stage of the measure. When he before addressed the House upon a similar subject, he could only argue upon the title of this Bill; but since then he had had the advantage of seeing the Bill brought forward with respect to Victoria, which was in pari materiá with the present. He would call the attention of the House to the points involved in this matter, which were of importance to the Colonies, and he would afterwards make some remarks upon the substance of the present Bill. With respect to the point of form, it seemed to him to be quite clear

of the great majority of the most respectable portion of the colonists, because it was made by a Legislature which in no respect represented the public opinion of the colony. He should oppose it because he saw clearly in it the indicia of the corrupt bargain on which it had been framed; because it involved in itself prin

colonies; and because it gave a civil list of unexampled extravagance, which appeared to be the consideration by which not a few of the votes in favour of it had been obtained. He would not attempt to go into the details of the Bill, but on the Motion for the second reading he should be able to prove all he had asserted. His first great objection to the Bill was that it perpetuated a most iniquitous electoral division of the colony-a division by which all power was thrown just where it ought not to be, and by which property and population were alike swamped and sacrificed-a division which was merely geographical, and which treated all counties as equal, though some of them were the seats of populous cities and others mere sheepwalks. He could not mention a more pregnant instance of the extraordinary manner in which the colony was divided than the county of Cumberland. It was one of the oldest settled counties of New South Wales, it contained four-ninths of the population of the colony, and 12,000 electors, the whole number being only 22,000, and yet, such was the division of electoral districts in this colony, that, out of the thirty-six members constituting the As

assent to that to which the Colonial Legislature had not assented. The Bill was a nullity, therefore, and in its present shape could not stand. It might be written on the statute book, but it would have no effect. This was certainly not an advisable mode of proceeding in a matter of fundamental law, in which, above all things, it was most necessary to be clear and ex-ciples fatal to all good government in the plicit. The noble Lord might propose to get over this difficulty by inserting words to give the Bill a Parliamentary sanction, which would provide not only that Her Majesty should give her assent to the Bill, but also that it should be valid, just as if Parliament had given its assent to it. But, if that were done, Parliament would be really taking upon itself to make a law from beginning to end; it would be converting itself into a legislative assembly for the colony, just as if it had undertaken to legislate for the colony in the first instance, as had been done in the case of New Zealand three years ago. If Parliament did thus legislate for the colony-if, instead of leaving legislation to the authority to which it had already been delegated-it chose to take the matter into its own hands, it was bound, at least, not to legislate at the dictation of the Colonial Assembly, but to exercise its own reason on the subject, and to come to its own conclusions, whether the provisions laid before it were right or not. It must take the Bill clause by clause, sentence by sentence, and endeavour to do justice, according to its lights, to the interests of the colonists. He had now shown, he thought, that this Bill would effect no purpose what-sembly, that great county only returned ever in its present shape, and that the only mode by which it could be invested with an operative result would cast upon Parliament the duty of investigating the subject, and of acting upon its own convictions instead of degrading itself into a mere machine for registering the acts of Colonial Legislatures. This case was of much more importance than that of Victoria. He should never have taken upon himself the responsibility of preventing the passing of the Act relating to that colony, because that was a case of great emergency, and he knew that however faulty the Act might be, it was not objected to by the generality of the colonists. But the case of New South Wales was different, and he felt perfectly justified in doing everything in his power to defeat the passing of this Bill, because he knew it was contrary to the feelings and wishes

eight, the others being given to thinlypeopled districts, more or less under the control of the Crown, and who were, of course, far from representing the general feelings and wishes of the colony. Onethird of this body was nominated by the Crown, six being officials, and six nonofficials; and even though there were no materials from which to form an opinion as to the real feeling of the colonists, he thought he had shown that the Legislative Assembly was a body the representations of which ought to be received with very great jealousy. But they were not left in the dark with regard to the wishes of the colony, for it appeared from the blue-book that, while eighteen petitions, signed by 8,000 persons, had been presented against the Bill, only two, signed, if he remembered right, by eighty-four persons, had been presented in favour of it. He him