alter an anomaly in the law, which stated that those marriages must be declared invalid in the Eccle siastical Courts, but that they could only be declared void during the lifetime of the parties. The same law which prohibited the marriage of a man with his deceased wife's sister, also prohibited marriages between a father and daughter, a brother and sister, and an uncle and niece; for they were only voidable through a process in the Ecclesiastical Courts: the Common Law Courts could not take up the inquiry, but the matter must be first questioned in the Ecclesiastical Courts. He himself was the person who introduced the prospective clause; and he assured the House that he had never regretted having done so. By that clause, it was enacted that, whenever parties married within the prohibited degrees of consanguinity, it should not be left to other persons to adopt proceedings to question the marriages, but that they should at once be declared void and invalid in themselves. Before that time, any interested person might take steps to destroy a marriage and bastardize the issue; and any person who merely wished to extort money might institute proceedings against the parties. Surely this was a state of the law which ought not to be allowed to continue. Lord Francis Egerton briefly replied. He had not first raised the question: the burden of doing so was shared by Henry the Eighth and Lord Lyndhurst. He called upon the House to decide, not as politicians, but as jurors, on a question of life and death to some of their fellow subjects.

The House divided, and refused the motion for leave to bring in the Bill, by 123 votes to 100.

The disgraceful outrages against the person of the Queen, of which an account is given in another part of this volume, having suggested the necessity of some alteration in the law in order to provide a more effectual punishment for such offenders, Sir Robert Peel, shortly after Bean's attempt took place, brought in a Bill on the subject, which met with the unanimous approbation of the House. In introducing it he observed, that within two years three assaults upon the person of the Sovereign had been committed by discharging or attempting to discharge, firearms. He thought his object might be effected without constituting new treasons, or creating new capital offences; at present, however, the forms and solemnities which encumbered the proceedings for certain crimes were calculated to minister to the morbid vanity of miscreants, who committed crimes partly from desire of gaining an unenviable notoriety. He entered into a short review of the laws relating to the subject. In 1800, after the attempt of Hatfield on George the Third, an Act was passed, which, in cases of actual attempts against the life of the Sovereign, abolished the forms otherwise attendant on trials for high treason, which gave the prisoner a long interval before trial, a peremptory challenge of the jury, and made twice the amount of evidence necessary that would be sufficient for similar prosecutions in the case of subjects. It was now proposed to extend that change of procedure to cases, where the offence was that of compassing the wounding of the Sovereign. He then adverted to the case of Francis, and explained some of the grounds on

which the Government had deter

mined to remit the capital punishment in that case; a decision which had been received with dissatisfaction in some quarters.

"We did not come to this determination until after the most mature deliberation. We decided, under the conviction that the jury who had found the verdict acted from pure and honourable motives, and upon sufficient grounds, and that their intelligence and independence were not to be called in question. But, at the same time, however base the motives, however heinous the offence, yet, still acting in conformity with the commands of a gracious Sovereign, gracious Sovereign, whose prerogative it is to administer justice and to dispense mercy, we determined to apply the same principles to the case before us as we would with respect to any other case involving capital punishment. Two Cabinet Councils were held. We reviewed the whole of the evidence taken against Francis: we resolved not to decide without an interview with the three Judges by whom or in whose presence the prisoner was tried, and without a conference with the Law-officers of the Crown, the Attorney-general and the Solicitorgeneral, by whom the prosecution was conducted. The result of the conference with the three Judges was an unanimous expression of opinion that it was not advisable that the capital sentence should be carried out. The opinions of the Judges were found to be in accordance with those of the Lawofficers of the Crown; and, under these circumstances, I think the House will be of opinion that we have taken a more effectual security against the repetition of the offence, by applying the same prin

ciple to the case of Francis as we would have applied to any ordinary case of charge of murder, than we should have done had we stretched the law, or, if not actually stretched it, at least had departed from the usual principles of justice for the purpose of making a severe example. It was no feeling of false humanity which tempted us to remit the capital sentence; but into the reasons which influenced us I am sure the House will not expect that I should enter in detail."

Sir Robert Peel read to the House the class of offences against which his measure was to provide. "I propose, that after the passing of this Act, if any person or persons shall wilfully discharge, or attempt to discharge, or point, aim, or present at or near the person of the Queen, any gun, pistol, or other description of fire-arms whatsoever, although the same shall not contain explosive or destructive substance or material, or shall discharge or attempt so to discharge any explosive or destructive substance or material; or if any person shall strike or attempt to strike the person of the Queen with any offensive weapons or in any manner whatever; or if any person shall wilfully throw or attempt to throw any substance whatever at or on the person of the Queen; with intent in any of the cases aforesaid to break the public peace, or with intent, in any of the cases aforesaid, to excite the alarm of the Queen," &c.

He then stated the punishment which it was proposed to enact. "I propose that any party so offending, that is intending to hurt the Queen, or to alarm the Queen, shall be subject to the same penalties which apply to cases of lar

ceny that is, that he be subject to transportation not exceeding seven years: but we propose also another punishment, more suitable to the offence, and more calculated to repress it-that there be a discretionary power of imprisonment for a certain period, with authority to inflict personal chastisement. [Cheers from both sides of the House.] I think this punishment will make known to the miscreants capable of harbouring such designs as are pointed out by this Bill, that instead of exciting for their offence a most misplaced, and I may say stupid sympathy, their base and malignant motives in depriving her Majesty of that relaxation which she must naturally need after the cares and public anxieties of her station, will lead to a punishment proportioned to their detestable acts. I do confidently hope, that without calling for any powers of extreme severity, the provisions of this Bill will be effectual for the purpose. For observe what we have to guard against-it is not any traitorous attempt against the peace of the nation by conspiring to take away the life of the Sovereign; but it is the folly or malignity of wretches who are guilty of acts prompted by motives which are scarcely assignable. The law, in its charity to human nature, has omitted to provide for the case of any being, formed like a man, who could find a satisfaction in firing a pistol at a young lady, that lady a mother, and that mother the Queen of these realms. [Prolonged cheers from both sides.] It never entered into the conception of former law. makers that anything so monstrous should arise, as that the Queen of these realms should not enjoy a degree of liberty granted to the VOL. LXXXIV.

meanest of her subjects. I am sure the House will respond to the proposition to give the security of this law for the protection of her Majesty." [Cheers.]

Lord John Russell expressed his cordial assent to the measure, observing that, as it was the offence of base and degraded beings, a base and degrading punishment was most fitly applied to it.

Mr. Hume, Mr. O'Connell, and Colonel Sibthorpe, expressed their concurrence. The Bill was brought in, rapidly passed through all its stages, and being received with equal unanimity by the House of Lords, speedily became law.

Questions relating to the Church came very little under discussion this Session as compared with those preceding. An attempt, which proved abortive, was made by Sir John Easthope to introduce a Bill for the abolition of churchrates. In moving for that purpose, he expressed his extreme surprise and regret, that Government had not taken up the matter before. He quoted a declaration by Sir Robert Peel in 1835 that, had he remained in office, he meant to adopt the principle of Lord Althorp's Bill, which declaration was accompanied by remarks on the importance of settling the question. Lord Stanley had also strongly characterized the grievance of church-rates in 1834. Repeated attempts to settle the question had been made by the late Government, and different plans had been propounded, but without that success which Sir Robert Peel's powerful majority now enabled him to command. There was formerly an all but unanimous agreement as to the existence of the grievance, and it was hard that those aggrieved should be forced [P]

to remain subject to a wrong, because the substitutes hitherto proposed for church-rates had been imperfect. It had been stated by Sir R. Inglis that the total amount of the church-rates paid in England and Wales was only 566,000l. per annum, of which not one-twentieth was paid by dissenters; surely it was not worth while to perpetuate a grievance for the sake of 14 or 15,000l. a-year? He then explained his own plan.

He proposed, in the first place, to abolish church-rates, except in so far as related to arrears, or to the payment of debts or sums heretofore borrowed, to which church-rates had been pledged for the repayment. The maintenance of the fabric of the Church he proposed to meet, where endow ments or voluntary subscriptions were not sufficient, by giving to the churchwardens and the minister the power of charging and fixing rents on pews in all cases, except where the pews belonged to the minister, the trustees, churchwardens, or overseers of the poor for the time being, and all such as were allotted as free sittings for the use of the poor.

He concluded by moving " for leave to bring in a Bill to abolish church-rates, and to make other provisions for the maintenance of churches and chapels in England and Wales."

Sir R. H. Inglis said, that Sir John Easthope's speech had been easily made, for if any one took up the report of his speech on the same subject last year, he would find not only the same arguments used, but the same ornaments in the shape of quotations from other speeches. The last project for paying church-rates out of the Consolidated Fund met with the

opposition of the Dissenters themselves, as they said it still proposed to take the money out of their pockets, though by indirect taxation. Sir R. H. Inglis then entered into arguments to show that church-rates are not a poll-tax, but a tax on property, just as much as poor-rates are so; the chief difference between them being, that poor-rates are imposed under a law two centuries and a half old; church-rates under a law almost coeval with the existence of landed property in England. The agitation against the rate, he said, was limited to a very small pro. portion of parishes, while 3,188 petitions had been presented from every part of the country in favour of continuing the system. As to the argument ad verecundiam, that the impost was retained for the sake of 14,000l. per annum, that told both ways: but his claim for church-rates was, that they were a national tribute to the National Church, and as such ought to be continued. It was the privilege of the people to have free access to their parish churches; he would not have them pay for going into a church as if they were going into a theatre.

Mr. Sharman Crawford said, the question at issue was, whether there should be a Church-establishment in England paid by the people, or not. If there ought to be a Church by law established, it had a right to church-rates. If it had a right to tithe, it had a right to church-rates. It was his opinion that all such practices should be abolished.

Mr. Gally Knight agreed that Mr. Crawford had stated the true ground of the question. However, the Church, though she had slept for a time, was now aroused.

to activity, and her influence was increasing, while that of Dissent was on the wane.

Lord John Russell said, there might be an Established Church without church-rates, as in Ireland and Scotland: all that was required was some provision by law for the maintenance of the fabric. The evils of an annual contest on the question were not to be denied; and he thought it perfectly fair, to propound a proposal for the abolition of the rate: but he could not promise to support Sir John Easthope's Bill in its future stages. He did not blame the Government for not taking in hand the subject this year, as they had many other matters to occupy their attention; but he hoped that the question would not escape their notice in another Session.

Mr. Goulburn said that, before he could consent to any project for abolishing church-rates, he must be assured that other means would be provided for securing the maintenance of the fabric, and he derived no such assurance from the Bill now proposed. It might apply to newly-built churches, but he lived in a parish where every holder of a cottage succeeded to a seat in the church. If the number of pews was very small, was a very high rental to be set on them -10l. a-year for instance-in case 2001. were required to be raised in a church containing only twenty pews? Or, if the parishioners were too poor to take pews, were they to see strangers from an adjoining parish occupy the chief seats in their own church?

Mr. O'Connell appealed to the instance of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland, for proof that a church might be maintained without the aid of church rates.

On a division there appeared for the motion 80; against it 162: Majority 82.

When the vote for Maynooth College came to be proposed in Committee of Supply, Mr. Plumptre opposed the grant on religious grounds, urging the same arguments which were employed in the debate of the preceding Session. He was supported by Mr. Bateson, Mr. Cochrane, Sir H. Smyth, and Colonel Verner. Lord Eliot expressed his deep regret at the discussion, especially as it partook of the nature of theological eontroversy. He defended the grant on two grounds, expediency, and compact.

He was inclined to recommend the grant on the ground of expediency, on account of the impropriety of this country's allowing a large portion of the Irish people to be without the means of procuring education or religious instruction. Although they could not but believe that doctrines were taught at Maynooth to which, as conscien-. tious members of the Established Church, they could not agree, yet it was better that some superstitious or unsound notions should be inculcated, than that the great bulk of the Irish people should be prevented from embracing the only means which they would adopt of becoming acquainted with the great fundamental truths of Christianity. With respect to the alleged pruriency of passages in class-books used at Maynooth, it should be recollected that they should not judge of a general system by detached portions; and he believed it would be as unfair and unreasonable to attack the general system on account of these alleged evils, as it would be to decry the moral tendency of medi