Sir F. Thesiger had stated the true history of the
question; there never was a doubt upon the mind of
the church as to the true meaning of the Levitical text,
until from the third century to the fifth began the
question of dispensations.—Lord PALMERSTON said he
should vote in favour of the motion. He could not
think that this was a question as to the law of God
after the act of 1835, which parliament would not have
passed if there had been such a fundamental objection
to these marriages. Recollecting the maxim, "Quid
prosunt leges sine moribus?" believing that the moral
feeling of the community at large was not with the
existing law, that there was no moral objection to these
contracts of marriage, and that the law caused a great
deal of misery and social evil among the middle and
lower classes, he should give his vote in favour of the
motion.—Mr. WALPOLE observed that the act of 1835
made no essential difference in the law; it said that
those marriages already contracted should not in future
be voidable in the lifetime of the parties, placing them
on the same footing as they stood in before when one of
the parties died; it left the parties open to the censure
of the ecclesiastical court, though it did not illegitimatise
the children. If parliament once admitted the doctrine
that persons were entitled to be relieved from the
consequences of violating the law of the land, and he
believed the law of God, in this matter, he saw nothing
to keep the bonds of society together. He implored
Lord Palmerston to consider the effects upon the country
of this interesting question being continually ventilated
in parliament and agitated out of doors, contrary to the
opinion of the people of Scotland, to the general feeling
of the people of Ireland, and to a large, if not the largest,
portion of the people of this country.—Mr. COBDEN
observed that the opponents of this measure had
abandoned their strong ground, founded upon an alleged
divine prohibition of these measures. He believed,
with Lord Palmerston, that public opinion out of doors
did not uphold the existing law, but that it sanctioned
the evasion of it. He knew individuals holding a
respectable position, who had gone abroad to contract
such a marriage, and who, on their return, suffered in
no degree the estimation of society.—Upon a division,
the motion was carried by 87 to 53.

Mr. J. BALL moved a resolution—"That it is
expedient that more effectual means should be adopted
to improve the Education of Pauper Children in
Ireland;"  enforcing his motion by a description of the
condition of those children and the defects in the
practical working of the present system of educating
the young poor in Ireland. He suggested remedies,
and the application to Ireland of the same rules and
principles as were adopted in England.—Mr. HORSMAN
admitted that the existing system was extremely
deficient, owing to the effects of the law, which required
some amendment, so that it might act compulsorily
upon the local guardians. Much improvement had,
however, taken place, and as a change was coming over
Ireland, and a new and happier state of things was in
prospect, it was unreasonable to ask the government to
contribute pecuniary aid towards this object, and unwise
on their part to consent, although there was every
disposition to do justice to the subject.—The motion was
discussed by Mr. Roche, Mr. S. Fitzgerald, Mr. P.
O'Brien, and Mr. F. Scully.—Lord PALMERSTON, in
reply to the claim made upon the consolidated fund for
this object, remarked that while England received
£362,000 a year from this source, Ireland enjoyed
£730,000.—Mr. French and Mr. Grogan protested
against the unfairness of this comparison, which was
defended by Mr. Wilson.—Upon a division the motion
was negatived by 80 to 32.

On Wednesday, March 14, on the motion for going
into committee on the Friendly Societies Bill, Mr. P.
SCROPE objected that, under the new law, these
societies, which were as a rule of very brief duration,
would go before the public with the prestige of
registration and enrolment, and make engagements for long
terms of years which they could not reach.—Sir G.
GREY, Mr. BRIGHT, and Mr. A. PELLATT spoke in
favour of the bill, and the house went into committee.
In the discussion which ensued, clauses 6, 7, and 8,
constituting a central unpaid commission, were withdrawn,
and clauses 19, 36, 40, and 44, were struck out.
The rest of the clauses and the schedule were agreed to.

On Thursday, March 15, Mr. Locke KING moved
for leave to bring in a bill for the better Settling of the
Estates of Intestates. At present, he remarked, when
persons died possessed of real and personal estates,
without making a will, the law dealt with and
distributed the different species of his property in a very
different manner. This distinction he proposed to
obliterate by his measure.—Mr. MASSEY seconded the
motion, observing that the bill did not contemplate the
enactment of a new law, but simply extended to real
property the operation of the existing statute of
distribution.—The SOLICITOR-GENERAL pointed out the
extensive nature of the changes in the law of property
and inheritance which, as he contended, would be the
inevitable consequences of the proposed bill. He saw
no counterbalancing advantages of sufficient value to
justify the innovations it would occasion.—Mr. EWART
considered the modification now suggested in the law to
be wise and moderate, and conformable to the spirit of
the age. On a division, there appeared—For leave to
bring in the bill, 84; against, 156. So the motion was
lost.

Mr. WILLIAMS moved a resolution on the subject of
Probate Duty. It was to the effect that impropriate
tithes, estates belonging to corporations, universities,
bishoprics and capitular properties, should pay the same
probate tax that is now levied on real property. The
resolution was opposed by the CHANCELLOR of the
EXCHEQUER, and negatived by 84 against 61.

Mr. COBBETT moved for leave to introduce a bill
Limiting to Ten Hours per Day the Period of Work
by Females and Young Persons in Factories, and to
improve the system of inspection in such factories. The
principle of his measure, he remarked, had been adopted
in existing factory acts, but, from circumstances which
he detailed, was imperfectly worked out, and subject to
constant evasion. He wished to render the provision
on this subject more strict, so as to carry into effect the
intentions of the legislature. The chief object of his
measure would be to abolish the "shift" system in
factories, and enact a real and honest ten hours' bill.—
Mr T. DUNCOMBE seconded the motion.—Sir G. GREY
objected to interfere with the delicate and important
relationship between the manufacturers and the operatives
without a far more clearly developed necessity than
had been shown to exist for the bill now proposed. By
the present factory act the hours of labour had been
abridged, and a great boon given to the female and
juvenile workers. Subsequent measures had been
passed to improve the act of 1847, in which the interests
of the operatives were carefully consulted, and the best
arangements that seemed practicable effected, both for
the employers and the employed. Describing the nature
and effect of the law as it now stood, he contended that
the system worked well, was framed upon just principles,
and ought not now to be lightly disturbed.—Mr W. J.
FOX considered that the bill was expedient and well
timed. It did but place the operatives in actual possession
of a privilege which parliament had designed to
give them, but which had been defeated by an accidental
imperfection in the law. The factory act had done so
much good, and received so much approval, that there
could be nothing but advantage in giving full enforcement
to the principle which it embodied.—Mr BRIGHT
also resisted the proposal to re-open a question which
had formerly excited much debate, and been settled at
last by a compromise. The manufacturers had accepted
a bill limiting the hours of work to sixty per week; and
it would be most mischievous to disturb the arrangement
and create discord throughout the manufacturing
districts, merely for the sake of further reducing the
sixty to fifty-eight hours. The factory act was exceedingly
unpalatable to the employers, and had been carried
out under the auspices of Mr Horner in a most insulting
manner. Nevertheless they had fulfilled its enactments
in a spirit of good faith, and should not now be outraged
by further annoying restrictions.—Mr E. BALL
supported the motion, calling upon the house not to
disregard the appeal made to them on behalf of the
manufacturing operatives.—Lord PALMERSTON gave his
official contradiction to the assertion that the existing