NEWS OF THE WEEK.
THE King has to thank his Tory Ministers for one of the se- verest shocks the Royal prerogative has sustained in modern times. The House of Commons, as we saw last Saturday, expressed strong dissatisfaction at the appointment of Lord LONDONDERRY to the Russian embassy ; and the consequence was the resignation of his Lordship on the Monday following. He avowed dis- tinctly, and the Ministers in both Houses of Parliament admitted the fact, that his retirement was occasioned by what passed in the House. Thus it appears, that when the opinion of the House of Commons clashes with the Sovereign authority, the latter must give way. This is no new discovery; but prudent Ministers gene- rally kept it in the background, and were careful to avoid all chance of collision. The Tories have resolved to rule in spite of the House of Commons. More contests between the Crown and the Parliament seem therefore to be inevitable. The result must be the humiliation of the Sovereign, and serious danger to our monarchical institutions. It behoves all discreet admirers of monarchy to look to this consequence of upholding the present Ministry. Their continuance in power is not only incompatible with extensive reforms in Church and State, but with the safety of the present form of government. The defence of the appointment, attempted by the Dukes of WELLINGTON and BUCKINGHAM, rested mainly on the fact that Lord LONDONDERRY is known to be a gallant soldier! his ser- vices at Vienna were also alleged to be satisfactory to the Govern- ment which employed him. On the contrary, it is notorious that his conduct was such as to render his continuauce at Vienna im- possible. Lord LONDONDERRY acquitted himself very well. He manfully avowed his consciousness, that he could not, honourably or use- fully, go to St. Petersburg with the censure of the House of Commons affixed to his appointment. His resignation was his own act and deed : Ministers were prepared, as Sir ROBERT PEEL avowed, to adhere to their first resolution, in defiance of the House of Commons. This is in fact the principle on which their Govern- ment is carried on. It well became Lord JOHN RUSSELL to say, that the sooner we get back to the old constitutional practice of governing by a majority of the House of Commons, the better it will be for King and People.
The Ministerial plan for the settlement of the Irish Tithe question was in imminent peril last night, even in the prelimi- nary stage of moving, in Committee, resolutions on which to found a bill. It is most unusual to offer strenuous opposition to a Government measure at such a stage of the Parliamentary pro- ceedings; but the conduct of the Cabinet of Impostors fully justified, indeed imperatively called for it. They endeavoured, by what even Lord STANLEY admitted was a " side-wind," to obtain the assent of the House to a resolution confirming the whole of the existing tithe property in Ireland to the Protestant Clergy,—in other words, to commit the House to their own views of the great question of appropriation. Sir ROBERT .PEEL laboured to convince Members that the reso- lution was merely formal, and would not in the least degree prevent their opposing every clause of the bill he intended to bring in. Lord JOHN RUSSELL, Mr. CHARLES WOOD, and others of the leading Whigs, appear to have been taken in by the plausible assurances and manner of the Premier ; but Mr. O'CONNELL, Mr. HUME, Mr. HARVEY, and Mr. SPRING RICE denied that there could be any merely formal legislation on so deeply interesting and important a question ; and avowed their belief that there was something in the background—an intention, probably, on the part of Ministers, notwithstanding their dis- avowals, avowals, to make use of this formal vote to preclude the future dis- cussion of the principle it involved. Mr. SPRING RICE proposed a simple resolution, to the effect that it was expedient to amend the Irish Tithe system ; and the de'ermined tesistanee made to it by Sir Romer PEEL proved beyond doubt, that lie had something more in view than the means of simply introducing his bill, otherwi-e Mr. SPRING Rica's resolution would have answered his purpose as well as his own. The Committee divided upon this question; and Minis-,
ters obtained a majority of 15, the numbers being-213 and 198.
This small majority, mules the circumstances of the case, must be viewed as decisive of the fate of the bill. The House was less numerous by 200 Members than on the previous " field nights.' of the session. The Opposition was taken by surprise, as no re- sistance was intended; nor would any have been offered had the' Ministers acted fairly. Some of the leaders of the Whig party' were unadvisedly induced to accede to the Ministerial demand, not being aware of its full import. Sir ROBERT PEEL strenuously and repeatedly assured the Members that they mere not in the slightest degree compromised by voting with him on this the first stage. Yet, with all these circumstances in his favour, the Minister only got a majority of 15 ; and Mr. SPRING RICE, as he intimated in his speech, may even yet move to strike out the re- solution on the bringing up of the Report. No other Ministry would retain their places after such a victory as that of last night, The debate was highly animated and interesting. Mr. °'CoN- NELL'S speech was eloquent and affecting : his allusion to the Rath- cormac widow and her slaughtered sons—not dwelt upon, but merely indicated—touched the feelings of all. O'Coseese's opposition to the bill would of itself be sufficient to render it ineffectual in Ireland for its avowed object—the pacification of the country. Lord STANLEY,' as lie himself admitted, argued first on one side and then on the other, till the House on both sides seemed disgusted. At first he was cheered by both partieS ; but as he proceeded, his most ener- getic sentences elicited no applause. No one could possibly tell, till he concluded, which way he intended to vote. At last his puzzled party learned that they were to side with the Minister. Sir ROBERT PEEL was visibly distressed, and rather irritable. He was disappointed in his cunningly laid plot to get his resolutions quietly through the Committee. But what he endured last night is only a foretaste of what he will have to go through; for the is at struggle is now about to commence. The measure promised in the King's Speech for relieving Dis- senters from the necessity of being married by a clergyman of the Established Church, was brought forward by Sir ROBERT PEEL on Tuesday. The principle of the bill gave general satis- faction; at any rate, the friends of the Dissenters expressed them- selves to that effect, and the High Church party offered no oppo- sition to the measure. It is proposed that in future Dissenters shall go before a magistrate of the hundred, in which one of the parties wishing to be married has resided for seven days, and de- clare their intention. They will take an oath similar to that re- quired on obtaining a licence, With the addition that they are not members of the Established Church. Within any subsequent period not less than fourteen days or more than three months, the parties must again appear before the magistrate, and subscribe a declaration that they consider themselves man and wife. The fees to be paid are seven shillings—two to the magistrate, and five to the clergyman of the parish, whose duty it will be to re- gister a copy of the declaration of marriage, which the magistrate must send to him.
Some objections were urged against the details of the measure. Mr. Wreres considered that the distinction drawn between the Churchman and Dissenter—the marriage of the former being made by law a religious ceremony, of the latter a civil contract only—would be deemed by the Dissenter an insult. We confess that we consider this objection groundless, as there is nothing whatever in the bill to prevent Dissenters being married according to their own forms in their own chapels, after having contracted the legal obligation prescribed in the bill. It would be unjust to' compel the Churchman to give up a form which he prefers, in order to satisfy the scruples of a Dissenter on this point. By the measure proposed, the Dissenter gains what he asks for—the pri- vilege of being married, and having his marriage registered, with- out any interference with his religious tenets or prejudices.
Mr. BAINES objected to the amount of the fee : it is three times as large as that now paid by thousands of the humbler classes. This seems a sound pracfcal objection. A very considerable in- come is now derived by the Church clergy from marrying Diss senters ; and Ministers, we presume, think it incumbent on them to make up by some means the loss which will arise from the breaking up of their monopoly. Whether the registration fee of five shillings will supply the deficiency arising from the loss of the fees now paid by Dissenters, and which vary from half-a-crowrf, to five guineas or more, remains to be seen. We questi* whee tiler it will ; as we suspect that the parties who will takeadvan- tage of the provieions of the act will generally be found among the higher classes of Dissenters, especially the Unitarians. The, principle on which this part of the measure rests is also objec- tionable. A Dissenter, unwilling to be married in church, must pay seven shillings more than the Churchman, if he gives a fee to his own minister, which all probably will make a point of doing. Thus a Dissenter is mulcted for his conscientious nonconformity ; which is unjust. Surely the Dissenters contribute sufficiently already to the support of the religion of the State and of the wealthy, without being compelled to pay additionally for the en- joyment of a privilege of which it is unreasonable to deprive the most humble person in the community.
The persons wishing to be married under the proposed bill must swear that they dissent from the Established Church; but it was urged by Dr. LUSHINOTON and Mr. BAINES that this would produce difficulty where one of the parties belongs to the Church, the other to the Dissenters. How this is to be got over, we do not clearly perceive ; and Sir ROBERT PEEL, in his reply, took no notice of the objection. Then why refuse Churchmen a privilege to be allowed to Nonconformists? Sir ROBERT PEEL says that Churchmen are satisfied with the present form. In that case no harm certainly could result from striking out the declaration of dissent from the Church. And this is the only mode of obviating all difficulties. Let those Churchmen who prefer being married without bans or licence have the same privilege as the Dissenters. If any opposition is made to a proposal to strike out the declara- tion of dissent, it will be reasonably concluded that the Church- men are not satisfied, a4is pretended, with the existing mode of marrying by the Church; and that there is reason to fear a large defalcation in marriage-fees by desertions from the Established Add. But with this the House of Commons has nothing do. Its duty is to make the measure now in hand as perfect as possible.
It was admitted by Sir ROBERT PEEL, and other speakers in the debate, that the publication of bans affords exceedingly small protection against clandestine marriages. Instances in proof of this occur daily. It is proposed to take effectual precaution, by means of the bill, to prevent the secret marriages of Dissenters ; but Churchmen are to have no share in the benefit. They are to be married by bans, if they choose, as at present. Is this fair towards the Church ?
These are some of the principal objections to the bill, stated in the debate. When the details shall have been closely examined, igs probable that others will arise. But the general principle of the measure is undoubtedly good. The fact that previous to Lord HARDWICKE'S Act of 1759, marriage was legally a civil contract in England, as it still is in most civilized countries, seems to be fully admitted; and it is well to have the admission from Sir ROBERT PEEL. The Marriage Act was an encroachment of the clergy, and a most profitable encroachment it has turned out to be.
Sir ROBERT PEEL'S first speech was a very good one—liberal in its tone, and perspicuous in its details. He was profusely lauded by the Opposition; who could scarcely have awarded him more fulsome flattery, had lie performed some extraordinary feat in eloquence or legislation at great personal sacrifice; whereas he merely went through a part of his duty in an expert manner. His second speech was not so liberal : the Tories had given him no encouraging cheers. He supplied no answers to the practical objections urged against the measure.
There is reason to expect that something will be done this session in order to check bribery and intimidation of voters. The feeling of a considerable portion of the House is strong on this subject ; as is evident from the discussion on Thursday, on the presentation of a petition from Chatham by Mr. LAW HODGES. It appears from the statement of the petitioners, that the Com- manding Officer at the Marine Barracks in Chatham, has ex- cluded from the privilege of trading with the soldiers all the shopkeepers who voted at the last election for Captain BYNG and against the Government candidate. This is unquestionably done with a view to intimidate the electors, and toinfluence their votes. Sir JOHN BERESFORD and Sir PHILIP DURHAM proved themselves unfit for the station they hold as Representatives of the Commons of England, by asserting the supreme authority of the Commanding Officer within the Barracks, and his perfect right to use that authority as the Chatham Colonel has done—that is, so as to influence the election of Members of Parliament. But Sir JOHN CAMPBELL, Sir EDWARD CODRINGTON, Mr. HODGES, Mr. BERNAL, and Sir GEORGE GREY, maintained a very different and more constitutional doctrine. On Tuesday, Mr. HODGES is to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the facts of the Chatham case; and if they are found to be as stated in the peti- tion, we hope that an address for the removal of Colonel TREMENHEERE from his command will be presented to the King.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM has introduced two bills, with a view to do away with the necessity of impressment. Their leading features are a system of registering merchant seamen, and of increased bounties and limited terms of service to volunteers. The discus- sion on these measures elicited only two observations that seem to require especial notice,—the first from Mr. BARING, remarkable for its sense and truth ; the other from Admiral DURHAM (the same who figures above in the Chatham discussion), for its evi- dent absurdity. Mr. BARING said, it was perfectly clear that to man the Navy in the next war by impressment, would be impos- sible; for that the system would bring us into collision not only with the Americans, but with every other nation that had the least spirit or power. Sir PHILIP DURHAM declared that a pressed Seaman was worth as much as a volunteer; and that after twenty- four hours' service lie was as cheerful as if he had come on board by his own free-will ! The Law Officers of the Crown having declined to undertake the amendment of the Libel Law, Mr. O'CONNELL has brought in a bill for that purpose ; which is to weeive the close attention of the Attorney amid Solicitor-General. We hope that it will come out of' their bands as liberal and effective as we are prepared to expect it from Mr. O'Cosisirsn's ; but as we have not yet seen the bill, and as Mr. O'CONNELL did not explain its details when moving for leave to introduce it, of course we have nothing to say on its merits or faults.
Poor-laws for Ireland were the subject of discussion on Thurs- day. Mr. O'BRIEN moved, but afterwards withdrew a resolution, pledging the House to adopt some system of compulsory relief. The tone of the debate was on the whole favourable to a measure of the kind ; but nothing will be done until the Irish Poor-law Commissioners have made their report.
