the authority of this House only. The real object and design of that standing order he took to be this: that, as the Legislature could not agree in passing a general measure, it was desirable that the morals of society should at least have this security, that the propriety of having such a clause introduced should be brought under consideration in each particular case. There had been instances, accordingly, where, upon consideration, the clause had been dispensed with; and though he should have preferred a general measure declaring all such marriages void, yet since they were compelled to look into the state of each particular case, there were some of those instances in which he thought the clause had been properly dispensed with. But it was of the utmost importance, in his opinion, that there should be a general law on the subject, apprizing the parties beforehand of the consequences; for he was convinced, that the hopes of marriage with the seducer, in many cases, encouraged the crime; and as there was no such general law, their lordships ought, at least, to consider well before they dispensed with the clause in any particular case: and if it was important that such a clause should ever be introduced into such bills, surely, in this case, of all others, it ought not to be dispensed with. It was for that House to do its duty; and he did not believe that in the other House the remedy in this case, would be at all endangered. Lord Ellenborough said, that the observations of his noble friend had very much anticipated what it was his intention to have submitted to their lordships on this case. With respect to the settlement, it had been justly and properly stated, that when the marriage was to be dissolved, the contracts made in contemplation of it, and with a view to its continuance, ought to fall with it. The noble earl had said, that this was a bill of pains and penalties against the lady, by thus setting aside the settlement, and that there was no evidence to justify it: but it did appear from evidence given at their lordships' bar, that she had been guilty of a crime which called for the dissolution of the marriage; a crime than which, under the circumstances, nothing short of the higher felonies could be more atrocious. Let it not be imagined, how ever, that he placed her guilt on a footing with that of her seducer. His crime was unquestionably more flagrant: but though he was disposed to consider her offence as of a milder character, yet it was undoubt edly such as rendered it highly improper to allow the settlement to stand. He agreed with his noble friend, that it was difficult to find a principle upon which to found this allowance of alimony, which was generally made on these occasions: but as the practice had prevailed, he should be rather inclined to comply with it to a certain extent, more especially when he considered that it might be the means of enabling the wife to avoid, if she chose, plunging herself in still further guilt. When the noble earl said, that the law did not in these cases put an end to the provision for the wife, he had forgot that the only provision which was fixed for the wife before these marriage settlements came in use, that of dower, was completely at an end by the commission of such an offence. The fact of her baving eloped with an adulterer might be pleaded in bar of the dower, so that she remained bare and naked as her crime had left her. With respect to the clause for declaring any marriage between the offending parties illegal, he had suggested the amendment to which the noble earl had adverted, because the word adjudged' appeared to render a previous sentence of a judge necessary to the illegality of the marriage. It was fitting that such a marriage should by this Act be declared illegal, because, for the reasons stated by his noble friend, the law as it stood did not afford an adequate security. He concurred in the opinion that a general measure would have been preferable to annul marriages between the offending parties in all such cases: but as there was none such, they owed it to the security of civilized society, to the confidence and happiness of families, to the purity and honour of domestic life, that this clause in the present instance should not be dispensed with. Such marriages were contrary, not only to the laws of the land, but to the law of God-and it had been so decided; and what could be more contrary to the law of God, than any thing which might afford the least encourage. ment to offences of this nature? It was absolutely necessary to the interests of sound morality, to the peace and happiness of social life, and to the purity and honour of private families, that such offences should be marked out as something against nature. If such an incestuous intercourse was to be allowed to pass without suitable animadversion, where could families find security? Not only domestic comforts would be at an end, but the very recesses, the very nurseries of private families would become the objects of distrust and suspicion; and even in the narrowest domestic circles, jealousies might arise, lest the male part of the family should be the gallants of the females. He did not wish to dwell upon this, because he was aware how acutely the innocent connexions of the lady felt upon this subject: and he was afraid, lest through the ordinary channels by which their observations were conveyed to the public, any thing said by him should meet their eyes and add to their already too heavy distress: but in the discharge of his public duty, he could not avoid stating his strong sense of the necessity of this clause in the present Bill. It had been said, that it would endanger the remedy altogether: but it was for their lordships in the first place to do their duty. Let it be their maxim, " as for us and our house, we will serve the Lord," leaving it to the consciences of the members of the other House of Parliament, whether they could for a moment hesitate to declare that in this case at least such a clause was necessary. For his part, he was convinced that the same considerations of what was due to the interests of morality, to the security of social happiness, and the peace and comfort of domestic life, would induce the other House to look at the subject in the same way that their lordships did. The Archbishop of Canterbury said, that he felt it impossible, in a case of this description, to give a silent vote. In his opinion, the interests of sound morals would have been better consulted if the general measure of declaring all such marriages void had been adopted: but as that unfortunately did not succeed, it was at least fitting to consider the propriety of introducing such a clause as this in every particular case; and surely in this case it ought not to be dispensed with, for how could there be a case which called more imperiously for such a provision? He trusted it would never be his lot to meet with a case where such a clause would be more properly introduced. If their lordships rejected it, they would ruin the peace of families, destroy the best af, fections of the human mind, and poison the very sources of domestic security and happiness. He concluded by declaring his strong sense of the necessity of the clause. 1 The Earl of Caernarvon said, that notwithstanding all he had heard, he still thought that such a general measure as that which had been suggested would, instead of being favourable to the interests of sound morals, prove highly detrimental to those interests: but a general measure would be preferable to the standing order of that House on that subject, for it had the appearance of insensibly and by stealth, as it were, introducing a practice which as a general measure the other House had rejected. If they thought that the object was one of such great importance, they ought again openly to come forward with a general measure. The Marquis of Lansdowne said, that with regard to the point of alimony, the earl of Roseberry had no wish but to do what the House thought proper. The sum in the present Bill was proposed by the noble lord who usually sat on the woolsack, and the earl of Roseberry would have had no objection to a greater sum, if the House had thought it right to recommend a larger, though he did not feel that it was for him to propose it. The only anxiety which, in his communications with him, he had evinced was, that the sum, whatever it might be, should be properly secured for the lady. As to the introduction of the clause declaring any marriage between the offending parties illegal, he had no doubt that in this instance at least such a clause was proper. The Earl of Lauderdale said, that as he saw that the feeling of the House was so strongly against his proposition, he should not press it farther. The Report was then received, and the Bill ordered to be read a third time to morrow. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Thursday, June 1., COMMITTEE On the State OF THE LAW RESPECTING THE WRIT OF HABEAS COR PUS.] Mr. Serjeant Onslow rose, in pursuance of his notice, to move for the appointment of a select committee, to inquire into the state of the Law respecting the Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Subjicien dum. The hon. and learned gentleman said he made this motion in consequence of the fate of a Bill upon this subject which had passed through that House in the most unanimous manner, but the second reading of which was postponed for six months in the House of Lords, the Bill being thereby virtually rejected. The object which he had in view, in introducing the Bill originally, was to correct 1 Mr. Wynn thought this was a subject which called for the serious attention of Parliament. The hon. and learned gentleman who had spoken last seemed to have insinuated, that no very many instances had occurred, in which the law as it existed had been attended with ill con certain defects which he conceived to | though he felt no disposition to oppose his exist in the law respecting writs of Ha- hon. and learned friend's motion, he beas Corpus, as it at present existed. The thought it incumbent on him to state, that principal defect to which he alluded was there were grave grounds of difficulty the fact, that this most salutary law was, existing. except during the sittings of the Courts at Westminster, wholly nugatory; persons who might be unjustly held in confinement, at any other period, having no means of redress. Many instances of hardship were upon record, in which individuals had suffered from this circumstance, and it was for the purpose of hav-sequences. If, however, no instance of ing these occurrences investigated by Parliament, so that a proper remedy might be suggested, that he submitted his present motion. He conceived that some provision might be made, by which the Judges, during every part of the year, whether in term or not, should have the power of deciding upon cases in which persons complained of undue imprisonment: in all matters in which the liberty of the subject was at all concerned, he thought it was the duty of Parliament to be most jealous. The hon. and learned gentleman concluded by moving, "That a Select Committee be appointed to consider of the state of the Law respecting the Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Subjiciendum, and to report their opinion thereon to the House." The question having been put from the Chair, The Attorney General said; he should not oppose the motion of his hon. and learned friend; but he could not help expressing a doubt of the practicability of carrying the suggestion which he had thrown out into effect. He conceived that apprehensions would be entertained without doors, if such a plan were adopted, that it was intended to give to the Judges a power of too extended a nature. Indeed, he could not help thinking, that such an inference would not be very far short of the truth; for if the functions of the Judges were so enlarged, it would be giving to one judge the power of trying and deciding upon a cause, unrestrained by any higher authority. It was true, that now and then a case of injustice, or of undue imprisonment, might arise under the law as it was at present constituted; but then the parties aggrieved were not without a remedly. If it were possible to improve the law upon this subject, he should be most happy in lending his assistance to promote such an end. He saw the difficulties however, which lay in the way; and al the sort had ever occurred, and the possibility of the liberty of the subject being infringed only existed, he thought that bare possibility would be sufficient to call upon the House of Commons to take such measures as would obviate such a chance. It had been said in another place, with reference to the Bill which had already passed the House upon this subject, that the House of Commons was not entitled to much respect with reference to any act of legislation upon such subjects; and that the Bill could not be considered as a well-digested measure. He would abstain from making any comment upon this language, if it had been used, and would only observe, that it reflected disgrace not on the House of Commons, but on the person who had brought forward an objection of such a nature. The motion was then agreed to, and a committee appointed accordingly. BATHING IN THE THAMES.] Mr. Wynn, in pursuance of his notice, rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill for repealing a clause in the Thames Police Act prohibiting persons from bathing in the river Thames, from the East India Docks to Battersea-bridge, after the hour of seven o'clock in the morning, and before the close of day. He observed that, upon reading over the Bill in question, he was never so much surprised as in meeting this clause, for, from the code of the Bill, it appeared to be an Act" for the more effectual prevention of depredations on the river Thames." There was not one word stated about bathing, nor did he believe the House in general were at all aware that it contained such a clause as that to which he referred. This Bill was introduced to the House on the 21st of July last, at the close of the session; it had never been printed, and, in fact, its contents were little, if at all known. The clause in question, and which he trusted 569] American Slaves. been introduced into the Bill. [570 Several the House would agree with him in re- ed to superintend the police of the Thames, Mr. Addington said, it was not his intention to oppose the motion; but he begged leave to say a few words, explaining the reason upon which the clause had Mr. Wynn said the notices were general, Sir John Newport objected to arming the and extended from Blackwall to Battersea. magistrates of the city with such a power as the present law gave them. He knew not why persons were to be deprived of as that which had been alluded to by his the exercise of an amusement so salutary hon. friend, and had only to lament that the Bill in question had been introduced into the House at such a period of the session as deprived the members of the Mr. Harvey said, he would not oppose opportunity of giving it due consideration. the motion in its present stage; but as he lived in the neighbourhood of the Thames, he had an opportunity of witnessing the disgraceful scenes which were presented to the public, and which, in his estimation, loudly called for the interference of the Legislature. Some measure was certainly necessary to correct this evil; and he trusted, if the hon. gentleman proposed to repeal one clause, he would suggest another, which would at least secure the public from a repetition of the Leave was given to bring in the Bill. nuisance to which he had alluded. AMERICAN SLAVES.] Mr. Horner said, that during the progress of the negociations at Ghent, he had put a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for the purpose of learning from him what information was possessed by Government on the subject of certain allegations made by the Government of the United States, respecting the mode in which the war had been conducted in America. It had been Mr. Horner expressed himself satisfied with the course of conduct which had been pursued. It gave him the sincerest pleasure to learn that a charge of so serious a nature, affecting the character of the army and the country, rested on sa slight a foundation. publicly stated, that we had by procla mation tempted the slaves to run away from their masters; and that after they had sought the protection of the British forces, we had sold them again as slaves. The right hon. gentleman had stated at the time his conviction that there was no foundation whatever for the statement, but that he would immediately set on foot an inquiry into the subject. He was extremely anxious that this matter should be cleared up. It had not only been asserted in a message to Congress, by the American Secretary of State, but it was also said that the documents on which the Mr. Atkins Wright said, be should obstatement rested had been sent to theject to this report being received at all. commissioners at Ghent, for the purpose He could not consent to impose any adof being communicated, if necessary, to ditional burthens on the public, unless the commissioners of this country. He there was an absolute necessity for such a should be happy if ministers could uow proceeding; and as he was not satisfied give a denial to the whole of the charge. that the erection of a new Post-office was indispensable, he should oppose the ap NEW POST-OFFICE BILL.] Sir James Shaw appeared at the bar with the report of the Post-office Bill, which he was proceeding to bring up, when the Speaker informed him that the question was not yet put. an object. The business of the Postoffice was at present carried on with the greatest degree of celerity; and for his own part, he saw no necessity for altera. tion. It was possible, that advantageous alterations might be made, but those ought to be postponed to a convenient season. Mr. W. Smith objected to the situation in which it was proposed to place the new Post-office, as it would be in the way of the greatest improvement that could be made in the metropolis, that of making a street strait from Blackfriars-bridge (by removing Fleet-market) to the northern road. He could not approve of expending 200,000l. on a new Post-office, while Somerset-house remained in an unfinished state. If the works there were completed, he thought it possible room might be found for the Post-office. Some alteration in the Post-office, he admitted, ought to be made. Mr. Goulburn said, that immediately after this charge was made known to him,propriation of the public money to such he had addressed a note to the American plenipotentiaries, requesting them, as the abolition of the Slave-trade was a point on which they were equally interested with this country, to communicate the evidence of which they were in possession, that it might be in our power to bring our officers, if guilty, to punishment. It did so happen that the American ministers did not think themselves justified in com municating the information with which they were furnished. But at the same time, in a conversation with one of the gentlemen, he had expressed his willingness to furnish him (Mr. Goulburn) with the information on which the charge was founded; and he had the satisfaction of learning, that it rested on the affidavit of a single individual, who swore that he knew of a slave having been carried in an English ship of war into the Bahamas, whom he saw afterwards sold to an individual there; and that he had heard that this was a constant practice. As this affidavit contained the name of the individual to whom the slave was alleged to have been sold, and other particulars, it became an easy matter to ascertain the truth of the charge; and instructions had immediately been sent to the governor of the Bahamas, to inquire into the whole circumstances of the case. An answer had not yet been received, though they were in daily expectation of one; but before the House should separate, he expected to have it in his power to satisfy them on this subject. Mr. Barclay opposed the bringing up the Report, from an unwillingness to vole away the public money, on works of mere ornament or magnificence, whilst the country was burthened with such heavy impositions. To erect such a building as that proposed in the centre of a suffering population, would carry, in his opinion, the appearance of an insult on the difficult circumstances to which an unavoidable war had reduced them. He had heard of the liberality of the City, but he confessed he could see very little of it in this affair. Mr. Alderman Atkins defended the pro |