and sentenced to pay a fine of 1s., and 14s. costs; that he had been in prison ten weeks, and had no means of paying, and hoped that a representation might be made of his case, or he must remain a prisoner for ever. Upou referring to this man's commitment, I find that he was summarily convicted before two magistrates, that on the of June, being the Lord's-day, called Sunday, in the township of did neglect to attend a church, or at some other place of religious worship, on the said day, he not having any reasonable excuse to be absent, and adjudged to forfeit and pay 1s., together with 14s. costs, and, in default, to be kept in prison until the said sums shall be paid. It appeared that the following number of persons had been committed for a similar offence, and been discharged upon payment of the fine and costs: Name. Rashleigh, W. W. W. April 15 1 0 16 days. 12 days. 17 days. 1 0 0 11 2 days. 16 days. November 6 26 days. 3 days. 27 days. A. G. P. F. T. R T. S. August 5 COMPULSORY ATTENDANCE AT CHURCH.] Mr. Monckton Milnes said, it might be in the recollection of some Members of that House, that towards the end of the last Session, he gave notice of his intention to move for leave to bring in a Bill for the repeal of so much of certain acts to be such as to leave no hope of his being able The poverty of the prisoner J. C. appearing of Elizabeth and James 1st, as inflicted to pay the fine and costs, I decided on makpenalties for the non-attendance on divine ing a representation of his case to the Secreworship. The reason why he had aban-tary of State, who was pleased to recommend doned that course and pursued that which him forthwith as a fitting object for her he intended to follow on the present occa- Majesty's pardon, and he was discharged in sion, he would presently state to the House. consequence." The circumstances to which his motion applied, would be found stated in the sixth report of the Inspectors of Prisons, published last year; the case had attracted great attention, and the vigilant eye of the press, to which public justice owed so much, had been directed to it in such a manner as to render it impossible that the case should not come before Parliament in one way or other. He thought, therefore, that it was better that the case should be brought under the notice of the House by one who, as far as he is known at all, is known as a humble and attached member of the Church of England rather than by any one indifferent or even hostile to that sacred institution. The cases to which he particularly wished to advert, were stated in page 79 of the report, and are described by the inspector as follows: "Among other complaints made to me by prisoners, J. C. came forward, and stated, that he was placed in the Ecclesiastical Court, He believed, that in all those cases the parties proceeded against were simple labouring men, who would have been totally incapable of paying the fines inflicted upon them, if the case had not attracted the attention of her Majesty's Ministers; and it may be remarked, that in the first case the man was kept in prison during the whole hay-time and harvest, and was thus presented from earning the means of his winter sustenance. He knew that there was a strong and natural feeling, above all with young Members of that House when such a case as this occurred, to apply an immediate remedy, and to endeavour to attach their names to some measure for amending the Criminal Law. But he could not conceal from himself the evils of dilettante legislation. Short experience and imperfect knowledge, actuated by mo tives, however honourable, can never make efficient and stable laws. He therefore felt that it would be unbecoming in a Member of so little weight to put himself forward in | imposed by the magistrates for offences of a case where he was sure that it was only this nature, and that he disapproved of the necessary to mention the evil to induce custom; but, finding the law so defective, the application of a remedy by the hand and being asked whether he thought it right of those on whom that duty legitimately to allow offenders to escape, and being most devolved, and he felt this the more strongly anxious to ensure an orderly observance at a time when a government was in power of the Sabbath, he was induced to acquiin which he had so sincere a confidence. esce in the proceeding. He added, that He trusted, that the House would not he did uot know as a magistrate how he impute to him a feeling of presumption could refuse to inflict the penalty when for bringing the case forward, or of weak- the case was clearly proved, and concluded ness in transferring it from his own hands with stating, that he should be glad of to the stronger ones of the right hon. the success of any motion on the subject Baronet, the Secretary for the Home De- which would lead to an alteration of the partment. In a question of abuse of this law. He (Mr. Milnes) considered that nature, it was but natural that they should this letter was honourable to the gentleinquire what was the conduct of the ma- man who who wrote it. He was sure the gistrates. He had communicated with one House also, now that it was made acof these magistrates, a gentleman who had quainted with the nature of these cases, addressed letters on the subject of this would cordially join with him in calling case to the editors of the Manchester for some alteration of the law. He beGuardian and the Morning Chronicle. lieved that all he has now to do was to This gentleman was a most respectable state very briefly the present anomalous and temperate man, and expressed his condition of the law. The penalty for nonearnest desire that the case should be fully attendance on religious worship was iminvestigated. In one of these letters from posed in the clause of the act of Elizabeth, Mr. Ashworth, dated September 16, 1841, called the Act of Uniformity, which he says:says: "Whosoever, having no lawful or reasonable excuse to be absent, shall forbear to resort to his parish church or chapel accustomed, or upon reasonable let thereof to some usual place where common prayer and such service of God shall be used in such time of let upon every Sunday and other days ordained and used to be kept as holy days, and then and there abide orderly and soberly during the time of the common prayer, preaching, or other service, shall incur the penalties of a Popish recusant." "A man is brought before the magistrates charged with drunkenness in its most offensive form on the Sabbath, and with neglecting church. On inquiry it is found that this is his habitual practice, and that his conduct, in this state, renders him a pest to the neighbourhood. Perhaps even you will admit that such a character deserves punishment, and that he ought to be fined for drunkenness. Well, fine him. He refuses to pay, and has no goods on which to distrain. What then is to be done? Put him in the stocks, the law says; but we have no stocks, and the vaga- And I need not tell the House how bond escapes scot free. To prevent this result terrible a nature those penalties were. and in respect to such characters only, re- Any person leaving a church during the course has been had to the statute enabling administration of divine service was equally magistrates to fine for non-attendance at pub-liable with one who had absented himself lic worship, under which committals follow in case of non-payment. For pursuing this course you pronounce me unfit to remain on the bench, and you will, doubtless, think me still more unfit when I tell you, that though I exceedingly dislike the course, I am not prepared to relinquish it entirely, being determined to avail myself of the law, even in its defective state, and thereby punish such infamous characters as I have described." Mr. Ashworth thus declared, that the law wanted amendment, and stated that the practice was general among the justices of peace. In a private communication which that gentleman made to him (Mr. Milnes), he stated, that on his appointment to the bench he found these fines regularly altogether. But the summary conviction in these cases was under a clause of the Act of James 1st, which states the penalty for the first offence to be forfeiture of 12d leviable by the churchwardens of the parish where the offence is committed by way of distress, and the penalty may be levied by the warrant of one justice of the peace, and in default of goods to destrain on, the same justice may commit the offender to prison till payment of the forfeiture. By the Acts of Toleration passed in the reigns of William and Mary and Anne, the provisions of this Act are extended to all places of religious worship. He need not say how far the Uniformity Act was of England was strong by the toleration which she had manifested, and was convinced that such acts as these only brought the Church into disrepute; he therefore called upon the right hon. Baronet, whose executive talents had been admitted by both parties in that House, not to shrink from legislative exertion in this matter, but as speedily as possible to bring forward some measures to get rid of a state of things as obnoxious to the principles of British freedom as injurious to the best interests of the Church of England. He should conclude with moving an Address for "Copy of the warrant on which J. C——, or J. Carlton, was committed, at Rochdale, on the 29th day of June, 1840, by Clement Royds and William Chadwick, esquires, for neglecting to attend divine worship at Butterworth, in the county of Lancaster." adhered to in the present day, nor what, in Ireland. He believed that the Church would be its operation if generally enforced. If it were carried out to its full extent by the churchwardens of the parish of St. George's, Hanover-square, and St. James's, Piccadilly, by their visiting the club houses during the times of divine worship, and enforcing the law against those they found there, perhaps there might be a great deal more to be said on the subject than in the case of these poor men. It was useless now to debate on the absurdity of such a law in the present day; although much, perhaps, might be said in defence of it at the period when it was enacted, as then the attendance on divine worship in the church might be regarded as a test of political opinion, and as a proof of loyalty and good citizenship. Those times, however, were gone by, and the enforcing such a law as that acted upon by the Rochdale magistrates could only be regarded as a remnant of persecution. He also submitted that this was not the time to put magistrates like Mr. Ashworth in such a situation as they had been by their interpretation of the law. The outcry against the great unpaid had indeed ceased, but it was not right to expose them to unnecessary unpopularity. He did not think it necessary to attack the principle of the Act of Uniformity, as he did not think that it necessarily bore the interpretation which had been attached to it. He thought that in its free interpretation every man should be considered a member of the Church of England unti he committed some act or deed which proved the contrary. He trusted that the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department would devise some means of getting rid of the present evil without touching the spirit of that important act. We should be chary of repealing laws merely because we held them to be obsolete. He need not tell the House that this was not the time nor the age to enforce religious belief by the means of penal enactments. If one truth was written on the page of history in more striking characters than another, it was, that when a church or a religious body endeavoured to enforce a belief in its opinions by persecution, it created a totally contrary feeling. Whether to oppress or to uphold religion violence is equally impotent. All the energetic rigours of the Inquisition have not saved the church of Spain from the oppressions and confiscations of an Espartero, all the terrorism of the penal laws has not shaken Romanism Sir J. Graham was sure that the House would give every credit to the motives of his hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract, who had so ably brought this case before the House. According to the facts of the case the parties imprisoned had had a very severe and unjust punishment inflicted upon them. It appeared that these poor men had been brought before the magistrates for one offence, and had been punished for another. He could not too strongly condemn the practice that should proceed to search and find a statute, fallen almost into desuetude, for the purpose of inflicting punishments on parties not brought before them for the offence for which they were punished. Such a practice he considered to be unjust, nor did he think that the infliction of such penalties was, in any degree, applicable to the time and age in which we lived. He did not believe that the infliction of temporal penalties was at all applicable to the nonperformance of a personal religious dutynor did he think that it conduced to the maintenance of the Established Church nor religious worship. His hon. Friend had called attention to the Act of Uniformity, and had alluded to the extension to Dissenters, in proof that the oaths of supremacy and allegiance had been taken, which it was not at all times possible for them to show. All parties, however, were liable to penalties if these oaths had not been taken; and he believed that a very large portion of the Members of the House would have been liable to the penalties, through the non-attendance on religious worship on Wednesday last, if informa tions had been laid against them. He did, HOUSE OF LORDS, Monday, February 14, 1842. Petitions presented. By Lord Strafford, from Presbyterians which men, who had contracted such marriages, had been convicted of bigamy, and were now undergoing the punishment of transportation, was more to be respected than the more recent decision. The Lord Chancellor, in consequence of the observations of his noble Friend the other evening, had sent to Ireland to learn the precise facts of the case, and the terms He had not yet received of the decision. an answer, but the moment he received the reply, he would take the advice of the law officers of the Crown, and bring in a bill either declaring what the law is, or enacting what it shall be. The Marquess of Clanricarde hoped that no time would be unnecessarily lost, for he was afraid that evils were even now arising in consequence of the decision. THE CORN-LAWS-PETITIONS.] Lord Campbell presented a petition from Edinburgh for the total and immediate repeal of the Corn-laws, and observed, that considering the system which had been pursued in this country for so long a time, it would be difficult to resort to a total repeal, but he could not support any plan which did not give us a free trade in corn at all times. Any measure which merely admitted a free trade in times of extreme scarcity, would not be productive of steadi MARRIAGE LAW-(IRELAND)] Viscount Melbourne presented a petition from the Ministers and other Members of the Presbyteries of Antrim and Mayo to settle the Marriage-law in Ireland. He under-ness of price, would not promote the sale stood that it was the intention of her Majesty's Ministers to bring in a bill to give relief to the petitioners, and he thought that nothing was more necessary or proper than to apply an immediate remedy. of our manufactures in foreign countries, and would in no degree prevent the evil which had been frequently experienced under our present law in our monetary system. He would willingly agree to such a modification of the law as would at all times admit corn on the payment of a fixed duty, and at the same time he would give his strenuous opposition to a sliding scale. Laid on the table. Lord Campbell agreed it was essential that a remedy should be applied as soon as possible, but, at the same time, it was desirable first to ascertain what the law really was, for he might, with all respect for the learned Lords who had given a reBUILDINGS REGULATION AND Bocent decision, doubt whether marriages by The Mardissenting clergymen in Ireland between ROUGH IMPROVEMENTS.] members of the Established Church and quess of Normanby presented a petition dissenters were void. If there was no from the mayor, aldermen, and burgesses statute to the contrary, the canon law of Birmingham, praying that the powers would be in force, which constituted an under the bill might not be transferred open avowal of marriage followed by co- from them to commissioners, and to be habitation, a legal marriage for all pur-heard by counsel against the bill. Alposes. Certain marriages by Roman Catholic clergymen and degraded priests were made void by statute; but he was not aware of any statute which applied to the marriage of a member of the Church of England and a Dissenter by a Presbyterian parson; and he believed that the former decision of the Irish judges, under though he did not think the change made. by their Lordships a wise one, he was not disposed at that stage of the bill to move its restoration to the state in which he originally brought it in, in accordance with the prayer of the petitioners; he trusted that if the alteration should be made elsewhere, their Lordships would agree to it. He would, therefore, now move the third reading of the Buildings Regulations Bill. He wished for one moment to call the attention of the noble Duke opposite to a subject intimately connected with the public health, and, therefore, with the object of this bill-the state of the public burial grounds. He had, in the last Session, in answer to a question, stated his intention on the part of the then Government to bring in a bill on the subject. Since that he had received communications from many places in favour of some regulations and among others, that very day from Mr. Fripp of Bristol, a gentleman well known in that town for his participation in the statistical inquiries, pressing for a legislative measure; and the right reverend Prelate (the Bishop of London,) had urged its propriety. If he now declined to introduce a measure, it was not on account of the labour incident to such a task, but because he thought that success would be better attained if the bill were brought in by her Majesty's Government, and because there must be some parts of the bill which made it desirable that it should originate elsewhere. Bill read a third time and passed-as was also on the motion of the Marquess of Normanby, the Borough Improvements Bill. CASE OF THE CREOLE.] Lord Brougham had now to bring before their Lordships a subject to which he had on the first night of the Session called their attention; and having then entered at large into the question, he would say but a very few words upon the present occasion in moving for the copy of any correspondence between the Colonial-office, and the Governor of the Bahama Islands, relative to the late arrival of the Creole at Nassau. His noble Friend, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, would state whether there was any such correspondence or not; and, if there was, whether he had any objection to its production, for if his noble Friend thought, that the production might have any injurious tendency, he would not press for it. In making the present motion he might say, that having again and again considered the question in all its bearings, and had an opportunity of referring to the various authorities which he understood had been cited to raise a doubt on the opposite side, and which, when examined, really amounted to little or nothing; the result of that consideration had been only to confirm, to increase, if it were possible, his confidence, in the opinion he had given on the first night of the Session. It might be perfectly true, that considered as a matter of international law alone, a foreign country may by treaty, have a right to demand of us the surrender of a person taking refuge in our territories on account of an offence alleged to be committed within their territoriesit might become necessary to consider the right of one nation to require from another the delivery up of fugitives taking refuge within their territories; that was one question, and he cared not how that question was disposed of, as regarded his present purpose; but there was another question to be considered, which was wholly unavoidable. What right existed, under the municipal law of this country, to seize and deliver up criminals taking refuge there? What right had the Government to detain, still less to deliver them up? Whatever right one nation had against another nation-even by treaty, which would give the strongest right-there was, by the municipal law of the nation, no power to execute the obligation of the treaty. If such a treaty existed between any two countries, say between America and this country, and no Act of Parliament had passed enabling the Government in either country to perform its conditions, that treaty became utterly unavailable, because the law of the land prevented the possibility of its being executed. Suppose it was clear, and that no doubt existed, that a treaty were in force binding on the two parties (and such an obligation would be much more clear than any that could be pretended, under the general law of nations, the common international law), and suppose either party had omitted to take power from its own Legislature, to carry the treaty into execution, the mere existence of the treaty would not enable that power to carry the treaty into effect. The treaty would be a dead letter if the municipal law of that country did not authorise the fulfilment of its provisions. It was necessary to say so much, because he thoughts ome of those who had argued the subject, particularly in America, had not kept the two questions of international law and of municipal law sufficiently apart. It was necessary that a municipal law for detaining and giving up criminals |