28th.--The Committee sat till half an hour past three in the morning, on the clause for annulling marriages that should be contracted contrary to the inhibitions in the Bill. The Churchmen acquiesced in the Legislature’s assuming this power in spirituals, as they had done in the single case of the young King’s marriage in the Regency Bill: but however commendable the moderation of the Clergy might be, the Pontific power arrogated by the head of the Law, and his obstinate persisting to enforce a statute, by no means calculated or called for by general utility, was most indecent. The Speaker argued with great weight against the clause; Wilbraham, well for it. Mr. Fox, at one in the morning, spoke against it for above an hour, and laid open the chicanery and jargon of the Lawyers, the pride of their Mufti, and the arbitrary manner of enforcing the Bill. A motion for adjournment was moved, but was rejected by above 80 to 40 odd. 30th.--The Committee went upon the clause that gave unheard-of power, in the first resort to parents and guardians, and then to the Chancery, on the marriages of minors. Fox spoke with increasing spirit against this clause too; and on Wilbraham’s having said, if you have a sore leg, will you not try gentle remedies first? he drew a most severe picture of the Chancellor, under the application of the story of a Gentlewoman at Salisbury, who, having a sore leg, sent for a Country Surgeon, who pronounced it must be cut off. The Gentlewoman, unwilling to submit to the operation, sent for another, more merciful, who said he could save her leg, without the least operation. The Surgeons conferred: the ignorant one said, “I know it might be saved, but I have given my opinion; my character depends upon it, and we must carry it through”--the leg was cut off. Charles Yorke, the Chancellor’s son, took this up with great anger, and yet with preciseness, beginning with these words, “It is new in Parliament, it is new in politics, it is new in ambition;” and drew a lofty character of his father, and of the height to which he had raised himself by his merit; concluding with telling Fox, how imprudent it was to attack such authority, and assuring him that he would feel it. Mr. Fox replied with repeating the sententious words: “Is it new in Parliament to be conscientious? I hope not! Is it new in politics? I am afraid it is! Is it new in ambition? It certainly is, to attack such authority!” Mr. Pelham answered him well. Mr. Fox once more replied, urging how cruel and absurd it was to force the Bill down: that he knew he should not be heard by above one-third of the House, but would speak so loud that he would be heard out of the House. That from the beginning to the end of the Bill, one only view had predominated, that of pride and aristocracy. There was much of truth in this. At the very beginning, on the Duke of Newcastle’s declining to vote in the Bill, the Chancellor told Mr. Pelham, “I will be supported in this,