COMMITTEE.—ADJOURNED DEBATE. (Hansard, 30 June 1858)

MR. LYGON
said, he rose to move that the Bill should be committed on that day three months. He believed that it was impossible that a measure which was sure to meet with so much opposition could be passed in the course of the present Session, and he therefore felt that he need not trouble the House with any lengthened 668 address upon that occasion. The Bill, notwithstanding the important subject with which it dealt, had received but little attention in its previous stage, and therefore he thought it was only fair to ask its promoters to consent to the postponement for the present of any legislation upon the subject, so that the House might be enabled to devote of some really practical object the time which must be wasted in the discussion of this measure. He should observe that it would be all the more difficult for the House to pass the Bill under present circumstances, inasmuch as it differed in some important particulars from the measures to which their attention had been directed in the year 1849 and 1855. Those measures contained safeguards against abuses which had entirely disappeared from the Bill then under their consideration. He admitted that it would be comparatively easy to legislate in that case for future marriages; but the House would find it extremely difficult to pass a measure of a retrospective character which must necessarily affect existing rights of property. He was at a loss to know how, if they passed this measure, they could confine their legislation to the case of marriage with a deceased wife's sister, and not extend it to the deceased wife's niece and some other relatives within the prohibited degrees. He should like to be informed, also, how it was proposed to deal with cases in which a marriage having taken place with a deceased wife's sister, the parties bad, from conscientious or other reasons, subsequently separated and contracted another marriage. But besides these objections, there were questions affecting the succession to property involved in this ex post facto legislation which would render necessary the most careful investigation of every word in the clause; and considering the advanced period of the Session, and the extensive character of the Bill before them, he thought the time of the House might be much more usefully employed in discussing the other measures upon the notice paper. He begged to move therefore, as an Amendment, that the House should go into Committee on the Bill on that day three months.

§ MR. DUNLOP,
in seconding the Motion, expressed a hope that if the Bill then passed it would not be applied to Scotland.

§ VISCOUNT BURY
said, that the Bill had been delayed until now in consequence of the hon. Gentleman himself having, on not less than three occasions, moved its adjournment. The matters to which his hon. Friend had adverted were fit subjects for discussion in Committee, and he hoped he would not persist in his Amendment. As to his giving way on the subject that was quite out of the question.

§ MR. DE VERE
said, he should support the Amendment. He hoped that whatever might be the fate of the Bill, it would not be rendered applicable to Ireland, for he was sure it was not wanted in that country.

MR. BECKETT DENISON
said, he had the honour of representing the largest constituency in the kingdom; and he would take upon himself to say that this Bill would meet the approbation of a very large majority of that constituency. He was not sanguine enought to believe that the measure would become law during the present Session; but he felt it was only due to the immense population he represented that it should be allowed to make all the progress that the time would admit of.

§ MR. BYNG
said, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lygon) was rather mistaken in saying that the Bill had not received sufficient attention to justify the House in passing it this Session. He believed it was discussed on its introduction; and upon the second reading it was debated from half-past twelve till half-past four o'clock in the afternoon.

§ MR. BERESFORD HOPE
was happy to be able to confirm the assertion of the hon. Member as to the anxiety felt in Lancashire for the passing of the Bill by an extract from a letter he had received from Liverpool:— On the Birkenhead pier, between the pay-gate and the steamers of the Ferry across to Liverpool, there is conspicuously erected a stand with large books thereon. Touters call on the everpassing crowd to affix their signatures to a petition favourable to the Bill—not overlooking the youngest boys, or any who will sign their names for the fun of it.

§ VISCOUNT GODERICH
said, that speaking from his own knowledge of the sentiments of the people of Yorkshire, he could corroborate the statement of his hon. colleague, that in the manufacturing districts of that county the strongest feeling 670 prevailed that the Bill ought to receive the sanction of the Legislature. He should support the Motion for at once going into Committee.

§ MR. BOOKER BLAKEMORE
observed, that the Bill would be of vast social importance in its operation and effects, and its principle having been agreed to, he thought the consideration of the details ought not to be longer deferred, so that it might be sent up to the House of Lords and be discussed by the authorities of the Church and the legal Members of that House. For these reasons he trusted the noble Lord would persevere with the Bill.

§ MR. MONCKTON MILNES
said, he believed that if the Bill were permitted to be discussed in Committee, so great were the alterations made in it, it would become law before the end of the Session.

§ MR. PEASE
said, he thought the Bill was a good one, and hoped its author would persevere with it.

§ SIR JERVOISE JERVOISE
remarked, that he should vote for the Bill on the ground that it would do away with a law that was equally unwise and unjust; unjust in interfering with social arrangements, and unwise in bringing into collision the statute law with social usages.

§ MR. DUNLOP
said, he had been disappointed in the Hope that the Bill would have been so modified as to remove some of the objections to its progress.

§ MR. STEUART
said, he was of opinion that, if the Bill were a good Bill, it would be good for all parts of the empire; but thinking it to be a bad Bill, he trusted the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Lygon) would persist in his Amendment,

§ MR. CROSSLEY
said, it was quite difficult enough for a private Member to proceed with a Bill in the absence of any factious opposition, and he trusted that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lygon) would not, after the Bill had been postponed till that day to suit his convenience, attempt to get rid of it in an unfair manner. Let him discuss his objections to it in Committee.

MR. LYGON
said, he should move in page 1, line 7, to leave out the words, "which has been celebrated at any time 671 or place whatever within this realm or without," the object of the Amendment being to prevent the measure from operating retrospectively.

§ MR. SCHNEIDER
said, he thought it would be most unjust to exclude from the operation of the Bill persons who had married between 1835 and 1858. A stigma would thus be cast, too, upon about 40,000 children, and this, although the Legislature would virtually have declared that the marriages in question ought always to have been valid. There was only one case in which any difficulty could arise under the Bill, and that was the case in which a man, after having married his deceased wife's sister, had separated from her, and contracted a second marriage. That difficulty might be met by a separate clause.

§ MR. BRISCOE
said, there was one class of persons against whom the Amendment would, if adopted, press with peculiar hardship; he meant those who had contracted marriage under high legal sanction.

§ MR. BERESFORD HOPE
said, there was no reason why parties who, with their eyes open, had wilfully violated the law, should receive an indemnity for that violation. Mr. Glover, the late Member for Beverley, had as much right to a clause in the Property Qualification Bill recently passed, declaring that his seat should be restored to him, as those parties had to the indemnity which this clause would give them.

§ MR. WALPOLE
said, he was of opinion that, by attempting to give the measure a retroactive operation they would involve themselves in difficulties which no legislation would be sufficient to remove. The hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. Schneider) in alluding to one of the objections mentioned by his hon. Friend, had stated that a proviso might be brought in to meet that particular case. What was that case? It was where a man, having married his deceased wife's sister, had subsequently separated from her, no matter for what reason, and married another woman; which, as the clause then stood, would be, in fact, a case of bigamy. For the clause declared the first marriage to be good, whereas by the existing law it was held to be bad; consequently the second marriage, which was now good, would become in- 672 valid, and the party contracting it would be liable to a charge of bigamy. [Viscount BURY: We propose in that case the second marriage should be valid.] He should like to see a proposition in the Bill itself. However that was not the only difficulty. The Bill made valid all marriages which had taken place since the year 1835; but by the second clause it was provided that nothing in this Act contained should affect the devolution of property. What would be the result of that alteration in the law? Why that the moment they made valid these prior marriages, in cases where a disposition of property had been made to the children of a particular person, the property would be taken away from the children of the marriage which the Bill made a valid marriage, and given to somebody else. Therefore, these children would be deprived of the property which otherwise they would be entitled to receive. He would also suppose the case of a man who had married his deceased wife's sister, and the parties actuated by a conscientious conviction that their marriage was invalid had subsequently agreed to separate and had separated accordingly; was a suit for the restitution of conjugal rights to be allowed in a case of that sort or not? The Bill allowed the marriage to be a valid marriage, and if passed in its present shape he believed the persons who had been so separated would be entitled to the restitution of conjugal rights. These were some of the difficulties which inevitably would arise the moment they attempted to deal with the law of marriage by a retrospective law, and they might depend upon it that if they established the precedent of making these marriages good, other parties would come before Parliament and ask that marriages might also be made valid which had been celebrated between parties who were not so nearly related as a man and his deceased's wife's sister, and the House would have to make them valid likewise by a retrospective law. The fact was that there was only one reasonable manner in which this law could be framed, and that was by making it prospective and not retrospective.

§ VISCOUNT GODERICH
said, he must remind the Committee that that was not the first time that it had been proposed to pass a retrospective law on this subject. In 1835 a Bill was passed for legalizing marriages formed between persons in a superior station of society, and it was not desirable now to refuse a similar advantage 673 to persons in an inferior station. As regarded the case in which a man, after marrying a deceased wife's sister, separated from her and married another person, he admitted that it ought to be provided for in the Bill; and his noble Friend (Viscount Bury) was prepared either to move a clause relating to that case then or to reserve it for the bringing up of the Report.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
said, the noble Lord who had just sat down seemed be under some misapprehension as to what took place in 1835. At that time the marriages to which Lord Lyndhurst's Bill applied were not actually void, but only voidable. The present clause would operate in a most reckless manner; and there were two objections to it which he hoped would be met and answered by the supporters of the Bill before it was agreed to. The first objection was, that the clause dealt with a number of marriages which had been celebrated during the last twenty years, and without any consultation whatever with the parties to those marriages proceeded to alter the law on the subject. True, many persons who had contracted these marriages desired to have them made valid; but take the case of two persons who had entered into a marriage of this kind, and influenced afterwards by religious scruples or any other reasons, thought proper to separate and cease to live together as man and wife. This Bill altered their status without consulting them, and possibly against their will, and declared a marriage to be valid which was not at present valid. The consequence was, that it would give to either of the parties a suit for restitution of conjugal rights. He granted that, if either instituted a suit for the restitution of conjugal rights, there was an end at once of all conscientious scruples, at least an end to them so far as the party instituting the suit was concerned, but not the other. The second objection was this, and it equally required an answer as the former. A man married his deceased's wife's sister; but for some cause or other the arrangement was terminated, and he contracted a marriage with another party. That third marriage was valid at the present time, and there was nothing in the Bill to invalidate it; but then the Bill made valid the intermediate marriage with the deceased's wife's sister, and the consequence would be that the man would actually have two legal wives—a novel feature in the legislation of this country—and the children of both 674 marriages would be legitimate children. This could not be viewed at all in the light of an imaginary case, for within the lastten years there had been several instances of men charged with bigamy being acquitted on the ground that the first marriage they had contracted was with a deceased wife's sister. This difficulty should be met before this Bill passed further through Committee, for he did not think that it was fair to call upon hon. Members to sanction a proposal which would give rise to the difficulties which had been pointed out merely, upon the understanding that a proviso should be introduced to obviate those difficulties, and without any information whatever as to the nature of that proviso.

§ MR. AYRTON
said, he should support the clause on the ground that, if it were in accordance with morality and justice that such marriages should take place subsequent to the passing of the Act, it appeared to him an absurdity to say that similar marriages contracted before the passing of the Act should be invalid. In point of fact, it was very doubtful whether at present such marriages, solemnized in countries where they were valid by the laws of those countries, were not valid in England, and he believed that a majority of the members of the legal profession did not concur in the judgment which had lately been delivered in the courts of equity upon the subject. A great majority of persons who had contracted such marriages, and who had done so under the impression that in point of morality they were good and valid marriages, desired a change in the present law, and he hoped that the Committee would give effect to their wishes by consenting to the clause.

§ MR. HENLEY
said, that when the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Ayrton) laid down the rather curious proposition that they were bound to pass the clause as it stood, because it was framed in accordance with the wishes of the majority who would be affected by it, it should be recollected that that same majority had chosen with their eyes open to violate the law. He could very well understand the principle of legislating for the majority of those who had obeyed and maintained the law; but he did not think that they were called upon to favour those who had deliberately violated the law. Well, then, they were asked to pass this clause, because something might be done hereafter by the promoters of the Bill to provide against the 675 difficulty suggested by his right hon. Friend. But why was not that something done at once? The point was not then raised for the first time. Everybody knew that the few wealthy parties who were specially to be accommodated by the passing of this measure had been agitating for some years in favour of it, and that they had taken this very point to the highest courts of the country in the hope of obtaining some sidewind declaration as a justification for those marriages. And yet the promoters of this Bill, it appeared, had never once thought of providing against this difficulty; and they now said that they would introduce a proviso into the measure that would remove the objections. How did the Committee know that that would be done? That a difficulty existed was not denied, and it was only fair that they should see how the difficulty was to be met before the Bill left the Committee. He did not think that the Committee ought to be asked to take a step in the dark in favour of persons who had broken the law, and he certainly objected to a sweeping change like that proposed without seeing how the difficulties which would arise were to be obviated. The Act of 1835, in his opinion, was by no means an analogous case, as the marriages that came under its operation were not actually void.

§ MR. BAINES
said, he must deny that there was any distinction between the retrospective operation of Lord Lyndhurst's Act and that of the present Bill, for it appeared from the Report of the Commission which had inquired into the subject, and at the head of which was Dr. Lushington, that, in their opinion, the effect of that Act was to render all past marriages of such a description valid. In point of fact there might in 1835 have been some reason for not introducing a retrospective action, for that Bill was framed upon the principle that such marriages in themselves were bad; but the present Bill being founded upon an exactly opposite principle, it would be unfair and unjust not to give it a retrospective action. He would only add that it did not appear to him to be difficult to draw up a clause which would be sufficient to obviate the difficulties which had been pointed out, and he hoped that the noble Lord would give notice of such clause, and then it would be competent for the House to exercise their judgment with regard to it upon the third reading of the Bill. For his own part, he thought that it 676 would be better to have no Bill at all, than to pass one without a retrospective action.

§ GENERAL THOMPSON
said, that public opinion had declared the existing law to be both cruel and unjust, and therefore the parties who had contracted the marriages in question ought not to be considered as having wilfully broken the law of the country, but rather as persons who were vindicating the right of conscience and making a stand against a law which they believed, in justice, ought to be changed. The opposition to the amendment of the law rested on two fallacies: first, that the Levitical law was the law of England, which it was not—for if it were, we should all be circumcised; and secondly, that the marriages in question were prohibited by the Levitical law—instead of which, it appeared that the man who refused to marry his brother's widow was to have the woman spit in his face, and be further slapped in the face with her shoe. That law only prohibited the seduction of a wife's sister, which, under the lax discipline of patriarchal families, was a thing very likely to happen. Now, as to the question under consideration, ninety-nine out of every hundred complained of the existing law. He trusted that we should see an end of artificial crimes, for nothing could more directly tend to bring all law into contempt. He begged pardon for standing up against Gentlemen of the long robe; but, on the question of precedents for the legalization of past marriages, he would recommend to Gentlemen of the long robe on his side, to ascertain how many times priests marriages had been declared legal and illegal between the reign's of Edward VI. and Elizabeth, and whether the offspring of past marriages had not been legitimized when such marriages were declared legal.

§ VISCOUNT BURY
said, it seemed to him to be but common justice, as well as common sense, to declare that all those marriages which had taken place between 1835 and 1858 should be valid, and the offspring of them should be considered legitimate. He was not, however, anxious to overlook any real or known grievances. He admitted that the case urged by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) was a real grievance, and he was ready to introduce a proviso to meet it. He should propose to insert in the first clause, after the words "deceased wife's sister," the following—"save as is hereinafter provided." And upon the report of the Bill 677 he would bring up a clause which would meet the exigency of the case just mentioned, he hoped to the satisfaction of all parties. The proviso he would propose was to this effect:— That nothing herein contained shall render valid any marriage with the sister of a deceased wife, if either of the parties to such marriage shall, after having contracted such marriage, and in the lifetime of the other, have been married to any other person before the passing of this Act.

MR. LYGON
said, he regretted that the clause of which the noble Lord had now stated the substance had not been inserted in the Bill. It was one of the greatest importance, and would require to be subjected to the most severe examination. An attempt had been made to enlist a spurious sympathy on behalf of this Bill by the assertion that the case was one of the rich against the poor. He denied that statement. The fact that persons who wished to contract such marriages as the Bill proposed to legalize were obliged to go abroad, proved that they were people of property. Moreover, of the 1,503 cases of marriage with the sister of a deceased wife, which had been found throughout the length and breadth of the country, no more than forty were discovered in the ranks of the labouring classes. It was not correct to say, therefore, that an alteration of the existing law was required as an act of justice towards the poor.

§ MR. STEUART
said, he should now move the insertion, after "deceased wife's sister," the words "or deceased wife's niece." If a man ought to be allowed to marry the sister of his deceased wife, there was no sound reason why he should not be permitted to marry his deceased wife's niece. The niece had probably been omitted through inadvertence.

§ VISCOUNT BURY
said, he could not accept the Amendment, because it did not fall within the scope of the Bill, the object of which was to legalize marriage with a deceased wife's sister, whereas the hon. Gentleman proposed to legalize marriage with a deceased wife's niece.

§ GENERAL THOMPSON
said, the attempt to introduce the question of legalizing a 678 marriage with a deceased wife's niece was either an act of prodigious indiscretion or the invention of an enemy. It stood on quite different, and, indeed, opposite grounds to those on which the marriage with a deceased wife's sister was advocated. The end and object of prohibitions on marriage was to prevent the corruption of youth in tender years, either by mutual ignorance, or by the influence of seniors, taking advantage of the opportunities necessarily arising out of domestic intimacy. Was it fitting, for instance, that a man should speculate on marrying the child he had dandled on his knee; and was not the impropriety as great in the case of the wife's niece as of his own? There had been no such opportunity in the case of the wife's sister; they were not of different generations, and they were not infants together. He, therefore, protested against the wife's niece as an introduction of the enemy.

§ MR. AYRTON
said, he wished to inquire whether it was competent to move an Amendment which was not consistent with the title of the Bill?

MR. CHAIRMAN
replied, that the Committee were at liberty to introduce into the Bill any matter which was not inconsistent with its object, and to alter the title accordingly. In the present case, as the title of the Bill was "Marriage Law Amendment Bill," the Amendment was perfectly in order.

§ MR. BERESFORD HOPE
said, that the hon. and gallant Member for Bradford, in order to give consistency to his argument against the niece as being of another generation, ought to propose a clause prohibiting any man from marrying any woman eighteen years younger than himself. Might not the sister of a deceased wife have lived in the same intimacy with the husband as a deceased wife's niece? The Bill was monstrous and absurd as it stood; but, instead of trying to amend it, he was disposed to let it go forth to the public with all its injustice and unfairness to be dealt with as it deserved.

§ MR. MONCKTON MILNES
said, he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed to a division. Many of the supporters of the Bill believed that a larger measure, embracing other degrees of affinity, would have been more just; but if they had proposed such a Bill, they could not have said, as they were able to say now, that they were not legislating theoretically, but were providing a remedy for a great practical evil.

MR. LYGON
observed, that he could not understand how it could be held right, either from reason or Scripture, that a marriage with a deceased wife's sister should be legalised, and not a marriage with the daughter of a deceased wife's sister.

§ VISCOUNT BURY
said, he would now propose to insert in the clause the words "except as hereinafter provided," with a view to the addition of a clause preventing the legislation of any marriage between a man and the sister of a deceased wife, in cases where the man had before the passing of the Act been again married to any other person during the life of the said wife's sister.

MR. LYGON
said, that the Bill did not exempt parties who had contracted these marriages from the pains and penalties, actions and censures which they might have incurred by contracting them either in the civil or ecclesiastical courts. He wished to know whether it was the intention of the noble Lord to bring up a clause with this object.

MR. CHAIRMAN
said, that the question was irregular, as there was no question before the Committee.

§ MR. STEUART
said, he should move that the Chairman should report progress, as he thought that it was impossible that a measure of this importance could receive proper consideration at this late period of the Session. He observed a great unwillingness on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite to allow the noble Lord to follow the course his own courtesy would suggest to him, that of replying to the questions proposed to him; and undoubtedly there were many legal objections to the Bill, and to which no reply had been given, although they were certainly entitled to receive it.

§ MR. WARREN
said, that as this clause contained the essence of the Bill, and as he had not hitherto expressed any opinion since he had had the honour of a seat in the House, on a measure of such vast importance, he hoped to be allowed, in a very few words, now to state his views on it. Ever since this question had been agitated, 680 it had struck him that that agitation wore a factitious character, and by no means represented the opinions of the thinking classes of society, but had in view the attainment of private ends. However that might be, and with perfect respect towards all those who had expressed different opinions, he had no hesitation in saying that he himself regarded the measure before the House as aiming a deadly blow at the security and sanctity of English domestic society—he could hardly conceive of any more deadly. He did not believe that it would diminish or destroy existing alleged evils among the lower classes, but greatly aggravate and stimulate them. He thought it would impair, if not destroy, the present pure relations existing between brother and sister; convert the affectionate and disinterested aunt into the designing, callous, and selfish stepmother—and, in a word, inflict irreparable injury on social order and public and private morality. For these reasons he should give his uncompromising opposition to the Bill in every stage, and earnestly hoped that it would not pass into law.

§ THE LORD ADVOCATE
said, he thought it was their duty to consider what effect this Bill would have upon the law as it now stood. He would take the liberty of explaining what great and palpable defects there were in the Bill. It might not be in the knowledge of hon. Members that by the law of Scotland persons of the relationship referred to who entered into these connections, were guilty of incest. All that this Bill provided was that marriages between such persons should not be void or voidable, but it did not take off the penalties attaching to incest; so that any person who had contracted marriage of this kind in times past in England and then went to Scotland to reside was by this Bill protected as to the existence of the union and the legitimacy of the offspring, but would still be liable to be indicted criminally and suffer for the continuance of the connection. It was not the connection for the first time, but the continuance of the connection, which constituted the incest; for every day the parties lived together they were exposed to these penalties. There was a provision that the Bill should not extend to marriages hereafter contracted in Scotland; but that did not at all affect what he had stated, for wherever the marriage had been contracted, if the parties had resided for any time in Scot- 681 land, they would be liable to criminal prosecution, even though it was enacted that the marriage was not void or voidable. It would be quite out of the question to pass the Bill as it stood.

§ VISCOUNT BURY
explained that there had been no discourtesy on his part in not answering the question put to him by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Lygon). With respect to Scotland, he did not wish to interfere with the Scotch law; but he thought it hard that the benefit of the law, if it passed, should not extend to Englishmen domiciled in that country. He would propose to insert an Amendment giving effect to that view.

§ SIR GEORGE GREY
said, that if the law of Scotland were correctly laid down by the Lord Advocate (as no doubt it bad been), all parties whose marriages had been legalized by Lord Lyndhurst's Act must have been liable to prosecution for incest in case they went to reside in Scotland. As far as he knew, no such prosecution had ever been instituted. At all events, such parties had hitherto incurred the risk of a residence in Scotland, and he thought those whose marriages would be legalized by this Bill might safely do so too; or they might abstain from venturing into Scotland, where such a law prevailed. At any rate the first clause was not the one in which to provide for this case.

§ THE LORD ADVOCATE
said, that the point was of international importance. If parties contracted a marriage not within the forbidden degrees in one country, and then went to reside in another, the latter country would recognize such a marriage; but in the case of what was deemed an incestuous connection, the position of the matter was wholly different. The action of the criminal law, which was a totally distinct question, was then to be considered. Of course if the supporters of the Bill did not like the warning he had given them they were, at liberty to disregard it.

§ MR. CRAUFURD
said, he would beg to ask the learned Lord upon what ruling of the Scotch Courts he founded his exposition of the law, because he thought that the decision of Lord Ardmillan in the recent case of 'Livingstone v. Livingstone" rather contradicted his statement.

§ THE LORD ADVOCATE
said, that the hon. and learned Gentleman was right as to the decision of the Court in the case he referred to, but two of the Judges who gave that judgment in the Court of Session had, in another case in the Court of Justi- 682 ciary, since held that such a connection as the one now proposed to be legalized was incestuous, and subjected a person to a criminal prosecution.

§ MR. AYRTON
said, that the position of the Lord Advocate had nothing to do with the question before the Committee. It was a position arising out of the state of the law in Scotland, and not out of principles of general law.

§ THE LORD ADVOCATE
said, he had spoken of the question as one of international jurisprudence.

§ MR. AYRTON
said, that under the circumstances he must beg to dissent from the learned Lord's view of the case.

§ MR. BERESFORD HOPE
said, that the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) seemed to entertain a very extraordinary opinion as to European jurisprudence in respect of marriages.

MR. LYGON
said, that he must repeat that it was very unwise to pass the clause at that period of the Session.

MR. LYGON
said, he must call the attention of the Committee to the legal difficulties in this clause, and ask for an explanation in reference to its application. He must urge the necessity of time being given to the Committee to fully consider the effect of the clause, and for that purpose he should move the Chairman report progress.

§ MR. HENLEY
said, he thought that some explanation of the terms of this clause was required. He wanted to know why it was that money under settlement should not be safe as well as landed estate?

§ MR. WARREN
said, that very nice and delicate questions were raised by this clause, and he would beg of the noble Lord to consent to the Chairman reporting progress, in order that the clause might be discussed on a future occasion, when the law officers of the Crown for England were present.

§ MR. BERESFORD HOPE
said, he wished to know what was the meaning of the words "right to a title of honour." There were other words in the clause which also required explanation.

MR. HEADLAM
would recommend the noble Lord to insert words that would clearly save personalty. In his (Mr. Headlam's) opinion the existing words of the clause were quite sufficient, but the introduction of the words "chattels, real chat- 683 tels or effects," would put the matter beyond cavil.

§ MR. HENLEY
remarked, that the Amendment suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Headlam) was absolutely necessary.

§ VISCOUNT BURY
said, he had no objection to the insertion of the words suggested by his hon. and learned Friend.

§ VISCOUNT GODERICH
objected to the Motion for reporting progress.

MR. E. ELLICE (St. Andrews)
said, he was opposed to the measure before the House, but he could not be a party to a factious opposition; and he therefore hoped that the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Lygon) would not press his Motion.

MR. LYGON
said, that the way in which they were proceeding with this clause was calculated to bring their legislation into contempt, and he must therefore avail himself of the forms of the House to arrest it.

§ MR. CHEETHAM
said, he must protest against the obstructive opposition offered to the Bill.

§ MR. STEUART
said, he should support the Motion for reporting progress, on the ground that the legal authorities, whose opinions on the second clause might guide the Committee, were all absent.

§ MR. T. MILLS
observed, that he was an uncompromising opponent of the Bill, but he hoped that the hon. Member for Tewkesbury would not persevere with his Motion.

§ MR. WALPOLE
did not think the noble Lord would gain much by the progress he was likely to make that day, but at the same time he thought that when the House was in Committee on a Bill, they should go through it if possible, and see whether it could not be amended. He trusted that his hon. Friend would withdraw his Amendment.

MR. LYGON
withdrew his Motion for reporting progress.

§ MR. BERESFORD HOPE
moved the insertion after the words "any estate or interest," of the words "or in any dignity or title of honour, or in any lands, hereditaments, chattels, or effects."

§ MR. AYRTON
said, that this alteration would make nonsense of the clause.

§ MR. DUNLOP
said, he should move a 684 verbal Amendment, with a view to exempt Scotland from the operation of the measure.

§ MR. MONSELL
said, he should propose a similar alteration to exclude Ireland from the Bill, which he said was repugnant to the feelings of the people of that country.

§ MR. BAGWELL
said, that if this law was good for England, he saw no reason why it should not be extended to the united Church of England and Ireland in the latter country.

§ MR. HARDY
said, that the omission of Scotland and Ireland showed that the authors of this Bill had no faith in their own specific. If the measure was religiously and socially right why did they not propose to make it universal?

MR. HEADLAM
said, that while maintaining that the legal prohibition of these marriages was religiously and morally wrong, he saw no inconsistency in taking into account the feelings of the people to be affected by the Bill.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
remarked, that he would not say that this Bill had been drawn up recklessly, but it had certainly been drawn up without much consideration, for the clauses referred to in the preamble had no reference to Ireland.

§ MR. DE VERE
said, this clause was repugnant to the feelings of the people of Ireland.

§ SIR CHARLES BURRELL
believed that the ladies of England were generally hostile to this change, which it would be a harsh proceeding to force upon them.

§ VISCOUNT BURY
said, he would now bring up the clause he had referred to. "Clause (Nothing herein contained shall render valid any Marriage between a man and the sister of his deceased wife, either of the parties to which shall, after such Marriage, during the lifetime of the other party to such Marriage, and before the passing of this Act, have been married to any other person),—brought up, and read 1^o.

§ MR. HENLEY
declared his inability to understand it. He hoped, therefore, that the clause would be printed, and would be brought up in the Report.

§ VISCOUNT BURY
intimated his intention to do so.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
said, he must express his objection to such a course. The clause, as far as he could follow it, was simple nonsense. It materially affected the first clause of the Bill. As far as he could make sense of it, it amounted to this, that if a man married his deceased wife's sister before the passing of this Bill, the marriage should be legitimate; but that if the husband should marry a third wife in the lifetime of the second, that third marriage should ipso facto invalidate the second, which but for the third marriage would be valid. He hoped the House would not allow it to go to the country that they were legislating in this reckless, useless manner, trifling with the most solemn and sacred feelings of the country. He would not, for one, agree that this clause should be brought up on the Report; he insisted that it should be discussed in Committee; and, as they were not in a condition to discuss it now, he should move that the Chairman do report progress.

MR. HEADLAM
said, he would advise his noble Friend not to press his Motion now, as it would give fresh opportunity to make those obstructive Motions which hon. Members opposite already had so largely availed themselves of. He thought it might be amply discussed on the Report.

§ MR. BERESFORD HOPE
said, the objection to taking the discussion on the Report was, that Members could speak only once, whereas in Committee the matter could be thoroughly discussed.

§ MR. BAINES
was adverse to careless legislation, or to the introduction of a clause which he had no opportunity of considering; but he thought the Solicitor General's Motion would only lead to unnecessary delay.

§ MR. BAILLIE
said, he wished to remind Irish Members that Ireland and Scotland were not exempted from the operations of the Bill, for persons residing there had only to come to England, when they would come under the operation of the Bill.

§ MR. BAGWELL
said, that with reference to the late division excluding Ireland from the Bill, he wished to know what would be its effect—was a wife in England to be considered a mistress in Ireland, or how?

§ MR. MOWBRAY
said, he should support the Motion for reporting progress, as the noble Lord had little or no chance of carrying the Bill through this Session.

§ MR. E. P. BOUVERIE
complained that 686 the Solicitor General had taken a different course from that recommended by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Henley), and hoped he would not press his Motion to a division.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
said, he was in the hands of the Committee. He was opposed to the Bill altogether, but he had no wish to attempt to defeat it by delay. If the Committee allowed this clause to be brought up on the Report, he hoped it would not be drawn into a precedent.

§ MR. HENLEY
suggested, that the noble Lord had better accede to his learned Friend the Solicitor General's Motion; for, if he did not, when the clause was brought up on the Report, there would infallibly be a Motion to recommit the Bill, and time would thus be lost rather than gained.

§ VISCOUNT BURY
said, he was quite willing to withdraw the clause, so that it might be printed and brought up with the Report, but he could not give way to the fresh proposal for delay made by the Solicitor General.

§ MR. CUMMING BRUCE
believed that no one could say what was the real meaning of the clause, and therefore he trusted that full time would be allowed for its consideration, and that an opportunity of discussing it in Committee would be given.

§ VISCOUNT BURY
said, he should withdraw the clause for the present.