HC Deb 08 March 1842 vol 61 cc283-99
Lord F. Egerton

rose to. move for leave to bring in a bill to amend an act, entitled, An act to render certain marriages valid, and to alter the law with respect to certain voidable marriages, and to define the prohibited Degrees of Affinity. If he were to act under the influence of his own feelings, and which he judged to be the inclination of the House, he should certainly compress what he had to say into the smallest possible compass. If he had reason to hope that, after having laid the ground for the necessity of some measure upon the subject, which he was about to submit to their consideration—if he could hope that, having convinced the House that it was necessary for the legislature to take some steps, he might then obtain its sanction to lay his bill upon the Table, then he should be able to compress his observations into a volume strictly coincident with the nature and extent of the object he had in view. But he hardly expected to be allowed the privilege, without serious opposition, of laying his bill on the Table of the House. If, instead of addressing that House in the Session of 1842, he had been doing so in 1836, he should have felt himself considerably relieved from the difficulty of endeavouring to divert the attention of the House for a moment from the political topics which at present agitated the country; but the subject derived no interest whatever from party contests. Since that time seven years had passed away, and three general elections had spread more than the average quantity of mutations over the composition of that House, and it could not be so fresh in the recollection of many of those he had now the honour to address, that in 1835, a most important statute law had been passed by that House under somewhat peculiar circumstances, and he might also say of haste and want of due deliberation, materially affecting a portion of the marriage laws of their country. The main object of that statute was retrospective, and was the legitimization and confirmation of certain classes of marriages within the prohibited degress which had taken place, and which, up to that period, were not void, but voidable by sentence duly pronounced in the Ecclesiastical Court. In the progress of that measure an enactment was grafted on it— how it originated he could not ascertain— which extended further the provision as to future marriages of the same description, and rendered them no longer voidable but void and null ab initio. It was to the prospective character of that enactment that he now called the attention of the House. He must express his opinion that if it had been in his power to enter fully into the discussion of that measure at the time it passed, and had he then that knowledge of the subject which he had since acquired, he did not think that however he might have concurred with those who carried that measure in the main object of it—an object which he admitted was of the greatest value—the removing of doubts as to legitimacy, and the prevention of litigation — yet he could hardly have consented to have that enactment with a prospective clause grafted on it. The inconsistency of that retrospective confirmation and annihilation was felt at the time, and after that prospective clause was grafted on it, the bill was resisted almost to the death. But when it went through the other House, hon. Gentlemen who felt the difficulty were yet persuaded to agree to the statute as it stood; but that agreement was made on a distinct understanding, which was implied by all who spoke, and acknowledged by most Members, that it was in consequence of the lateness of the period, in August 1835, that they consented to the bill, and not on a full and due deliberation of all the bearings of it, and that something like a promise was held out, that in an early period of the subsequent Session a due reconsideration should be given to the subject. Seven years had passed since, and the law still remained as it was then passed. He had thus established the right to moot this question anew. Some might ask, was it wise to move a question of this description, quieta movere, on so delicate and nice a matter? He would pass over the question, whether he, who was unacquainted with the law, and without influence in this House ought to bring this question forward; for he merely followed the advice of those who led him to assent to their wishes on this subject. He did not assume that they should pass the particular measure which he submitted to the House, but it was necessary that, from one quarter or another, the due consideration of the Legislature should be called for and obtained on the bearings of the present marriage law. He need not say more to prove that that law which they passed in 1835 did not go forth to the country with that sanction that was due to a law which was well considered, and was consistent with the practices of civilised Christian and Protestant communities, and that it did not carry that weight which would secure obedience from all but the determined and profligate law breakers. He told the House that the statute had subsequently been resisted and avoided by men of a very different complexion than profligates and professed lawbreakers—it had been avoided to a very large extent by men of all classes in this country—by persons of education, and by individuals who had no other moral or social taint than that which accrued from having taken advantage of means for evading of this law. This fact was, in his judgment, alone sufficient to show the necessity for now making that law effectual for the purposes for which it had been origin ally intended. From the existing state of the law great domestic unhappiness might ensue—great and extensive litigation on questions of inheritance and the rights of property might occur. To prevent these evils had been the object of the former enactment — it had failed, he repeated, to attain it, and why? Because persons, thinking they were morally entitled to infringe the law, had resorted for the purpose of effecting marriages to Scotland and countries beyond the dominions of the Crown, and it would be found that no two lawyers could agree as to whether such an evasion of the terms of the act could be defended or not. Hence, though this was a delicate subject, and one which no man could be more anxious than himself to avoid, still he held it to be necessary that the Legislature or somebody of more importance than himself should interfere in the matter. He had means before him of proving most distinctly everything he had yet stated. He had the opinions of the most eminent counsel on the question, and he could show further—but would not at that hour fatigue the House by doing so— that lawyers of eminence were daily and hourly consulted as to the means by which the existing law could be evaded. But, let it be remembered, that the solicitors of London and elsewhere, in a numerous body, had, upon the occasion when the subject had been brought forward in another place, petitioned, not indeed for the bill he now sought to introduce, but petitioned for the purpose of setting forth to the Legislature the difficulties which existed, and the necessity for some remedy. He understood that these petitioners had been spoken of without much deference to the importance of their opinions. Now, on such a subject he paid considerable deference to their opinions, because their professional interests naturally had a tendency, to bias them the other way. The solicitors were better acquainted with the stream of life than other men—they were the "archivists" of families, and, as he might say, the confessors of private life; and he was the more disposed to think well of their opinions, because in the face of their professional interests they had no petti-fogging views. They acted on the reverse principle of that mentioned in the story of two fox-hunters, who had fallen into a quarry; the one was desirous to call out, to warn the rest of the field; the other exclaimed, "Hold your tongue, wait; the pit will be full presently !" Now, he could understand, why, if these petitioners had looked at the question in a pettifogging point of view, they would have adopted the principle laid down in this narrative. They would have said, "We are laying the seeds of litigation— we shall reap a rich harvest— we shall have plenty of law suits which will bring grist to the mill." Now, that harvest lie wished to prevent. The bill he desired to present was one which was nearly identical with that brought forward in another place last year, by a noble Lord now high in the service of her Majesty's Government, and, without going into particulars, he would confine himself to the point on which the principal discussion had taken place elsewhere, and which, he anticipated, would engage the attention—perhaps, the opposition, of some hon. Gentlemen in this House. He thought it his duty at once to state, that the bill he proposed to introduce would enable a widower to marry the sister of his deceased wife. This was a very important, and, with great deference to the opinions which might be entertained both in that House and elsewhere, was to be considered in a twofold point of view;—first, in a religious point of view; and, secondly, the social expediency of its consequences on this side of the grave. With respect to the first point of view, and the obligation to look at it in a religious light, he was sure it was only too obvious to the House, that he felt he must tread lightly on such sacred ground, in such an assembly as the present. He would endeavour to show, however, that he had not taken up this matter on light considerations; and he believed the House would give him credit when he said, that if, on looking at the subject, he had considered he was impeded by the revealed word of God, which all should reverence, he would not now stand forward, and trouble the House on this question. He should, therefore, confine himself as much as possible, within such limits as would suffice to show that he had devoted such attention to the subject, as its magnitude required, and as was due to the House. With respect to the objections which had been offered to the measure he was advocating, he believed that they had been derived principally from that portion of Scripture contained in the Old Testament, which was called "Leviticus." He should omit, however, entering upon that very difficult and abstract question. But he might state, that his own conviction was, that there was no conclusion to be drawn from Scripture, that there was anything which enjoined him to consider, that that part of sacred writ was binding on a Christian Legislature; and he would only then add, that he should ultimately, with all the diffidence and deference which ought to be employed by any one who was dealing with such a subject, be prepared, if necessary, to defend the course he was pursuing, and, therefore, he trusted, that the House would pardon him, if at present he passed lightly, as he wished to pass over, this part of this important question. He would not enter at present into the question of the practice of Protestant as compared to Roman Catholic countries in this respect; but he was not aware, that it had ever been understood, that the dispensing power of the Pope had extended to sanction anything which was obviously and avowedly in opposition to the word of God, and they all knew, that these marriages had been allowed in Catholic countries. However, he had no reason to suppose, that any opposition which he might have to expect to this measure was founded on this ground, or that it was supposed by those who were adverse to a change in the present law, that there was anything insuperable in the law of God, that should prevent the further progress of this measure. Individuals doubtless, might have come to this conclusion, but he meant to say, that it was not a conclusion which had been brought forward in those quarters in which, if it had been brought forward, he should most certainly have maintained a profound and reverential silence. Passing, therefore, this part of the subject, he came to the question of expediency, and the consequences on this side of the grave. What struck him was, that there was nothing to be deduced from a balance of probabilities in respect to this question which entitled the Legislature to interfere with the choice which every one of mature age, and of the prudence which every man ought to exercise on a matter affecting the happiness of his whole future life. Hon. Gentlemen might come to a different conclusion, but his own opinion was, that the balance of probability was in favour of his proposal; this, however, he must be allowed to say, was far more than he was called upon to prove. It was supposed by many, that the permission to marry the sister of a deceased wife would interfere with the friendly and familiar intercourse which at present took place between the husband and the sister-in-law. He allowed, that it was difficult to divine consequences. He admitted, that some moral monster might be induced to seduce his wife's sister, having first found from his solicitor, that he could marry her after his wife's death. On the other hand some wives might be so jealous of civilities shown to a sister as to cause the peace of families to be disturbed. But it appeared to him to be very difficult to secure the peace of families so constituted by legislative enactments. He could not think that the object was a fit one for a legislature to endeavour to effect. Again it was supposed, on the other hand, that his measure would tend to diminish that personal sanctity which ought to appertain to the sister of a wife in the eyes of the husband—that it would tend to infringe and diminish that intangibility which now surrounded the sister of a wife; it appeared to him, however, that this feeling of sanctity environing the sister-in-law arose from something very different from any statute that had been introduced into this country. Undoubtedly there were degrees and shades of moral turptitude in every class of immoral transactions; there were degrees even in the atrocious crime of adultery; but the considerations respecting this matter rested, as it appeared to him, on matters totally different from any statute; and though he was not disposed to say, that against those additional shades of guilt it was not advisable to enact punishments by penal statutes, which we did not, be it remarked, do at present, yet to his mind it was not possible to trace the superior personal sanctity which environed a sister-in-law to the operation of any law whatever. But, again, it was objected, that his measure would operate unfavourably with respect to the degree of intercourse between the sister and the person who was the husband of the deceased sister, and the father of her children, which it might introduce or lead to. But at present he was not sure, that it was very easy to conduct that very familiar intercourse which was supposed by those who made this objection. But put the case, that the parties were allowed to marry; it would not surely be thought, that those who did not marry had any very questionable attachment for one another. These were some of the objections which were made sometimes on one side, and sometimes on another. But when on a subject so sacred, he thought, that those who objected were bound to make out a case of social expediency to a very great amount before they were entitled to make their objections. He had said, that this statute was evaded to a very considerable extent, and that its enactments were not treated with that deference with which the near relationship of affinity and consanguinity was treated by all but criminals; still it was very difficult to come at the statistics of this matter, and for this reason, that however unjust the law might be considered by the parties, they might and often did feel that the existence of the law caused a slur on their characters which they were unwilling to exhibit before the public, and hence it was, that any one who had contracted, or wished to contract, a marriage of this sort might be expected to be very unwilling to have his name and case brought forward. With respect to the extent to which the law had been evaded, he might mention, that he believed that, since 1835, in Manchester alone, about ninety-one cases of evasion of it had been ascertained to have occurred, and it was supposed, that four or five times as many had taken place. He was afraid that the law was much more likely to be evaded among the lower classes than among the higher; for he considered, that it was very difficult for persons of inferior education to draw the line between the moral and practical effect of the statute of 1835. They were bound also to consider in dealing with such a subject how far they were interfering with the liberty of the subject. But it was not an easy matter to put ourselves in the position of others. There was one argument, which was used by Bishop Jewel, and used, too, by him as a topic of consolation to a friend who had consulted him under circumstances similar to those they were now contemplating, which had been since used as an argument addressed to the subject in general; and thinking as he did upon the subject, he must say he was glad that the opponents of his opinion could not find any stronger weapon of argument with reference to that part of the subject that bore upon the question of expediency in defence of their views. The words of Bishop Jewel, addressed, as he had said, to one who had applied to him for advice and consolation under such circumstances as these were,— The world is wide, and there are other women from whom you may choose your wife. Now much the same was said to our first, parents, when, "with wandering steps and slow," they began their walk from Paradise, "The world was all before them." But was that a consolation to them, when looking back they saw the sword of the avenging angel flashing over the walls which they had left? No; they were paying the fruit of their disobedience, forewarned, as they had been, of the consequences that would follow their neglect of that direct and positive mandate. There the voice of Heaven had been expressed; but in this case the voice of Heaven was silent, and that of man had been given with a hesitation and confusion of utterance that deprived it of its due authority. Here too, perhaps, "some natural tears they shed;" but who could say what change of scene and lapse of time could mitigate the regrets of one who would very probably be at that age when passion, to use the words of Burke, had lost half its grossness, but not all its power, and who might perhaps feel those affections which had been extinguished for the moment by a crushing domestic calamity, revive and recover towards a person whom he might consider their legitimate object, and if so, as being worthy of his warmest devotion. Come between that person and that object if you would, and blast his hopes, but spare at least your cold and insulting consolation. Preach to him; reason with him; threaten him, if you would; tell him of Basil, of Diodorus, and of Councils of Illiberis: but do not tell him hat the world is wide before him, and that there are other women for his wile and fur the stepmother of his children He might bow to the dictation, though that was doubtful; he might submit to the law because he felt the expediency of so doing; but at least such oil and wine as that would only fester in the wound To look at the case as far as regarded the feelings of a wife. A wife might desire to leave her children to the care of her sister. Surely, it was a great responsibility in the law to interfere between a man and such injunctions of a wife. He repeated that he did not mean to assume that his views on the subject were sufficient to warrant the particular conclusion to which he had come, but he did think he was justified in saying that this was a more than hasty law requiring and calling for the most careful consideration, and one which ought not to have been legislated upon as it was in 1835, though at that time the confession was made that legislation was not lasting and perpetual. He trusted that he had, however, made out such a case as would induce the House to entertain the subject in all its bearings. He should not think it his duty to enter into the history of the laws by which these prohibitions were created. It was well known that up to 1835 those prohibitions rested only on the canons of 1603, Archbishop Parker's prohibited degrees. There had been no subsequent canon or enactment of the sort until the second enactment of the statute of 1835. By the bill which he proposed, he removed the effect of that statute, and in a schedule he would set forth the degrees of consanguinity and lineal affinity to which the prohibition would apply. He should propose to make the prohibitions as distinct as possible; and, upon the whole, he did not think that by the measure he should run the risk of weakening the moral sanctity of marriage, which it was now feared would attend an alteration of the law. He considered that by dealing out strict justice they would not impair the strength of that which in this country they all desired to maintain, but, on the contrary, materially aid and support it. He had hardly mentioned the subject of the state of the law in foreign countries with regard to this subject. It was one from which the supporters of the existing law could derive little assistance. In the most Christian communities of Europe these marriages were allowed under various restrictions. These restrictions, in the Protestant States of Germany, were chiefly directed against the crime of previous adultery, and in some instances they invested the sovereign with a power of dispensation similar to that which in Roman Catholic countries lay in the Pope. The common consent of other Protestant Christian countries in favour of allowing these marriages rendered it to him more surprising that they should have been so long prohibited here. Whatever his own views, however, might be of the kind of legislation that ought to be adopted on the subject, he left the case in the hands of the House, satisfied that the interests of individuals would pass out of them safe and uninjured. The noble Lord concluded by moving for leave to bring in his bill.

Sir R. H. Inglis

said, regretting, as he did, that a bill on such a subject should have been introduced at all, he doubly regreted that it should have been brought forward by one who, to say nothing of his acquirements and station, brought to the House a character that added a double weight to what he believed to be an evil. On this account, he regreted that the noble Lord should have been the leader in bringing it forward. The noble Lord and the House, however, would understand that he was disposed to treat with respect everything that fell from the noble Lord, and he would imitate the calmness and absence of party feeling with which the noble Lord had brought the subject forward. The noble Lord said, he had placed the question on its true grounds the revealed word of God, but the noble Lord said he did not find in the revealed word of God, anything contrary to the measure he now proposed to introduce. He would not enter into the theological part of the question, because he did not think that House a fit place for such discussions, and still less when they went into matters of detail upon them. Though he followed the example of the noble Lord, however, as regarded the mode of treating that part of the subject, he did not agree with the noble Lord, conceiving, as he did, that the law of God did prohibit that which the noble Lord sought to legalize. It would be sufficient for him to state what the noble Lord had not denied, and what, he believed, was undeniable, that the concurrent testimony of the universal Christian Church distinctly showed that the marriages which the noble Lord sought to sanctify, were by the church not sanctioned. Such marriages might or might not be contrary to Scripture—they might or might not be contrary to the revealed will of God—but, certainly, the universal church, for fifteen centuries, declared them to be contrary to her tenets. The noble Lord had referred to the Council of Illiberis. Without entering into details regarding any decisions of that council, he would simply repeat the proposition, that in no instance in church antiquity would the noble Lord find these marriages to have been sanctified. But it was not necessary, for the purpose of his argument, to rest either on the revealed will of God, or on the practice of the church. He believed there were reasons in the circumstances of the time fully sufficient to render such a measure as this a very improper one to be entertained, and it was, for practical, political, and general reasons, that he felt bound especially to offer the bill every opposition in his power. The noble Lord had stated some cases of seeming hardship to individuals. He had referred to the case of a person bereaved of his wife, who in her dying moments consigned their children to the care of her own sister, and enjoined her husband to make that sister his lawful wife. He would not deny that such cases existed, not perhaps in great numbers, but not certainly to as great an extent as the noble Lord had represented; but even making this admission, what was the state of the case? Why it would be found that for every solitary instance in which the present law pressed heavily, there would be nine-and-forty others in which its alteration would be destructive to domestic peace; for were the noble Lord's proposition agreed to, husbands would be in a great measure deprived of the assistance of those who, next to their own wives, were the best assistants in the care and nurture of their children. He believed that at present there was only one case on record in our courts of law, in which an unlawful intercourse was even alleged to have taken place between a husband and his wife's sister. What was this owing to? Solely because, under the present state of the law, husbands considered their wives's sisters to stand in the same relation to them as their own sisters. ["Oh."] He earnestly hoped that denial was not intended to imply that there was any one in that House or in the country who looked on the relationship in any other point of view. He emphatically repeated that he did believe the sentiment prevailed, and he should be exceedingly sorry to suppose that it was otherwise. But looking at the measure in another point of view, he could not but hold that, even limiting it to one single consideration specified by his noble Friend, he should yet find in that one consideration a specific ground for opposing the measure. It had always been his habit when he saw a measure which was objectionable either in a parliamentary or a moral sense, to consider himself bound either to affirm the principle, or to reject it. Even, therefore, limiting his view of the present measure to one solitary circumstance, he should feel bound to vote for its rejection. The noble Lord did not confine his measure to marriages with a deceased wife's sister, but he proposed to annex a schedule which would open the ground to further alteration. At least the proposition of the noble Lord would come to the same thing. Whatever was not included would be so much withdrawn from what was allowed by the Church of England, and by other Christian churches. His noble Friend said the voice of Heaven was silent, and that the voice of man was in favour of this measure; and he had referred to what had occurred in the House on this subject some years ago. Now, what security would they have if they consented to this bill, that seven years hence another new measure on the subject would not be proposed, suggesting new amendments in addition to those to be effected by the present schedule? He said that it was most undesirable that they should open the door to such an occurrence. This was not a subject of an exciting nature—it was not a subject so free from all delicacy and difficulty that it was desirable for the House to be continually called on to legislate upon it. He felt, therefore, that there was sufficient in the announcement of this measure to induce him to take the sense of the House as to whether they should consider it at all, and, without wearying them any further, he did hope that they would put a stop to such bills by at once rejecting the noble Lord's proposition.

Mr. M. Milnes

regretted the intention expressed by the right hon. Baronet who had just sat down, not because he at all objected to his taking the sense of the House on an amendment which he might consider perfectly right and just, but because he considered this to be one of those peculiar cases in which they might take the principle of the measure home to their thoughts and feelings, and give it every consideration with great advantage to themselves and to those for whom they legislated. He felt, that this question was a very important and a very difficult one, branching out into more ramifications than the right hon. Baronet supposed, and that it was also a question on which they ought maturely to deliberate. He disagreed with the opinion that the universal Ca- tholic Church had entirely prohibited marriages of this description. He knew the canon law, and he knew, that that law provided a dispensation in certain cases. That our Established Church should select any one point of that canon law—for that law made distinctions even in eases of second cousins, which our Church had not adopted—that the Church of England should fix on that one point, and establish an arbitrary limit without giving any power of dispensation, either civil or ecclesiastical, was, he was sorry to say, a great tyranny, and one which he felt convinced that the true principles of the Church of England did not sanction. He repeated, that he thought the question a difficult one, and he might add, that he could not at present say to what conclusion he himself would come upon it; but he did think, that in deciding it they ought not to consider their own feelings, or that of their class. No doubt among some of the upper classes such a change as that proposed might be highly inconvenient and disagreeable; but they should look abroad —they should look at the feelings of the farmers in the rural districts, and at the opinions of the operatives in the large manufacturing towns; and if they found, that these favoured a measure of this sort, they should, he thought, give it their grave consideration, and arrive at a conclusion upon it without reference to their own feelings. If they found that the opinion was opposed to a change, why, then let them pause; but do not let them reject the measure until they had considered the subject largely and substantially, and as regarded the welfare and domestic peace of the homes of a large class of the people of England. He hoped, that no such summary decision as the hon. Baronet, the Member for the University of oxford, wished for would be come to by the House, because he did not believe that any such was required either by affection to the Church or loyalty to the State.

Mr. A. J. B. Hope

concurred with the hon. Baronet, the Member for Oxford, in his determination to take the sense of the House on the present occasion. He had heard with great regret the noble Lord panegyrising many individuals as moral men who, according to his own showing, had within the last seven years transgressed the law both of the Church and the State. He thought the most kind course towards those individuals would have been to pass over their conduct in silence. The noble Lord considered that this question might be regarded both in a religious and social point of view. The religious part of the question he had passed over without many remarks; but he could not help expressing his regret, that such a holy institution was to be invaded on reasons so unsatisfactory. The second point urged by the noble Lord was the social influence of the enactment. If a man married his wife's sister, she would be either a good or bad stepmother. If the aunt was willing to take care of the children in such a case, why not let her do so instead of becoming the parent of other children who would he their rivals in affection. He was quite convinced, that the new law would be quite inadequate to carry out its own provisions. There was another serious objection to the proposed alteration, which had not yet been noticed—namely, the anomalous position in which it would place the clergy. If this bill should become the law of the land, there would be the law of the Church and its table of decrees, as set forth by Archbishop Parker, and the schedule of the noble Lord; for the Act of Parliament certainly could not repeal those canons without even mentioning them. He called upon the House not to precipitate a measure that would involve the Church in peril and danger, and add to the difficulties already sustained by that meritorious class the clergy of the Church of England. He feared if this measure were acceded to, it would be only regarded as an instalment of some greater measure. In the next seven years, perhaps, a bill would be introduced to legalise the marriages of uncles and nieces, to be succeeded by one to legalise the marriages of brothers and sisters. [" Oh, oh."] That might be rather extravagant, but still it was right in a case like this to take an extreme case to show the peril of opening this question. If it were once opened, it was impossible to say where they should stop, or, however they might desire it, how they could retrace their steps. Facilis descensus Averni; Sed revocare gradum, superasque evadere ad auras, Hoc opus, hic labor est.

Mr. C. Buller

regretted, that a subject of this grave nature had not been brought on at a time when the House was more disposed to discuss it as it deserved. He wished, that the hon. Member for Oxford had been disposed to postpone his opposition to the bill to a later period. He wished Gentlemen would really consider the importance of giving due consideration to this subject. It was really one of the most difficult, and, in its various relations, one of the most important questions that could be brought forward. It should be remembered, that it was no idle vote they were about to give. It might either dash for ever the hopes of many persons who were looking, with intense anxiety, to the passing of this bill; or if they gave a rash vote in favour of it, they might raise hopes that might afterwards be frustrated. With the permission, therefore, of the House, he would move the adjournment of the debate.

Mr. Plumptre

appealed to his hon. Friend, the Member for the University of Oxford to withdraw his opposition for the present, and allow the discussion to be taken on the second reading.

Sir R. H. Inglis

said, he felt bound to say, that he could not comply with the appeal that had been made to him.

Mr. P. Borthwick

hoped the House would see the propriety of acceding to the motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman for the adjournment of the debate.

Dr. Nicholl

observed, that his noble Friend, the Member for Lancashire, had entirely mistaken the real state of the law as applicable to this question. The law applicable to the case was not the canon law of 1603, but the law of the realm of Henry the 8th. In case the debate should be adjourned, he wished hon. Members to turn their attention to that point.

Sir R. Peel

said, he considered this ought not to be a political question; and in speaking of it, he wished to divest himself altogether of that authority which the situation he held naturally gave on ordinary occasions. This question turned on feelings and religious impressions, with which politics had nothing to do. If the course recommended to his hon. Friend should be adopted by him, he should not oppose it; but, at the same time, he must say, that he thought this question might be as well discussed on the motion for leave to bring in the bill, as on the second reading. But if they took the discussion on bringing in the bill, he thought it ought to be a full discussion. It was a subject they could not but be well acquainted with, and as well prepared to discuss then as at any other time; but as his noble Friend did not bring forward his motion till nearly twelve o'clock, he thought, on the whole, it would be better to adjourn the debate, in which he thought it would be advisable that he should avoid expressing his opinions. He would earnestly advise the House not to come to a premature decision on the subject.

Mr. C. Buller

said, he had forgotten to ask to what day it would be convenient to have the debate adjourned.

Sir R. Peel

said, he should bring forward his Corn-law bill to-morrow; over Thursday he had no control; on Friday he should bring forward the great question of which he had given notice. There would only be two or three supply days before Easter, and these would be required for the public service; but he should have no objection that the debate should be adjourned to Friday.

Debate adjourned to that day week.