Commons Sitting of 16 March 1842

Preamble
MINUTES.] BILLS. Public.—1o. Public Houses. 2o Designs Copyright;
Private.—2o.Saundersfoot Railway; Saundersfoot Harbour; Liverpool Paving and Sewerage.
3o. and passed:—Bristol Boundary; Stalybridge Gas,
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Colonel Rawdon, Mr. Aglionby, Mr. Cobden, Dr. Bowring, Mr. Villiers, and Mr. T. Duncombe, from Belfast, Safford, Westbury, Greenock, Haddington, St. Clement's Danes, Lancashire, and other places, for a Repeal of the Corn-laws.—From G. Warr, for Compensation to Corn Inspectors.—By Mr. O'Connell, from Cork, shewing that Cork was the Best Packet Station between the South of England and Ireland; and from Farmers in the county of Meath, in favour of the Importation of Foreign Cattle.—By Mr. J. O'Brien, from Limerick, for Amendment of the Poor Relief (Ireland) Act.—By Colonel Rawdon, from Mil-town, and Down, for the Marriages (Ireland) Bill.— By Mr. Brotherton, from Salford, against the Railway Bill.— From the Manchester, Bury, and Bolton Canal and Railway Company, for Alteration of the mode of Charging Duty on Passengers on Railways.—By Mr. Beckett, from Leeds, for Exemption from the Operation of the Borough Improvement Bill.—By Mr. A. Smith, from the Anti-Slavery Society at Hitchin, against the Importation of Hill Coolies to the Mauritius. —By Mr. Shaw, from Rathcormac (County Cork), against

659
the National System of Education in Ireland.—By Mr. Colville, from the Clergy of Derby, for the Equal Rating of Ecclesiastical and Secular Property.—By Mr. C. Baldwin, from several Millers, against the proposed Duty on Foreign Flour.—By Mr. Reade, from Kilkenny, in favour of the Importation of Grain instead of Meal and Flour. —By an hon. Member, from Cordwainer Ward, for Redemption of the Tolls on Waterloo Bridge.—From Wick, for Universel Suffrage.—From the Corporation of Southampton, in favour of County Courts.— From Stratford-upon-Avon, and Nottingham, for Alteration of the Poor-laws,—From Clonolney, for Abolition of the Duty on Foreign Beef.—From Authors, Booksellers, and others, in favour of the Copyright Bill.

THE INCOME TAX—PENSIONS—HER MAJESTY.
Mr. Milner Gibsonbelieved that he had the permission of the right hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Government to repeat a question which he had already put. It was, whether it were the intention of Government to extend the Income-tax to persons receiving annuities from the consolidated fund, under the operation of particular acts of Parliament?
Sir Robert Peelapprehended that the measure which he had proposed subjected to the Income tax all salaries and all annuities, received by any of the subjects of her Majesty; all incomes, however, paid out of the consolidated fund would be subject to a reduction of the duty of 3 per cent. He would take this opportunity of making a communication, which he was sure would be received with much satisfaction by the House. When, on the part of the Government, he had intimated to her Majesty, that her servants were of opinion that the financial difficulties of the country were such as to make it desirable to submit, although in time of peace, the incomes of her Majesty's subjects for a limited period to a tax of 3 per cent., her Majesty, prompted by those feelings of deep and affectionate interest in the welfare of her people which she had ever manifested, stated to him that if the financial condition of the country was such that, in a time of peace, Parliament should think it necessary to subject all incomes to a certain charge, it was her determination that her own income should be subjected to a similar burden.
Mr. Ricardoasked whether incomes derived from terminable annuities would be subjected to the same rate of taxation as income derived from permanent annuities.
Sir Robert Peelbegged the question might be deferred until Friday, when the subject would come on for discussion regularly. It was not that he had any
660
doubt with reference to the answer which he should give, but it was a most inconvenient course continually to draw the attention of Government to a question not strictly before it.
Subject at an end.

CALEDONIAN CANAL.
Mr. E. Ellice,said, that on a previous occasion the right hon. Baronet opposite had stated that it was his intention to submit the report of Sir Edward Parry upon the Caledonial Canal to a committee. Upon looking to the papers of the House, however, he found no notice of any such committee being likely to be appointed. As the recess was drawing near, unless the committee in question should be soon appointed, he feared that the gallant officer's labours would have but a very sorry result. He was afraid that the right hon. Baronet opposite would think that on matters of minor importance such questions were not a little troublesome, but the great anxiety felt in the North of Scotland that the matter should be decided in one way or another warranted him in pressing the matter on the attention of Government. His question was, whether the right hon. Baronet intended to nominate a committee before Easter?
Sir R. Peelcould assure the hon. Gentleman that he considered the matter to which his question had reference as by no means one of minor importance. He had seen the names of the gentlemen proposed to form the committee upon paper, and he really thought that the notice had been given. He saw no reason why it should not be given for to-morrow.

PRISON DISCIPLINE.
Mr. O'Connellwished to make a few remarks on something which had last night fallen from the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department, in vindicating the conduct of the rev. Mr. Bagshawe. A demand had been made by a Catholic prisoner for a priest, and the question as to what he wished to have his attendance for was discussed between the gaoler and the chaplain, who came to the resolution that the prisoner wished for the priest to assist him in conducting his defence; the request for his attendance was therefore rejected. On looking over the act of Parliament, he found no such discretionary power, as had been here exercised, entrusted to either chaplain or gaoler. The

661
act stipulated that if a request should be made by a Catholic prisoner for the attendance of a priest, it should be granted. It would, however, appear that the right hon. Baronet had vindicated the conduct of the clergyman alluded to.
Sir James Grahamsaid, that, admitting the statute to run as the hon. Member had construed it, yet that the case alluded to did not come within the limits of those provisions which it was alleged had been violated. He understood that the prisoner had refused to comply with the general rules and regulations of the gaol.
Subject at an end.

CHARGES AGAINST MANUFACTURERS —THE TRUCK SYSTEM.
Mr. Villierssaid, that not having precisely understood the rule the Speaker had laid down the other evening with respect to persons out of this House noticing what had been said by Members in the House, he wished to know whether in the present case he was in order. If he understood the Speaker, the right hon. Gentleman had said that persons out of the House were not entitled in any statement they might submit to the House to comment upon or answer any charges affecting them made by any Member of the House. The House would remember that the question arose upon certain manufacturers and others in Lancashire, charged with certain practices by the hon. Member for Knaresborough, denying the truth of his statements. Since that time, and late last evening, during his absence from the House, the same hon. Member, as he was informed, had repeated some of the same charges which the hon. Member had uttered before. Now he wished to know whether, as the hon. Member had been suffered to make such statements, he might read the notice of his speech by the woollen manufacturers residing in Yorkshire in the precise places where the hon. Member had brought his accusations, denying everything that the Hon. Member had said with regard to them? He had declarations to this effect now in his hand, and he wished to know if he were precluded by the rules of the House from reading them.
The Speakersaid, that such a proceeding would be irregular.
Mr. Villierssaid, they certainly contained a reference to the hon. Member's speech, as the charges were contained in that speech. He wished now to know
662
whether, upon any future occasion, or upon any other motion, he should be allowed to submit them to the House?
The Speakersaid, that the only way in which such a denial could be made, was either in moving for a committee upon the subject, or in examinations before that committee.
Mr. Ferrandsaid, that if the hon. Member for Wolverhampton would publish to the world the names of the whole of the members of the Anti-Corn-law League, it would soon be discovered who did, and who did not, pursue the truck system.
Mr. Villierssaid, that the hon. Member must see that he could not give the hon. Member a list of the Anti-Corn-law League. He was not aware who were members of it. He had only received the statements of many of that body denying the statements of the hon. Member, and he certainly had seen no reason to doubt the truth of what they said respecting themselves.
Mr. Cobdenwished to ask a question of the hon. Member for Knaresborough, with reference to what had fallen from him last night. The hon. Member was reported in the Times to have said, "The other night, the Member for Stockport said he had inquired whether, in his mills or ' printing-works, the truck system prevailed, and that he had found that it did not—whereas, the fact was, that the hon. Member himself kept cows, and forced his people to buy milk from them." He wished to know whether the hon. Member for Knaresborough charged him with the truck system?
Mr. Ferrandsaid, that what he had said was, that he did not know whether the hon. Member for Stockport was in his place, but if he was, would the hon. Member deny that he kept cows, and supplied the people with milk from them, deducting the amount from their wages?
Mr Cobden:Does the hon. Member charge me with pursuing the truck-system?
Mr. Ferrandhad said "Would the hon Member deny it?" If he did, it was his duty to take that denial; but he would give his reasons for having asked the question, and his authority for having done so.
Mr. Cobdenhoped that the House Would give him credit for not wishing to introduce personal discussion into its debates. It seemed to him that the statement which

663
had gone abroad in the "Times" as a charge 1 against him was withdrawn. He was not, therefore, directly called upon to answer it, but he would treat it as a charge made against him last night which was not adhered to to-day. If, however, the House would allow him, he would state a few: facts in reference to the business with which he was connected. That business could not be carried on without the consumption of large quantities of cow-dung He was now letting the hon. Member for Knaresborough into the arcana of the calico printing trade. As many hundred tons of dung were used in this trade, it was necessary for manufacturers to keep great: numbers of cows. Now, it so happened: that his printing work being situated close to a town, it was found more convenient to buy the requisite quantity of dung than to keep cows, and therefore the insinuations of the hon. Member for Knaresborough were not only untrue, but destitute of the shadow of a foundation. If the House would allow him, he would remind it that those charges were evidently got up for the purpose of distracting the attention of the public from a great and important question. He must confess that he did not understand how the alleged misconduct of mill-owners and manufacturers could properly form a part of discussions on the Corn-laws. If it was true, as the hon. Member for Knaresborough had stated, that the master manufacturers were tyrants to their workmen, that could be no reason why their sufferings should be added to by increasing the price of food.
Mr. S. Worthyrose to order. The hon. Member for Stockport was not in order in entering into the Corn-law question. He should confine himself to the charge brought against him.
The Speakersaid, that the question before the house was that the order of the day be now read. Hon. Members ought not to wander from it.
Mr. Cobdendid not feel that he was intruding upon the House. He had tried to avoid personalities. He had borne much from the other side of the House. He had borne it because he knew that the annoyance was part of a system to lead attention away from a great question recently before the House. He was not afraid to meet the hon. Member for Knaresborough on questions of personal character. If this House was to be made an arena for the discussion of questions of social relations between fathers and sons,
664
brothers and sisters, nephews and nieces, masters and servants, or between neighbour and neighbour, he would not be ashamed to enter into such discussion. Nay, he challenged the hon. Member to it. He had always studied to avoid personalities, but if charges were to be made against him he should meet the Gentleman who brought them forward on any ground which he wished. He repeated that such charges were only attempts to divert public attention from a great question. Hon. Members charged manufacturers with being tyrants to their workmen. He did not stand there as an advocate for their indiscriminate defence. There were good and bad mill-owners and manufacturers, as there were good and bad of all classes; but that was no reason for stigmatising them as a class; and even although they were all, without exception, bad, still that, again, was no reason for taxing the poor man's loaf. The great question from which attention was sought to be diverted was that attacking corn and provision monopoly—attacking the monopoly of the people's bread; and, when it was attempted to divert public attention from these grievances, by talking of "devil's dust," and the enormities of the manufacturers, such subjects of discussion were quite unworthy of the House.
Mr. S. Wortleysaid, there was no man in the House more averse to the introduction of personal altercation than he was, but with respect to the charges of the hon. Member for Knaresborough, this must be borne in mind, that when that hon. Gentleman undertook to show that the gentlemen connected with the Anti-Corn-law League were obnoxious to these imputations, he was only following an example set him by the hon. Gentleman opposite. Whatever might be the faults of the hon. Member for Knaresborough, he (Mr. S. Wortley) would at least say— and he thought that the majority of the House would agree with him in the assertion—that charges against his language did not come with very good grace from the hon. Gentleman opposite, who had taken so violent a part in the defence of the league. With respect to the hon. Member for Stockport, could the House forget the language which he had used last Session, while addressing the House upon the agricultural interest? The House would not forget the terms "monsters, and tyrants, and demons," which figured in that speech. [Mr. Cobden spoke

665
of their legislation.] He spoke of the agricultural classes collectively; he spoke of the landowners interposing like monsters between the people and their prosperity. And when such language was made use of on that side of the House—when such sentiments were promulgated in other parts of the country—when such violent and rancorous descriptions were given, could the Member for Stockport he so simple as to suppose that abuse of this kind could be made use of by persons in his station without being necessarily followed by retribution—that retribution which had descended upon its author in this House? Whatever might be the justice of the cause the hon. Member for Knaresborough advocated, however severe the criticism which might be made on some of the observations of that Gentleman, he did say that the hon. Member for Stockport was the last person in the world who was justified in attacking the hon. Member.
Viscount Howickwould have taken no part in the present discussion, had it not been for some remarks which had fallen from the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. He could not help expressing his surprise, nay, his deep regret, that a gentleman for whom he entertained so much respect should come forward in that House, and endeavour to defend the employment in its debates of those gross personalities which had been, in his opinion, so mischievously introduced. The hon. Member said, that, without pretending to justify the tone of the observations of the hon. Member for Knaresborough—for he was hardly prepared to do that—yet that he was not surprised at them, in consequence of the provocation which the hon. Member for Knaresborough had received from the other side of the House, and particularly on the part of the hon. Member for Stockport. Now he would refer to the speeches made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Knaresborough, and also to the charges brought against that class of persons interested in land. He agreed with the hon. Member for Stockport in disapproving of those wholesale charges with respect to any class of men; he disapproved of those insinuations which had been thrown out by the Anti-Corn League. He believed that the course adopted by that body had materially injured the cause to which it was attached—the cause of effecting a material improvement in the laws regulating the importation of foreign corn. But he would point out to the hon. Member who had
666
just sat down, and to the House, the manifest differences between charges brought against a class—charges, however improper, affecting their conduct as a public body, and charges applied to individuals pointed out by name, or indicated by allusion— charges applied to particular persons, not only of misconduct, but of gross infraction of the law. He was sure that nothing could be more injurious than the introduction of such topics in that House—nothing so little likely to tend to a calm consideration of the subjects which came before its notice; but he agreed with the hon. Member for Stockport that there was a still greater error on the part of Gentlemen on the other side of the House, when they attempted, by means of personality, to lead away attention from a great measure. He would not have said a word upon the subject had it not been for what had fallen from his hon. Friend opposite; but after having heard the sentiments which he had given utterance to, he found it impossible for him to refrain from expressing the difference which existed between their opinions on the subject. He thought that the personalities which had been used with respect to the manufacturers could not be justified, and could not be palliated, because they were of a different character from those brought against landowners. He trusted that there would he in future an absence of all reference to similar personalities.
Mr. Ferrandsaid, that the House would remember what the hon. Member for Stockport had declared, that the Corn-laws were the cause of the distress of the working classes. During the last recess it had been his lot, and his privilege, to have had many conferences with the working men in his part of the country. He had communed with deputations sent from the West Riding of Yorkshire, and all those persons distinctly stated that the distress was occasioned not by the Corn-laws, but by the tyranny, the oppression, and the plundering of the master manufacturers. He had stood up in his place, and said so; and in this matter he had used the argumentum ad hominem. He had done it. He had also been prepared to give evidence in support of his assertions; and though the hon. Member for Stockport had stated that he spoke on anonymous authority, he could prove all he had said, and would prove it when a committee was given him for the purpose.
Mr. Villierssaid, that he hoped he

667
House would remember that he had only been precluded by the forms of the House from reading a most complete denial of the hon. Member's statements, coming from Bingley and other places in the hon. Member's immediate neighbourhood.
Subject at an end.

COPYRIGHT OF DESIGNS.
Mr. E. Tennentrose to move the second reading of the bill for consolidating and amending the laws relating to copyright in designs for ornamenting articles of manufacture. It was now the third Session in which he had had the honour to submit a measure on' the subject, and as there was a large proportion of the Members of the House who had not had seats in the last Parliament, and consequently were not aware of what had already passed upon the matter, and as some opposition was threatened to the bill, he hoped he would be favoured with the attention of the House for a few moments, whilst he endeavoured very briefly to explain its scope and objects. There were in this and in every other country which aspired to refinement two branches of art, distinct in their application, though essentially identical in their origin — namely, art pre-eminently so called, as in a statue or a picture, where the value of the material was comparatively nothing, and, apart from its beauty, it was applicable to no definable use, and art as applied to decoration upon such substances, and destined to such purposes as combined utility with ornament, and which formed the great staple of the manufactures of Europe. In the encouragement which was afforded to the first of these the law of England exhibited a just and an enlightened generosity, which contrasted most disadvantageously with the scanty and unbecoming protection which it extended to the other. A painter who chooses to engrave one of his drawings can have for it in the form of a print a copyright for twenty-eight years, or for life if he survive that period; but if he permit one of his designs to be printed on cotton or silk instead of paper, his copyright shrinks at once from twenty-eight years to three months. In like manner a sculptor, if he publish a bas-relief upon marble, can claim for it an exclusive title for fourteen years, to be doubled if he live so long; but if he choose to chase it on a cup or a wine cooler, it becomes "a design for manufactures," and is entitled to no more than three years' protection. Any one who
668
looked no farther into the subject than the first inference to be drawn from a distinction so broadly marked, as this would be disposed to conclude, that in the contemplation of the Legislature, art lost its dignity and forfeited its privileges the moment it came into contact with utility, or was applied to the decoration of manufactures; and yet a moment's observation will demonstrate, that it is to the intimate combination of art and design with every branch of our industry, that the manufactures of this country, and still more especially those of the continent, are indebted for their superiority and success. Experience has shown us, that in every country of Europe in which art has been induced and encouraged to blend itself with manufacture, precisely in the proportion to their combination have all their productions which manifest taste and minister to refinement risen into estimation and preeminence. In confirmation of this, it is only necessary to look to the appreciation which prevails in every country of the world for the silks of Lyons and the muslins of Alsace; for the bijouterie and jewellery of Paris; the iron castings of Prussia; the glass of Bohemia, and the china of Dresden, Berlin, and Sevres. It was with a view to promote this intimate incorporation of industry and art, of elevating and improving the character of design as applied to articles of manufacture in this country, and thus enabling us still more successfully to compete with our rivals upon the continent of Europe, that he had framed his bill; and it was on this ground alone, that he claimed for it the support and the favour of the House. In every department of industrial art it was incontestable, that the productions of France stood pre-eminently at the head of all the countries of Europe, and the causes of the superiority were to be traced distinctly to two obvious sources; first, the superior training of her artisans in her numerous schools of design; and, secondly, to the encouragement and protection derivable from a law of copyright in their designs, which gave them a remunerative interest in their works for three, five, or fifteen years, and even for life, if they desired it. He knew that there were some Gentlemen in the House, and amongst them the hon. Member for Coventry, who were disposed to question the accuracy of the assertion, that this law and their excellence were the cause and effect; and who ascribed their undoubted superiority

669
to some natural configuration in the artists of France, which had been withheld from the inhabitants of this country—some organs for the special production of designs; as it had been said by some similar materialist,—
"That Milton had glands in his brain,
Which secreted the Paradise Lost."
But, however a metaphysical argument may be sustained upon the point, one fact, at least admits neither of a question nor doubt—that, so far from an effectual copyright for designs being prejudicial to manufactures, those of France have attained the very highest point of excellence and of beauty, as well as the most extended demand in every market of the world, concurrently with the enjoyment of the most extended term of protection. The words, too, in which the copyright was conferred in France were very remarkable, as exhibiting the results of practical experience in that country. The first law of copyright in France was passed in 1737, for the silk-weavers of Lyons; and in 1787, it was extended to the rest of the kingdom, in an ordinance of which the following is the preamble:—
"The King in Council having caused to be laid before him the representation and memorials of the manufacturers of Tours and Lyons, respecting the attacks upon their property and the general interests of manufacturers, by copying their designs, his Majesty recognises that the superiority which the silk manufacture of this kingdom has acquired is principally due to the invention, correctness, and good taste of design; and that the emulation which animates the manufacturers and designers will be annihilated if they are not assured of reaping the fruits of their labours; and that this certainly has hitherto maintained the manufacture in France, and secured for it a preference in foreign countries."
And then follows the enactment of a copyright of designs for fifteen years—a protection which was subsequently extended to the life of the inventor, and applied not only to silk, but to every branch of manufacturing industry, and which had been productive of the most beneficial results throughout the entire range of the manufactures of France. Such is the state of the law on this subject in France; and he would now very briefly state the provisions in this country. Down to the year 1839, the only law of copyright in designs which existed in England was an act of the year 1794, conferring a copyright of three months upon printed calicoes and linens;
670
but no other article, not even woven patterns had any copyright whatsoever, till Mr. Poulett Thomson, in 1839, introduced two bills, by one of which he extended the existing act to printed silks and woollens; and by another he affixed various terms of copyright to numerous other articles, giving a protection of three years to designs in metals, and twelve months to every other branch of manufacture, silk weaving, carpet making, paper hangings, and all other articles in which the value of the patterns forms an essential element in computing the value of the whole. It was Mr. Poulett Thomson's wish in this bill to have given the same protection of twelve months to printed goods as to woven designs; but as his act required that every design should be registered as a condition precedent, and the fee on such registration was fixed at one guinea, the parties, from a dread of the expense, as well as the inconvenience in their expensive operations, begged to be exempted from the operation of the measure till the system should have been tested by experience. Since that period the main suggestions which have been made, and in compliance with which the present bill has been framed, have been to consolidate all the laws upon this subject in one act; to place the manufactures in glass and earthenware, which had but twelve months' copyright upon the same footing as manufactures in metal; to extend the term of copyright for paper-hangings, carpets, and shawls, from one year to three; and lastly, to extend the copyright for printed designs from the original term of three months to nine—a proposition which had met for a time considerable resistance, but to which he was induced to believe, that some of the leading opponents were now disposed to withdraw their opposition. These printed designs are by far the most valuable and important of all to which the act applies, and the law exhibits this indefensible anomaly respecting them, that between the copyright for a design printed upon one piece of silk or muslin, and woven into another, there is a difference of nine months. Nay, further, as it frequently happens, that the same design is both woven into and printed upon the same piece of cloth, it has in one process a protection of twelve months, and in the other only of three; and this, too, whilst the process to which there is the slightest protection is by far the most easily invaded, and requires the most prompt and effectual protection of the two. The opposition to

671
this measure has, as a matter of course been confined almost exclusively to those who have themselves been in the habit of treating the inventions of their more ingenious competitors as public property, and who felt that any effectual law would interfere with these practices. And associated with these were also a few gentlemen, untainted by any dishonourable practices, but conscientiously entertaining some vague and ill-grounded apprehensions for the effect of any change upon the economy of the trade, which have been now in a great degree removed. With the single exception of a few houses in Manchester, every printer in England was in favour of the measure he had now to propose; and an equal unanimity prevailed on the subject both in Scotland and in Ireland, where every individual in the trade, without exception, had petitioned this House to pass the bill. The House, too, would bear in mind that he was seeking to introduce no new principle, but simply to give effect to a well-meant provision, which already existed in the statute law, but which through the lapse of time had become inoperative. For upwards of half a century the principle had been received and acted upon, that some copyright should be provided for designers, and all he now sought was to fix an equitable and reasonable period for its duration, such as would give effect to the intentions of the Legislature. In this course, too, he was fortified by the report of a committee of the House of Commons, which sat in the year 1840, and after a long and laborious investigation came to the conclusion that it was expedient for the interests of the trade, both at home and abroad, that the term of copyright should be extended. He would, if he acted on his own judgment alone, be in favour of extending it from three months to twelve, and thus placing printed designs upon the same footing with woven patterns; but, in deference to the opinions of some whose judgment he respected, and from a desire rather to conciliate than to overrule the prejudices of others, he had adopted the middle term of nine months, which, although it was inadequate for many of the purposes which he sought to provide, was still sufficient for others, and, on the whole, would he a material improvement on the present law. It was somewhat remarkable, that the entire bill, applying to every manufacture in the whole range of British industry, was not only unopposed, but joyfully hailed by all
672
the parties interested, with one single exception, and that on the part of a section of the trade of calico printing; and to that branch alone, he would, therefore, confine the observations which he had to make, in recommending it to the adoption of the House. In this branch of manufactures, a greater number of designs are required, than in any other in England, and for this reason, that in every other department, not only in manufactures in metal but in articles for dress, the material is infinitely more costly and durable, and the uses to which they are applied, more permanent and unchanging. In calicoes and muslins, on the contrary, novelty and beauty are of infinitely more importance than durability and strength, and it is essential to meet the demand of every fluctuating fashion by an endless rotation of new and contrasting designs. To those, therefore, who have not the genius or the capital to provide these for themselves in sufficiently rapid succession, the utmost temptation is held out to appropriate and live upon the inventions of their more talented and enterprising competitors; and thus a disgraceful and demoralizing system of piracy and pilfering has been engendered to which it is the object of this bill to put an effectual check. This will be the more easily understood, when he explained, that a design which might cost its ingenious inventor some 20 l. or 30 l., which it may have taken some months to produce and to engrave, and involved the necessity of many unsuccessful experiments, before it was exactly suited to the cloth, might be copied by the pirate in a few moments, with the aid of a sheet of tracing paper, and produced on inferior cloth, and in inferior colours, so speedily as to enter the market almost simultaneously in competition with the original from which it was stolen. The mischief inflicted upon the original producer by this indefensible system was almost incredible, since its effects were felt in every process of his trade. Not only is he undersold in his own markets, but the character and reputation of his house are undermined by these spurious re-issues of its productions, and the confidence of his customers is shaken by finding these cheap imitations offered in direct competition with the more costly originals in their hands. The pirate, in fact, has infinite inducements to this unlawful traffic; he runs no risk of failure in his speculations, since he selects only the successful patterns of his neighbours, who have to bear the loss on those which are

673
unsuccessful, and not only has he all his designs supplied to him at a trifling cost, but he enters the market at the very moment when they are in full demand, and has thus an instant return for his capital invested. The House, he was quite certain, were not aware of the ruinous extent to which this system was carried on by certain houses at Manchester, which was the only district in the kingdom in which piracy was known to exist. He would read to the House one or two statements with reference to it, from the evidence given before the committee of 1840, which would afford them some idea of its extent and effects. One gentleman of considerable eminence as a calico-printer at Manchester, when examined by the committee, stated unhesitatingly, that for many years of his life, his whole business had consisted of one indiscriminate system of piracy; that he copied of his neighbour's designs, just as many as suited his purpose, sometimes within the period of the three months' copyright, and sometimes after its expiration; that he generally printed his copies upon inferior cloth, and in inferior colours, so as to undersell the original producer and yet leave himself a fair profit; and that he took the precaution to publish his goods "as the act directs," so as actually to claim the original property in the designs he appropriated; and if challenged, he would have defended them as such, though aware of the contrary, and relied on his purse to defeat the injured proprietor. As an instance of the extent to which it was practised in the foreign trade, he begged the attention of the House to the following evidence of an eminent merchant in the city, as given before the committee of 1840.—
" Mr. Louis Lucas.—Is a merchant of the firm of Nicholls, Lucas, and Co., extensive dealers in printed calicoes for foreign export.
"Are you in the habit of having goods printed expressly for yourselves from your own designs?—Yes, frequently, from what is exhibited to us, but this is the nature of our business: we are in the habit of receiving from abroad almost constantly, as the packets arrive, patterns of goods suitable to those markets. We have a branch house at Manchester, and they are sent to it, and we endeavour to find out such calico printers as will produce them at the cheapest rate.
" Irrespective of who may be the proprietor or inventor of the pattern?—We ask no questions upon that subject.
" And you pay no regard to the fact whose property these patterns may be, provided you can get them executed at a price such as may
674
suit the market?—It has never entered our heads to ask that question.
Price alone is the object with you?ߞ Price alone is the object.
" Do you purchase largely of printed goods? —We do; in the last six months our shipments must have been 60,000 pieces.
" Are you aware there is a law giving a copyright of three months to designs on printed calicoes?—I have heard so."
This gentleman thinks "nothing more destructive to the commerce of the country could have been suggested" than any extension of the copyright; the effect of it being, that he could then get no printer in Manchester to undertake his peculiar orders. Now, he can take a pattern round the trade till he finds who will do it cheapest; and, he says, "such is the frailty of people," that if the original proprietor wont come down to his terms he can always find a copyist who will. And as for the present protection of three months, he never found it, in his operations, to be an obstacle, "or any protection at all." Mr. Edward Brooke, a printer of furniture calicoes, states that piracy prevails to such an extent in his particular branch of trade, that at one time "every pattern produced by his house" was copied by a rival establishment. Mr. Warwick, belonging to another eminent house in the city, stated that on a recent occasion the entire of his designs, intended for the coming season, were pirated in one batch; the consequence of which was, he says, "ruinous to him, and completely paralyzed his trade." Mr. Henry, of Dublin, declares that his establishment has suffered "to an extent almost beyond telling," by copies of his goods being made for export in Manchester, his best patterns being fastened on for that purpose, and his profit on the remainder destroyed in consequence. In December, 1839, he delivered to one gentleman 700 pieces of goods, consisting of eighty-three different patterns, and in the January following (that is, within one month) copies of the whole eighty-three were brought to the same gentleman, pattern for pattern, worked on inferior cloth, and offered 20 per cent. lower than he (Mr. Henry) could afford to sell them at. In other instances orders actually given had been cancelled before they could be fulfilled, in consequence of piratical copies making their way into the market. He declared that his business, in consequence of this ruinous practice,
" Was almost at a stand-still, that he is never able to effect a second sale of the same pat-

675
tern, on account of the profusion of copies in the market, and which are thrown in his teeth every time he asks for an order."
He might go on to any extent, citing similar cases from the voluminous mass of evidence taken by the committee, but the examples he had adduced were sufficient to show the prevalence of the evil for which he sought to apply a remedy. The existing law was, in fact, a dead letter; and the delusive protection which it professed to extend was in reality found, as confessed by Mr. Louis Lucas, to be "no protection at all." One striking fact the House will not fail to observe in these proceedings—that this system of plunder takes place within the period of the three months' protection held out by the present law; and they will naturally ask why resort is not had to it for security and redress? The reason of this is obvious: that the terms is so short, and the copyright it confers so valueless, that it is not worth the trouble and cost of appealing to justice for a remedy. The whole duration of the privilege is but twelve or thirteen weeks; of these it requires a few to test the merit and success of a design in the market; a few more must elapse before a piracy can be ready for sale; and then, before an action could be brought to a hearing, what with costs, delay, and trouble, the short remnant of the copyright that would survive would be utterly disproportionate to the expenses of asserting a right in it, and the injured party, aware of the fact, prefers suffering in silence to an appeal to law which would be productive of no real advantage. The failure of the protection is thus ascribable to the shortness of its duration; but if this, instead of three months, were extended to twelve, or even to nine, the injured proprietor of a design would be conscious of such an interest in it as to warrant him in taking steps for its assertion and defence, and dishonesty would no longer be openly practised, as it now is, with utter impunity. This, however, is but one illustration of the manner in which the intention of the law is defeated by its own insufficiency; and in every point of view the same conclusion is inevitable to those who would take the trouble to look at the subject Even if the rights and property of the inventor were unassailed, the short space of three months was too little to give him an opportunity for reimbursing himself for his outlay and labour. Three months would not insure to him the uninterrupted sale of a single season, sum-
676
mer or winter: whilst the retail trader was deterred from giving large orders for his goods, conscious that the three months were too short to afford him any security of being able to dispose of them, and that at the expiration of that period he might be left with a heavy stock, to be undersold by inferior copies of the very same designs. The necessity, therefore, for extension is as obviously for the interest of the shopkeeper as the manufacturer. Under the most favourable circumstances, therefore, three months is an utterly inadequate protection for the sale of a design in the home market; but its inadequacy is still more palpable in the foreign market and the export trade, where the distance to which goods are sent is so great, that before they can reach their destination, and a letter could return to announce their success, and convey a second order, the copyright would have long before expired, and the order would go, as in the cases stated by Mr. Lucas, not to remunerate the ingenious inventor, but to such of his rivals as would consent to copy his patterns, and undersell him by their reproduction. In fact, Mr. Lucas justifies the system pursued by his own house upon that very ground, and when asked in the committee whether he was aware that the orders he gave were in violation of the law, he at once declared that the orders he received even from the West Indies came from such a distance that the copyright must have expired, and he therefore went to work fearlessly. But another and most valuable branch of the trade of this country consisted of goods which are suitable to both the home and the foreign markets, and sell equally in both; and for these the present law did not hold out even the promise of protection. A very large proportion of the calicoes printed in England are sold in the United States, in Belgium, in Prussia, and in Germany generally, as well as in Italy, and the ports of the Levant, and these articles are equally saleable in England, but at a different season of the year. For the foreign market they must be shipped in October in each year, whilst for the home market they are not delivered till the spring opens—say in February or March. If, then, the manufacturer claims his copyright for them at October, before making his foreign shipment, it will expire in the January following, a month before his home demand begins; and if he prefer to postpone his protection to cover his home sales, the pi-

677
rates, by procuring a pattern of his goods delivered in October, can legally reproduce and publish them simultaneously with himself, on the opening of the spring season at home. He must, therefore, forego the advantages of the law in one market or the other; or even refuse to supply orders for the one, as his only expedient to secure his copyright in the other. For no one branch of the trade, therefore, is the present law an adequate protection—neither for the home trade, nor the foreign, nor that which sells for both conjointly— whereas the extension which he proposed, would render it effectual and available in each and in all. The injury which resulted from this imperfect state of the law to the manufacturers of this kingdom was so obvious, that he would not occupy unnecessarily the time of the House in alluding to it. But there was another point of view in which the question became one of national importance, and well worthy of the grave consideration of the House of Commons—and that was the permanent effect of such a discouraging system upon the industry of this country, upon the taste and excellence of its productions, upon their character abroad, and upon our prospects of competing in the same productions with our rivals in other countries. In all these branches of manufacture there are two distinct elements which combine to produce success. One is the intellectual invention of the design, the other the cost of the mechanical process by which it is to be applied to the cloth. In the latter of these England is unrivalled. From our mechanical skill, our command of machinery, skill, labour, and power, we can excel all the rest of the world in cheapness of production; but in the other department, in elegance of design, the artists and artizans of France are immeasureably our superiors. In goods of a medium description, where durability and economy are the sole considerations, we supply all the markets of the world, but where elegance is to be sought after, the productions of France, even at double or treble the price of ours, find a steady demand in preference to our own, and are in request in every country in Europe, where there exist taste to appreciate, and money to purchase them. If, then, to cheapness of production, in which we already outrival France, we can add that excellence of design in which she so far outrivals us, we should be enabled, without fear of competition, to enter every market from which British manufactures were not
678
excluded by actual prohibition. But the present state of the law, so far from encouraging artists to apply their genius to the improvement of our manufactures, gives them every practical discouragement, and the result is manifested in their admitted inferiority in all the arts of design as compared with their continental rivals. Not only are artists of high talent unemployed in these pursuits in Great Britain, because the manufacturer, conscious of the ruinous risk which he runs, is afraid to encounter the expense of retaining them in his service, but actually, in instances in which their services have been offered gratuitously, the manufacturer has been compelled to decline accepting them, on the ground, that after incurring a more than usual expense to do justice to their designs in producing them, their superior beauty would only operate as a temptation to the pirate to invade them. Mr. Thomson, of Primrose, in Lancashire, who has been by acclamation admitted to be the first printer in England, in a letter which he has addressed on the subject to the right hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Government, states that, some years ago he was strongly inclined to attempt a particular style in printed furnitures, in which he was disposed to employ the designs of a royal academician, engraved by one of the first artists of the day. But, on conferring with the trade, he was dissuaded from the experiment, as the outlay would have been considerable, the time occupied in its production great, and the period of copyright to cover a sale only three months, after which the whole host of copyists would have been let loose on the patterns, and his remuneration would be lost. Mr. Apple-gath, of Crayford, in Kent, another most ingenious and successful printer, stated to the committee of 1840, that some time before he had been offered designs for hangings of rooms by Sir David Wilkie and by Mr. Sydney Smirke, the eminent architect, consisting of arabesques and medallions in panel, in imitation of Italian interiors, but he was compelled to refuse them, as it would have been of no use to attempt their production, only to have them copied and vulgarized by the pirate before they could have repaid him for his original outlay; and he added, that if sufficient protection were given to him, by extending the copyright, he would at once produce not only these designs, but attempt new branches of art which had never hitherto been introduced in this country, and employ artists

679
of the first eminence in their designing and execution. But under the present law he had neither encouragement nor remuneration to attempt anything beyond the ordinary and medium description of designs. One effect which has followed as the natural consequence of thus discouraging the ambition of the artists of this country has been to make us not only dependent upon France for the finer articles of manufacture, but even to make us dependent upon her for the very designs which we employ for the decoration of our own. Not only are our printers driven to copy largely from the goods produced on the continent, but a regular trade has been created of exporting designs from Paris for the use of the printers of England; and many of the principal printers of Lancashire are regularly supplied with patterns from Paris, and some have designers there wholly employed in their services— a singular anomaly in manufactures for a country to be actually dependent on its most dangerous rivals for the supply of an article in which it has afterwards to compete with them. But another and most serious disadvantage produced by this system is its effect upon the character and estimation of British goods in foreign markets, where their reputation has suffered incalculably by the copyist, in order to undersell the original producer, sending out his piracies in fugitive colours and upon inferior cloth, instead of in the superior colours, and on the same fine cloth as that he copies from; and foreigners have thus been deterred by the fear of deception from purchasing British printed goods, but take in preference those of France, where each printer is compelled not only to produce his own designs, but, from a regard to his reputation, is constrained to produce them in the most creditable style,—an obligation from which the pirate is exempt, as he has no reputation of his own to uphold, and subsists solely by lowering that of his neighbours. For all those evils which he had been pointing out the remedy in the bill now under consideration would be instant and effectual—it would give the proprietor of a design such an interest in its property as would make him vigilant in its protection; and, by giving him, for a moderate period, an undisputed right to its sale, it would encourage him to make such an outlay, and to employ such talent in its production, as would speedily improve the style and elevate the character of British goods in every market into which they en-
680
tered; and it would afford better payment and increased employment to designers when every manufacturer would be compelled to rely on the ingenuity of those in his own employment, instead of living upon the inventions of his neighbours. But another and an obvious necessity exists for rendering the existing copyright effective, in order to give effect to the expenditure which the Government are now so laudably making for the establishment and extension of schools of design throughout the kingdom. In order to induce an individual to resort for education to one of these admirable institutions, which we have borrowed from the French, you must hold out to him some assurance of being protected in the exercise of his profession when that education is complete. At present no such assurance can be given, and it is in evidence that the schools of design are neglected to a considerable extent in consequence. Mr. Holdway, who is teacher of a school of design at Edinburgh, stated to the committee of 1840, that the institution was partially unsuccessful hitherto, because parents are reluctant to send their children to be trained as designers, from the uncertainty of finding steady employment for them when qualified to seek it; and Mr. Henry, the eminent calico printer of Dublin, whose sufferings from piracy he had already alluded to, stated in the same committee, that being willing to take a number of boys into his works, and to have them instructed under his own designers, their parents had objected, and entreated to have them taught any other branch in preference, as they understood that all that was wanted in Manchester was a person who could copy other men's designs, but there was no certain demand for artists who could invent for themselves. If, then, you wish to see schools of design successful—if you wish to train up in England a race of English artists and English designers, it is indispensible to establish an effectual copyright —first, to give them some property in the productions of their own genius; and, secondly, to give the manufacturers of this country some encouragement and security to induce them to employ and to remunerate them. He had thus enumerated the principal advantages which he anticipated from the amendment of the law which he had suggested; but they were by no means the whole, since there was scarcely a process or an operation of the trade which would not be more or less affected by it. But having so long trespassed upon the in-

681
dulgence of the House in dwelling on the advantages of the measure, he would not further presume upon their patience by anticipating the objections which might be expected to be made to it. These its opponents had themselves narrowed to a very circumscribed number, and whatever apprehension they might have at one time felt for the measure as regarded the home trade and its economy, they had now abandoned them all, and professed that their only fear was for the effect which an extension of the copyright might have upon our foreign export. Their argument was this—that although at the present moment there is no law nor any possible means of prohibiting a foreign calico printer from copying an English design, he is practically restrained from doing so by the knowledge that at the expiration of three months the English copyists will be at liberty to export their imitations to his market, but that if the law be so altered as to restrain the English copyist for nine months instead of three, that then our American, German, Swiss, and Belgian, and other rivals, will copy our English patterns for themselves; and thus, to a certain extent, deprive this country of the trade. He believed he stated this very plausible argument with perfect fairness, but it was based upon two most palpable fallacies, which were each easily disposed of. A foreign printer could be induced to copy an English design only by one of two considerations—either that it was a more beautiful one than his own, or that, although less beautiful, he could reproduce it more cheaply than it could be furnished from England. But English designs were admitted on all hands to be so inferior to French, that they were unsaleable in competition with them; and so conscious were the English manufacturers of their inferiority, that they are compelled to copy French designs, in order to make up for the deficiency of their own. What possible object, then, could a continental printer have in copying our inferior patterns? or, what would be more absurd still, in copying our copies of his own? On this ground, then, the argument is unsound. But then it is rejoined, that it is not for these exquisite and elegant designs, which are exclusively consumed by the rich, that any apprehension is felt; but that the danger is for the medium and homely articles, which England now exports in such prodigious quantities for the use of the middle classes in Germany and
682
elsewhere; and that the Germans and Americans and Belgians, despairing of getting these from the English copyist, will reproduce them for themselves, and not only supply their own population, but undermine and undersell us in neutral markets. This argument turns upon the simple question, as economy is here the leading consideration, can the Belgians and Germans, and our other rivals, produce these so cheaply as ourselves? and this inquiry is abundantly satisfied, first, by a reference to their own consciousness of their power to compete with us, as evidenced by their tariffs; and secondly, by the returns of the vast quantities of printed cottons which, in spite of these tariffs, we annually pour into their markets. Now, there are three of the most powerful countries of Europe from which our English calicoes are absolutely prohibited from entering for consumption, namely, France, Russia, and Austria. How absurd would be this prohibition, if those countries felt they could reproduce our goods cheaper than ourselves, and undersell us in their own markets? On the contrary, the consciousness of that inability and of the danger of admitting our goods upon any terms, has compelled them to resort to this indefensible expedient of absolute prohibition and exclusion. But then another quarter in which this danger is apprehended is Prussia, and the states of the German League; but what is the condition of those states as regards this branch of trade? So apprehensive are they of English competition, that throughout all Germany the duty imposed by the tariff of the Zollverein on English printed cottons is fifty dollars, or about 7l. 10 s. per cwt., which on medium English goods, worth from 14 S to 15 s. per piece, would amount to 6s. each, or upwards of 60 per cent. Yet, in spite of this all but prohibitory duty, our exports to Germany are not only immense, but increasing, and for many years past would on an average amount to no less than 26,000,000 of yards. Surely no serious competition is to be expected from states which, in spite of these duties of 60 per cent, we can thus compel to resort to us for their economical supplies. Again, Belgium has been quoted as a country in which competition is to be apprehended, and some most absurd details have been gone into in proof of it, the utter fallacy of which he would not take up the time of the House by exposing; but the facts connected with its tariff, and its imports of English goods would sufficiently

683
demonstrate the groundlessness of any alarm from Belgian rivalry. The duty imposed by the Belgian tariff amounts to between 25 and 30 per cent. on English medium goods, and yet the amount imported year by year, through the customhouses alone, exceeds 2,500,000 yards; exclusively of prodigious quantities introduced by contraband across the frontier of Holland. And so far from being able to compete with England, all their printers concur that their cost of production is at least 25 per cent. greater than that of England, which, added to their duty, would make a difference of 50 per cent. in the value of the respective productions of the two countries. As to America, to which we have been in the habit of exporting so largely, the advantage at which we do so, and the little danger which exists of her taking the trade into her own hands by copying our patterns, must be pretty apparent when he told the House that on English goods the present American tariff exacts a duty amounting, with charges, to at least 70 per cent., and that in spite of it all we send her annually cotton goods to the enormous amount of upwards of 35,000,000 yards. These ate the chief producing countries of printed goods in the world, and he hoped he had satisfied the House that there existed but little danger of their copying our designs, which were, unfortunately, so far inferior to their own, or of their attempting to take the supply out of our hands, when they could only expect to supply themselves at an increased cost of at least 50 per cent. above the ordinary cost of production in England as compared with themselves. From foreign competition he stated distinctly and advisedly this country has nothing to apprehend if she will be but just to herself, and give, not protection against foreigners, but security to her own artists and artisans against injustice from their own rivals at home. He had only to conclude by thanking the House for the indulgent patience with which they had heard his statement; he had taken this matter up, not as a manufacturer's question, nor a retailer's, nor an exporter's, but as one of national importance, and involving the future prosperity of almost every branch of our national manufactures. These were encumbered and injured by a specific defect, for which he had suggested a specific remedy, and one which he believed would remove the evil complained of. That remedy had been found effectual in other countries,
684
and in other branches in trade in this; an extended copyright had raised the manufactures of France to their present point of excellence; it had been found equally successful in the higher branches of art in England, and his object was to see art, as applied to industry and manufactures, equally honoured and equally encouraged as when exerted for the gratification of abstract taste and the purposes of unproductive luxury. He moved that the bill be now read a second time.
Mr. W. Williamshad been a member of the committee instituted to inquire into the question, and after considerable attention he had arrived at a conclusion totally opposite to that which the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had come to. It was rather a remarkable fact, that the hon. Member had allowed two years to elapse between the sitting of the committee and the introduction of the present measure; and he should have inferred there from, that the hon. Member thought an alteration in the law not much required. The committees named by hon. Members, it was notorious, were usually constituted with a majority in favour of the views of the proposers. That which sat on the subject before the House, was, in the first instance, favourable to the hon. Member's views, but after sitting thirty-four days, they divided equally, and the hon. Member's own vote carried the report of the committee. One hon. Member of the committee had never been present while the evidence was taken, and only came down when his vote was required in furtherance of the hon. Gentleman's views. It had been stated by experienced witnesses, that there was no such thing as originality in design—that old patterns were perpetually recombined and reproduced. The measure then would be productive of nothing but endless litigation and constant disputes. First, a question in dispute might be referred to two magistrates who could impose penalties between 5l. and 30 l Next, the party might bring his action for damages. Then the Court of Chancery might be appealed to in a suit which might last twenty-one years—all about, what, perhaps, was not worth 2s. 6d. The fact was, that originality of invention may be said to have been exhausted, and the production of original new designs could hardly be expected. The great requisite in the calico-printing business was cheapness. Mr. Henry, of Dublin, who had been the

685
cause of the introduction of this bill, had himself adopted for many years the copying system, because he saved the expense of keeping his own pattern drawers, and he also saved in the cost of engraving his rollers for printing, together not less than 1,000 l. or 1,200 l. a-year. It had answered Mr. Henry's purpose to copy, as had been stated, in the early part of his career in business, but subsequently he adopted the system of producing his own designs, and now he wanted to have the extended copyright. Where was the morality or honesty of copying from foreigners any more than in copying from our own countrymen? The whole system of pattern making was not the forming patterns on original ideas, but the combining them from existing designs. The passing of such a measure as this would create a system of copying English patterns on the part of foreigners, and establishments would be formed in foreign countries for that express purpose. At present the trade in this country principally depended upon the perpetual production of new patterns, as a large manufacturer had stated. There was no truth in the representation of the extent to which competition was carried by France, which did not produce one-third of the quantity manufactured in this country, and the superiority of France in designing was entirely to be attributed to the establishment of schools of design by the Government. From the evidence to which he had so often referred, it appeared, that one manufacturer, who produced as many as 500 patterns annually, had only one of that number copied. On the various grounds, then, which he had stated to the 'House, he was prepared to contend, that they could obtain no exact information as to what did and what did not constitute an original pattern; for it clearly appeared, that practical men did not know, as they stated, the whole system of designing what were called new patterns was only a new arrangement of objects taken from old patterns. He apprehended, more over, that the bill as it then stood would give rise to endless litigation, and, in his judgment, it was not possible for that House to act upon a principle more injurious to the well being of trade than the principle of interference. The persons who Were themselves engaged in trade must be the best judges of their own interest, and they were at all times opposed to interference. The late Sir Robert Peel was long a Member of that House, and natu-
686
rally possessed great influence, yet he never thought of proposing any such measure. Other eminent men connected with the trade possessed similar opportunities, but never thought of taking advantage of them for such purposes. He believed there were not twenty Members in that House who possessed the knowledge requisite to legislate on the subject before them. Surely the House would pause before they adopted such a change, unless a very strong case were made out, and the case laid before the committee was anything but a strong case. For his part, he had resolved to oppose the measure to the utmost of his power.
Lord F. Egertonobserved, that no matter by whom the proposition had been originated, the adoption would be, he was sure, received as a great public benefit. He entertained much respect for the opinions of those who were practically engaged in the business which the proposed measure was intended to affect; and representing, as he did, a county in which there were so many manufacturers, he should feel bound to defer to the opinions of his constituents, if they were unanimous, or even nearly so, in opposing the views which he entertained. He found, out of 179 firms, there were only 36 opposed to the bill, either in its principles or its details. In Manchester, 48 firms were favourable, and only 36 adverse. The superiority of France, in the art of design, was universally acknowledged, and that superiority must clearly proceed, in part, at least, from the superior education which the French received. It was an interesting fact, that the present Government had resolved to devote a considerable sum to the purposes of education, and that they proposed to assign to Manchester some portion of the sum to be so applied. They intended, of course, to act upon the wise principle of not giving more than an amount equal to that raised from local sources. Now, he could not doubt, that the people of Manchester would readily agree to raise a sum of 150 l. a-year. He therefore, would give his support to the bill, and was confirmed in doing so, by having received letters from several manufacturers showing the great necessity that existed for the protection which this measure was intended to afford.
Mr. Shellwas in favour of the principle of extending the period of copyright, but not to so long a period as nine months. He thought six months would be suffi-

687
cient. He thought it very questionable whether the machinery of registration would be found to work in a satisfactory manner. No doubt, as far as was consistent with the public interest, the period of protection ought to be extended; but in a speech made by the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, on the 5th of February, 1840, the right hon. Baronet had urged the necessity of having the evidence of some practical men on the subject, adding, that he found great difficulty in saying whether there ought to be an extension, and also in saying, what that period ought to be. Now, certainly he derived very little information from the committee. The hon. Member for Belfast said, that Ireland was unanimous. Very probably so, seeing there was only one firm to express its opinion, Manchester, however, was the place they must go to. There he found forty-eight firms for the extension, and thirty-six against it. That was, at all events, a considerable minority, and one that ought to be taken into account, though he admitted that their opinion was not conclusive. Mr. Potter, a witness referred to by the hon. Member for Coventry, was in favour of the principle of extension; and yet Mr. Potter admitted, that the majority of the greatest producers were opposed to it. [The right hon. Gentleman read extracts from the evidence of Mr. Potter and of other witnesses before the committee, to show, that the great producers were generally opposed to the extension of the copyright, while the producers of the finer descriptions of goods were in favour of it.] Another class, whose interests were deserving of consideration, were the retailers. If the present bill were carried, a bill of injunction, with all its attendant expenses, would lie not only against the original pirate, but also against some hundreds of retailers. This was a strong motive for retailers to oppose the bill, and accordingly he was not surprised to find that almost all the retailers of Manchester were against it. [Mr. E.Tennent: "No. no!"] The hon. Gentleman seemed to think he had misstated the fact, but he would refer him to the evidence of Mr. Kershaw, to show, that the retailers were opposed to the measure.
Mr. E. Tennentsaid, he had not attributed any misstatement to the right hon. Gentleman, but he would refer him to the petitions on the Table from retailers in support of the bill.
Mr. Sheilsaid, that the evidence before the committee bore out his view of the case; still that would certainly be a very insufficient ground for refusing the extension. An unfair attack had been made upon Mr. Lucas. That gentleman never took goods that had been copied till the three months fixed by law had passed, and therefore he ought not to be called a pirate. Supposing the present bill was passed, it would surely be unfair to describe those as pirates who adopted the designs of others after the extended period of protection had expired. The present law had been made perpetual in 1794, and since then there had been no change, and yet trade had prospered in a remarkable degree. But if there must be an extension, six months would be sufficient. There was evidence to prove, that six months would be amply sufficient for the home market, and for the Dutch, German, and Belgian markets, though perhaps not sufficient for the Italian market; but if six months sufficed for the home market, and for so many of the most important foreign markets, he thought they ought to pause before they granted more. He had three reasons for withholding his consent from the extension now asked for. In the first place, it would put a restraint on English copyists, but not on foreign copyists; it would give a monopoly to English inventors in the home market, but would lay no restraint on French and German copyists. In the next place, by enhancing the value of a copyright, it would furnish additional incentives to piracy, and by making a copyright worth litigating, the foundation would be laid for an immense deal of litigation. In the third place, an extension to nine months would materially affect the facility with which mercantile operations ought to be carried on. The right hon. Member for Tamworth had expressed a doubt of the policy of registration, and he entertained the same doubt. The system was to be borrowed from France; but in France there were fifty-eight officers for registration, while in England it was proposed to have only one. Now, there were individual manufacturers who produced 500 designs in a year. Were they all to be registered? He doubted also very much whether the registering officer was a fit person to decide whether a design was original or not. It was not to the extended protection to designs that France was indebted for her superiority in

689
that respect, but to her splendid collection of the fine arts, and to the free admission of the public to those collections. By those collections the public taste was cultivated, and a sense of the beautiful diffused. Still the manufactures of this country had prospered; but their extension had been owing, not to the beauty of designs, but to the cheapness of the fabric; and they ought to be careful not to endanger the commerce of the country by doing any thing to lessen that cheapness.
Dr. Bowringdid not object to the object of this bill; but he thought it would prove inefficient to accomplish the purpose for which it was designed. The aim of the bill was to protect inventions in design, but the bill did not define what should be considered inventions. It was proposed by this measure to vest the right of adjudication in cases of dispute as to the infringement of designs injustices of the peace, who, he conceived, were certainly not the best qualified judges to decide on such a subject. In France the decision of such questions was committed to a council of prud'-hommes, which sat daily, and redress was easily obtained, and the working of the system was most efficient. If the hon. Gentleman who proposed this bill would endeavour to create a proper tribunal to decide upon what really were inventions in designs—if he could appoint an economical and efficient system of registration, and establish an easy and effectual mode of obtaining redress when designs had been pirated, he would confer great benefit on society. The present bill, he feared, would only lead to litigation and embarrassment, and would fail to effect the object which it was the design of the hon. Gentleman to accomplish.
Mr. Mark Philipssaid, that in considering the subject, he was actuated only by a desire to come to a sound and just conclusion. He thought there was a great deal of difficulty as to the definition of what was really an original design, for a person went to Paris and purchased a design, and then entering it in this country as an original design, would have it protected as an original. He had in his possession a pattern which was purchased in Paris by a Manchester house, and almost at the same time another Manchester house purchased the same pattern in Paris from other parties, and one of those houses was about to publish it, until they heard accidentally that it was in the hands of
690
another house in Manchester. Was there any security that if individuals without large capital purchased a pattern unwittingly under such circumstances, they might not be deterred from using it by the dread of proceedings against them, although they purchased the design in ignorance of the circumstances? It appeared to him that, when persons talked so much about piracy, they ought to state designs were frequently selected in France and entered in this country as original designs. He thought that an international copyright was a measure which ought to precede this, in order to render it efficient. With reference to the greater facility of production of design in France than in this country, he was of opinion that one cause which greatly tended to that advantage, was the more enlightened course which the French government adopted in giving the people access to works of art, whereas in this country all our public institutions were almost inaccessible to the people, though he would admit that considerable improvements had been effected in that respect. With respect to the duration of the copyright of a design, it should be recollected that novelty was the great recommendation to the public taste in those articles of manufacture which were concerned in any measure having relation to the subject under their consideration. He thought that three months' protection would be quite sufficient to protect the copyright in designs throughout one season. So far as his own opinion was concerned, it appeared to him that a copyright of three months' was enough; but he would consent to an extension to six months, and farther than that he would not consent to go.
Captain Fitzroyunderstood that the effect of the short term of copyright was to cause the manufacturer to charge a higher price than he would have occasion to do if he were secured the remuneration which a longer term of copyright would afford him. His object in rising was, to urge on the House a greater protection of the copyright of designs in the manufacture of carpets than was at present afforded. The designs for carpets were very expensive; and to produce the first yard of carpet in the loom cost a price ranging frem 5l. to 14 l. The manufacturer was put to great expense and trouble to produce his design, and it was very hard that another person should be allowed to pirate his design and undersell him, and subject

691
him to the odium of charging a higher price than the individual, who, by means of pirating his design, was enabled to undersell him. He had been assured that the present term of twelve months' protection to this description of copyright was not sufficient, and that no period less than three years would afford a fair and just protection to this branch of manufacture.
Mr. Morrisonsaid, the subject now under discussion was full of difficulties, and called for great caution in legislating upon it. One of the difficulties arose from the fact, that all or the greater part of the designs printed in this country were bought in France. The hon. Member for Manchester had stated one instance of the same identical pattern having been sold to two different houses, and he knew an instance of the same pattern being sold to four different parties. He, however, did not see how the manufacturers of this country could improve on designs unless some moderate protection was afforded them. In cheapness and quality we had a decided advantage in our productions over all other nations; but he thought we could not maintain this position, unless an alteration were made in the law of copyright of designs. He did not think our foreign trade would be injured by it. It had been stated that its effect would be to prevent novelty; but the existence of this protection in France did not prevent novelty there.
Mr. J. Heathcoatsaid the hon. Member for Belfast had not considered how his measure was to be carried out. The machinery of the bill was defective. The Bill would afford no protection against fraudulent registration. His own experience made him fear that it would not prevent such fraud. The country being so much dependent on France for articles of fashion, collision might exist between persons at home and in that country, by which patterns brought from Paris might appear in England at a time when they would be passed off as original. The certificate was prima facie evidence of originality, and how could the English shopkeeper go over to France to prove that patterns which he may have purchased were not original? Besides, as there was nothing new under the sun, old forgotten designs might be passed off as new ones. There was another objection, that persons in this country did not know what was
692
registered; but in France that was not the case. Many of the evils, with regard to piracy of designs, were almost incurable; but he should be ready to support any measure which appeared to him likely to remedy them, and he should not be amongst those who would deny fair protection.
Mr. Brothertonthought, no sufficient reason had been given for making any alteration in the law. The object of the bill was to increase the profits of the printer, and it would not make prints cheaper. Old patterns would be kept before the public. He was assured that the bill would promote litigation, and give rise to much oppression. He implored the House to proceed very cautiously in establishing these monopolies. The present system effectually benefitted both the printers and the public.
Mr. Henleysaid, that though from the excessive clumsy machinery of the bill no man could be convicted of anything under it, as it threw on the plaintiff or defendant the onus of proving or disproving a negative knowledge; still the shopkeeper might be put to great loss and annoyance by these provisions. He could be brought up before a magistrate, and have to employ counsel and attorneys to defend him in any action that might be brought against him. If a man expended 150 l. on pirated goods, he never could sell them, because, though the copyright was only for twelve months, it existed for ever so far as the shopkeeper was concerned. If no other Member took the matter up, he should oppose the faults of the bill in committee.
Mr. Gladstonerose to say but very few words on a subject which had already undergone so protracted a discussion. His hon. Friend had been desirous in committee of offering some explanatory statement as to the statistics of the trade, as to the comparative importance of the firms engaged in the trade for and against the measure. His noble Friend, the Member for South Lancashire, had stated, that out of 179 firms engaged in this trade, thirty-six only were against a measure of this description; but it had been stated in evidence given before the committee that those thirty-six, with respect to the quantity of goods printed, were greater producers of the article than the whole remaining number of printers. That statement was quite erroneous. Out of 16,000 printing tables

693
only 2,319 belonged to the opposers of this measure. Gut of 43,000 men employed only 7,400 were employed by those who were against the measure. Out of 16,000,000 of pieces printed. only 4,500,000 were printed by those who opposed this bill. Unless these figures could be successfully impugned, it was certain that the general sense of the trade was in favour of the measure. With respect to the objections which had been made to this bill, they were divided into two classes. One class of objectors were opposed to any legislation on the subject; the other class objected to the mode of registration; but he thought that was a matter which would be more properly attended to in committee. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sheil had estimated the number of designs which would be registered every year at the enormous amount of half a million. [Mr. Sheil, "No."] Well, then, he was mistaken, and the right hon. Gentleman, he trusted, had discarded this ground of objection. It might be that some thousand designs would have to be registered every year, and that in consequence a more efficient organization of the register-office might be needed; but this was no objection to the bill. The right hon. Gentleman had objected to the certificate of the registering officer being made admissible as evidence in courts of law; but it was admissible only as prima facie evidence, and it would be perfectly competent to any party to bring an action at law to show that the certificated design was an old one, in which case the certificate would be overruled by direct evidence, and the party adducing it would be cast. But the position of the retail dealers would be altered, the right hon. Gentleman insisted, by this bill, and the mode and manner of bringing these parties to account had been much objected to. But was the right hon. Gentleman aware of the clause to the same effect in the existing law? There was no additional severity, but, on the contrary, somewhat of relaxation in the mode of bringing these parties to account, as compared with the act of the 2nd of Victoria. Another objection was, that two parties might purchase the same invention—that one might register, and the other being a bonâ fide purchaser, might be treated as a pirate. This certainly was a possible case, which might occur under this bill; but so it might occur under the existing law, or under any law of patents, and he must be permitted to say, that when it did occur, it must be owing, in a great measure, to the negli-
694
gence of the parties themselves. It was material that the House should observe, that the great objection, after all, was the fear that the measure would be injurious to foreign trade. But he should expect a judicious law of copyrights of designs to benefit materially, not only the foreign, but the home trade also, by stimulatiug the genius of inventors, and so stimulating commerce. It had been said, they ought to rely, not on a copyright-law, but on schools of design, for the extension of taste. He, for one, should like to see schools of design flourishing; but though it was all very well to establish schools of design, and thereby create a race of good inventors, yet, if you did not also give those inventors, when educated, the means of obtaining a livelihood by some such measure as this, the institution of schools of design would be nugatory. This difficulty had already been experienced in the matter of primary education. It is vain to found normal schools, unless you have the means of retaining by sufficient remuneration those who may be trained in them. Seeing, then, that the objections were either minute or unfounded, and that the bill came before them under the recommendation of a committee, he trusted that the second reading would obtain the unanimous consent of the House.
Bill read a second time, and ordered to be committed.

COPYRIGHT.
Viscount Mahonsaid, that on moving the second reading of the Copyright bill, he had conceived that it would have been his duty to state the main arguments in favour of it, and also to reply to the main objections which had been taken against it; but since he had come into the House, the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Wakley), who had formerly taken so active a part in the discussions on this subject, had told him that, in his opinion, it would be far more convenient to the House if the discussion were postponed till they came to the third clause in committee, as it was that clause which involved the principle of the measure, and as probably only one discussion on that principle would be required. In that opinion, he (Lord Mahon) had found, that his right hon. Friend, the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Macaulay), also concurred. He should, therefore, reserve himself for the next stage of the bill, and merely more that it now be read a second time.
Mr. Wakleywas very glad that the noble Lord had consulted the wishes of several hon. Members on that side of the House. He believed that the general wish was, that authors should receive adequate protection for the great services which they rendered; the only difference was as to the mode of securing that protection.
Mr. Macaulaysaid, that last year he should not have divided the House on the second reading, if language had not been used which rendered the step, as he considered, imperative upon him. The measure as it now stood was a great improvement on that of last year, though there were still a great many defects of detail which he would wish to see altered. Upon the whole, however, he was not without hopes that they might be enabled to arrive at a satisfactory measure.
Bill read a second time; to be committed.

MARRIAGES—ADJOURNED DEBATE.
Mr. Borthwickdid not move the adjournment of the debate on the motion that leave be given to bring in a bill to amend the present marriage law; yet he hoped the House would allow him to state briefly the grounds upon which he should give his vote. There appeared to him to have been urged against any measure of this nature three main objections. First, that it was a bill contrary to the revealed will of God; secondly, that the whole course of legislation in this country for nearly the last 1,500 years had been in opposition to the principle of the bill; and, thirdly, that the practical operation of such a law being once incorporated in the statute-book would be to take off the fine edge of that morality which now existed in families. If these three propositions could be maintained, then he was sure that the noble Lord who had proposed the measure (Lord Francis Egerton) for the consideration of the House, would have been the very last man to have brought it all under discussion. If it could be proved that the revealed will of God was in direct opposition to the prososal now made, it was the duty of the noble Lord, even at this stage of the measure, to withdraw it. But in his opinion the argument which had been advanced in support of that proposition could not be sustained. The text which had been quoted from Leviticus clearly forbade the marriage of a wife's sister only during the life-time of the wife herself, and did not in any way prohibit the mar-
696
riage of such sister after the death of the wife. Then with regard to the second proposition, he confessed that it was one which, at first sight, wore the appearance of much gravity. It asserted, that for nearly 1,500 years, the united opinion of the Catholic Christian church had been directly against the law now proposed by the noble Lord. He had to observe, first, that although they found in the Roman Catholic church there were prohibitions against these marriages, yet they found also that there was a prohibition against any marriage at all on the part of the priesthood. Now, he would ask those who put this argument as against the present bill becoming the law of the land, did the Roman Catholic church forbid marriage to their priesthood as a matter of discipline, or as a matter of moral rectitude? The reply must be, that the Roman Catholic church forbade it as a matter of discipline solely. The English Protestant Church had, so far as regarded their priesthood, annulled the prohibition. The same principle which induced the Roman Catholic church to prohibit their priests from marrying, also induced them to prohibit a man from marrying his deceased wife's sister. And if the reformed church had the power to annul the former class of prohibited marriages, so also had it the power to annul the latter class. The Pope also could grant to parties dispensation, and allow them to marry within the prohibited degrees. But no dispensing power was ever given to the Pope by the Catholic church over acts which were in themselves and in their own nature directly sinful. It would not be attempted by any Protestant to be argued that the Pope had a dispensing power over acts that were contrary to the revealed will of God. It was clear, then, that the argument founded upon the long continuance of the law which forbade such marriages could not be adduced in support of any other proposition than that the Roman Catholic church had deemed it right to make the prohibition as a matter of discipline merely; and as a mere matter of discipline on the part of that church it could not be put as a reason why the Legislature of a Protestant community should not alter such a law. Then with respect to the third objection, founded on the moral effect of this measure on society. It had been said, that the opposition of the Church of Rome to the marriage of a

697
man with his deceased wife's sister was founded upon the immoral tendency of such marriages. If that could be shown, no person would be more ready than himself to reverence the motive which actuated that church. Still the purity of the motive was not sufficient to convince him of the soundness of it in reason and in experience. For his part, he believed that those who contracted these marriages were actuated by the purest motives. At all events, he was firmly convinced that if a man could be brought to regard his wife's sister with any feelings of an improper nature, it was not in the power of legislation to set aright the moral derangement of that man's mind. His arrangement in favour of the bill now before the House was this, first, that these marriages were not prohibited by the sacred writings, secondly, that they were not against the authority of the church, inasmuch as that authority rested on moral grounds; and, thirdly, that they were not productive of moral inconvenience to one-half the amount that existed under the present law. The prohibition which this bill went to remove produced evils in law, evils in morals, and evils in religion, which he was sure hon. Members would be very slow to encourage. On these grounds he implored the House to adopt the present measure in order that an end might be put to them.
Mr. Curteisthought the evidence to be adduced from scripture much in favour of the bill, but he reprobated an attempt, such as had been made by the hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford, to give a religious character to the discussion. He could see nothing like impurity in the connection between a widower and his late wife's sister, and some of the evils of the present state of the law had fallen under his own observation. How the notions of persons might conscientiously differ upon this question was illustrated by the fact, that while Dr. Pusey had written strongly in support of the cause espoused by the hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford, the Archbishop of Dublin had taken an opposite view and in a published letter had given it as his decided opinion that it was much better to leave persons to the guidance of their own feelings, and to the dictates of their own consciences than to legislate at all upon the subject. He trusted, therefore, that the ordinary courtesy would not be denied in this
698
instance, and that the noble Lord would be allowed to bring in his bill.
Mr. Charles Butterhaving moved the adjournment on a former day, wished to be allowed to make a few remarks on the present occasion. He had made up his mind to support the bill, although in the first instance he had felt adverse to its provisions. He was disposed to argue the question on the grounds of national expediency, and in the outset he readily admitted that there was something to be said on both sides. The principal argument against the measure was founded upon the disturbance of domestic relations, by allowing husbands to look upon a wife's sister as a person to whom they could hereafter be allied by nearer ties. Nevertheless, in his opinion, all yielded to considerations of expediency, justice, and humanity, especially applicable to the middle and lower classes. In that division of society, it was often highly important to allow the wife's sister to become the stepmother of the children, as she was bound by every bond of affection to take care of them. The remark did not apply to persons of the rank to which he belonged, but in the middle and lower classes such unions were frequent and natural. In the case of a cottager, what woman so fitly as the wife's sister could fulfil the duties of a mother? Neighbourly charity could hardly be expected to undertake such duties; and, although the House was necessarily without statistical details, there was no doubt that among country people, the marriage of the widower with the wife's sister was the ordinary mode of providing for the care of the children. Among the sober and industrious classes, he had understood that such marriages were extremely common, and it was natural that they should be. Supposing the inclination to exist between two parties, what would be the consequence of prohibiting marriage by law? The parties would dispense with the ceremony altogether, and they would thus in a manner be compelled to unite without the sanction of the law. It was very unwise in the Legislature to require more preliminary conditions as to marriage than were absolutely necessary. At present, if a marriage of the kind took place in ignorance, the penalty did not fall upon the father or mother, but upon the innocent children. In the higher classes, large properties and fortunes were often involved in questions arising out of such irregular unions. A very proper disposition had

699
been shown by the House to prevent the discussion taking a theological turn; where the commands of religion were so clear that no Christian man entertained a doubt, no disposition was evinced to violate the Divine law; but the moment any point of controversy arose, it was unwise to make the House the arena for such discussions. Was there, then, any unanimity upon the point? On the contrary, in the greater part of Christian Europe, and among the white population of America, these marriages were perfectly lawful. Besides, it was extremely unjust to make the rules and canons of a particular church the rules and canons of an entire population. The Roman Catholics regard these marriages as prohibited; but the rule might be relaxed by the dispensing power of the Pope. Therefore they were able to contract these marriages; but what would be the effect of prohibiting them by law? They would be deprived of the power of doing an act which by their own religion having the dispensation was perfectly lawful. Many Protestant dissenters also held these marriages to be lawful; and if the consciences of members of the Church of England were opposed to them, it was easy for them to avoid them. By declaring such marriages illegal, the religions liberty of those who now could contract them was violated, while by passing the bill now to be introduced no man's privileges were interfered with. It was not necessary to refer to the Fathers nor to the council De Liberis, to which the hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford had made a timid allusion, but it seemed trifling with the sanctity of marriage to permit the existence of any discrepancy in the practice of different Christian countries. If a law was passed forbidding these marriages, it would be defeated by the mere circumstance that they were held lawful by neighbouring states; and how was it possible to look with horror here upon unions which were actually sanctioned by the law of many Christian countries? The only way of legislating effectually in such a case would be to apply the same rule to the marriage of a wife's sister as to that of a sister by blood; but his main ground in favour of the introduction of the bill was, that to prohibit such marriages was opposed to the general feeling of the country. There was no extent to which people might not go in reference to what were called the prohibited degrees; and at one time it was
700
held by the Church of Rome that marriages even to the tenth degree could not be celebrated without dispensation. Lord Coke had referred to a case where a marriage was annulled because the husband had stood godmother to his wife's cousin. [Laughter.] He had made a mistake; the case did not go quite so far, but the marriage was annulled because the husband had stood godfather, not godmother, to his wife's cousin. If any one had proposed then to alter the law, the argument of the hon. Member for Oxford— he could fancy him living in that time—would come to this; he would say, "Where will you stop? Here is a marriage to be allowed between parties in the tenth degree; you will very soon demand the legalisation of marriages in the ninth degree, and there will be no ending till you come to the last terrible degree, which frightened all men, marrying a man's grandmother." Now, he did not think that if they gave this permission there would be any other demand for encroachment; for even where the Pope had the power of dispensing with prohibition of marriages within nearer relations, such as a man marrying his niece, a marriage common in Spain, he did not believe that there had been one such case in England during the whole of the Popish time. Take, however, the question free from all prejudices; let them look at the marriages that had occurred. Did they believe that in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, more desirable marriages could arise than under such circumstances? In the first place, there was the equality of affinity, if not of original birth; and in the second place, did they desire that marriages should be formed upon a knowledge of the character of the parties, each knowing the other's faults and virtues? He asked, when they could enter into the marriage state with the fuller knowledge of character on both sides? He asked, in what case could the attachment be formed on purer or more refined motives? And he would ask, under what circumstances the passions were likely to flow in a purer and more refined course? It was no idle passion—it arose from no heyday of youthful blood—it arose most probably from common affection and common sympathy for fond and beloved objects; and the tie which would bind the living was the common feeling of attachment towards those left to them as the objects of their common care.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerthought that what the hon. and learned Gentleman had said, formed the strongest argument against the measure. The hon. and learned Gentleman bad said, that if these things had occurred among the higher classes alone, he would not interfere; hut he would legislate for the lower orders. Now, he could not consent to place the moral feelings of the higher and lower classes upon a different footing. He had known much of the lower orders, and he knew them to be as strongly actuated by moral feelings as those moving in the most exalted ranks. If the hon. and learned Gentleman deemed it desirable to prohibit these marriages among the higher classes, he thought he could convince him, that it was equally desirable to prohibit them in the lower classes. Among the lower orders, the hon. and learned Gentleman must admit, that there were many more occasions of familiar intercourse. They were necessarily confined within narrower limits; and if, in the higher classes, the attention of the husband to the wife's sister would assuredly create dissension, that dissension would, among the lower orders, be equally strong. He could not, therefore, acquiesce in the hon. and learned Gentleman's opinion that this measure was expedient for the sake of the lower orders. The hon. and learned Gentleman then spoke of these marriages as if they were the common rule of society. [Mr. C. Buller: They are common.] He had had considerable experience of the rural population, and he had never heard an instance of a marriage of this description, and he believed the feeling with respect to such marriages to be decidedly against them. The hon. and learned Gentleman also relied much upon a petition from the parochial clergy, to which he attached too much importance, for he believed it came entirely from the parochial clergy of the diocese of Norwich, and it could not, therefore, be fairly taken as expressing the general feeling of the parochial clergy throughout the country. For himself, having much communication with the parochial clergy, he thought, that the opinion they entertained was against such a change, not only on public grounds, but also upon others, which, if he abstained from mentioning, it was because he was unwilling to make the House the arena for theological discussion. The hon. and learned Gentleman used also the argument, that whilst a contrary system was prevalent in other
702
countries, it was absurd, or, at least, not desirable to maintain it here — he spoke of Roman Catholic countries—and he said,—
" If it be competent for Roman Catholics in foreign countries to marry in this way by dispensation, how can you in England, where you have so many Roman Catholics, object to legalize what the Catholic Church does not prevent?"
But the hon. and learned Gentleman must know, that it was usual in the Roman Catholic Church to grant a dispensation in much nearer degrees of relationship. If, therefore, he admitted the arguments of similarity with other countries, he must not only adopt the present measure, but go one step further; and if, in other countries, he found that Roman Catholics in still nearer degrees could marry, he would by the same argument be called upon to legalise those marriages, and throw the existing marriage law into utter confusion. He believed that the measure, if carried, would lead to great distress. He thought, that the mere discussion carried with it many inconvenient consequences—doubts were thrown out, whether marriages before considered impossible might not be rendered legal? He believed, that the happiness of married life depended much upon the fact that marriages were indissoluble; he believed, also, that much of the happiness of social life depended upon the impossibility of marriage between certain members of the family; and he doubted whether the mere discussion would not tend to unsettle the minds of persons, and lead to disunion and to the injury, if not the ultimate destruction of domestic happiness. If that were the evil of discussion, how much greater would be the evil of legislation? He was of opinion, that the legislation in 1835 had been an evil, for marriages of this class were limited in number before 1835. The cases which then occurred were rare exceptions, and excited observation; but as soon as Parliament gave out that they were prepared to legislate, the marriages which took place immediately increased ten-fold, the parties believing that as the Legislature had legalised some, it would, if many cases occurred, go one step further and legalise all. It was impossible to say, when the door was opened, how far the passions of men would carry them in the evasion of the law. Many might possibly have done so in the belief that Parliament would, by the frequency of the practice, be called upon to

703
legislate. And even if this should not actually be the case hereafter, and if Parliament should not be willing to extend 'the law, yet the proposal would have the evil of unsettling the minds of men and of women on this subject. Then the hon. and learned Gentleman most feelingly alluded to the advantage of having the wife's sister as the step-mother of the children. He said, that no union could be so suitable, so proper, so likely to 'arise from the purest of motives, and so well calculated to benefit the family. He admitted, as far as the children were concerned, that probably no person was more desirable to take care of them than the sister of the deceased wife; but to render that care effectual, he did not think it necessary to legalise a marriage. The hon. and learned Gentleman had enumerated many cases in which this had taken place, where the parties wished, but were not enabled to marry; there were, however, many more cases where the sister took care of the children without any thought of marriage; and he must observe, that if they allowed marriage between the parties, they would actually prevent the taking charge of the children by the deceased wife's sister, unless there was a marriage, for in this country, where family intercourse was looked upon, and was the greatest luxury of life, it formed a rule of society, that parties of different sexes, capable of being united in marriage, should not live together without that union. The advantage, therefore, which the hon. and learned Gentleman desired of having the children consigned to the care of the deceased wife's sister, would, in all cases in which the husband did not wish to marry his wife's sister, be effectually prevented, and upon that ground alone this measure would prove a real disadvantage to the children. He did not admit the consequences which the hon. and learned Gentleman thought likely to result from the continuance of legal impediment to these marriages, or that litigation would take place. If the public were only satisfied that Parliament would not alter the law which regulates marriage, they would obey the law, and there would be far fewer marriages illegally and improperly formed, than if by new legislation we excite hopes that the Legislature will legalise marriages, though contracted contrary to law, so soon as they are stated to be numerous.
Mr. Brothertonsaid, that if they went upon strictly scriptural grounds, it was
704
probable that second marriages, in, any case, could only be justified on the ground of expediency. It must be observed, that it was only since 1835 these marriages with the deceased wife's sister were declared illegal—previously they were voidable but not void. A bill was then brought in declaring that these marriages, after a certain day, should be illegal; he well recollected the feeling of the House upon the subject, and when the bill had gone through committee the House left the law, by the bill, just as they found it. Hon. Members had several representations from the country, requesting the law to be passed as it was brought in, and they were told that it would not pass the other House if it were not altered. Parties desirous of having their own marriages legalized made a general canvass among the Members, and on bringing up the report a clause was added, making all future marriages void. As the bill passed that House those marriages which took place after the 1st of July were to be void, but some interested person got the bill altered, and it stood that they were to be void from the passing of the act. He had heard that a gentleman, while the bill was passing through Parliament, had married his deceased wife's sister, and the alteration of the date made this marriage legal. He recollected also that Mr. Sergeant Talfourd, on the very night the bill received the Royal Assent, moved for its repeal. A few days afterwards he (Mr. Brotherton) was visited by a young man who had promised his deceased wife on her death-bed to marry her sister, on account of the children, and asked if the act would make his marriage legal, for they had agreed to be married the next Sunday. He told the young man what the act contained. He stated the facts of the case—that the marriage would be void. He knew that in many cases other marriages of the same sort had taken place, and he was acquainted with one case of a servant, who, although he was aware that the marriage would be void, could not be prevented from contracting a union; and he was told, that amongst the working people such marriages were frequent. He believed, that there was a general impression that marriages of this kind were not immoral, and that as Parliament had declared all such marriages, previously to 1835, to be legal, the same course might be taken again.
Mr. Vernon Smithsaid, he wished to address a few words to the House on a

705
subject which had, at least, the merit of novelty. One reason that induced him to give his vote against the proposition, was the time at which it was made. He did think, that considering the security the House had in the character of the noble Lord, from his high character, and the ample consideration he had given to this question, as well as the position he occupied in that House, not only from his rank and the large constituency he represented, but from the course he had pursued in the House, showing that strong party attachments, and talents of no ordinary kind, might be made perfectly consistent with the most conciliatory demeanour towards all parties in that House—he did think it was due to the noble Lord to have allowed him to introduce his bill. That permission, he considered, had been denied him when the adjournment took place; and, therefore, on the present occasion, he felt obliged to give his vote against the bill. He should not enter into the religious considerations connected with the question, they had been very properly avoided, for if there were religious objections to such unions, no law that could be passed would obviate them. In this respect, every man must be left to be guided by his own conviction, whatever law might be passed. He should confine himself solely to the inconvenience and inexpediency of these marriages. The hon. Member for Liskeard had made an able speech on the question, but he thought it told rather against the bill, for which he intended to vote, than in its favour. The hon. Member had considered, that if the question were confined exclusively to the upper classes, it would be different; but with regard to the working classes, among them a widower could find no person so well fitted to take care of his children as his wife's sister. He differed from the hon. Member in his view of the question, in reference to the upper and working classes. Among the working classes, it was a much simpler proceeding for a sister of a deceased wife to live with the husband, without any impropriety than among the higher classes. The laws they might carry in that House, on such subjects, were calculated to have a very great effect on the morals of society. Fiscal laws might be avoided by those determined to evade them; in political legislation also, laws might be obstructed by those who were disposed to obstruct them; but with respect to laws bearing on morals,
706
the case was different; persons were not unapt to take their moral tone from the laws passed by that House. They were called on to consider the views prevailing on this question among society. It was stated, that there was a very strong feeling in favour of such a law among the people. Now he meant to say, that if such a feeling existed, he was perfectly ignorant of it. When they were called on to look at the distress of the persons who were agitating this question, he thought that they had no great call on their sympathies. Who were they? Who must they be? He should be sorry to treat the question with anything that had the appearance of ridicule towards the feelings of any portion of his fellow-countrymen. But he supposed the persons who were agitating this question were a number of mature gentlemen who were widowers, and anxious to marry their deceased wife's sister. He must say, that the agitation of such a question by such a body of men need not necessarily excite the sympathy which the situation of any other sort of distressed persons would do. He believed, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that many persons who had lost their wives, were not unwilling to permit their wife's sister to live in their house, and to take care of their children. The moment they passed a law, permitting these parties to marry, there was not one of those couple now living together in a perfectly harmless and respectable manner, who would not feel called on by the state of society in the country districts of England, immediately to marry. This would be a very great inconvenience, as there might be numerous cases in which persons were willing to live together, but who would yet be extremely unwilling to increase their expenses by a family, or become connected by marriage. He knew this was a delicate subject to touch on; he was not such a master of language, but some expression might escape him, which might excite ridicule; but he hoped hon. Gentlemen would believe, that he was endeavouring to speak seriously, and not think that he had any intention of exciting mirth. The principal purpose of this bill was founded on an assumption that, he was unwilling to allow,—namely, that it was impossible for affection to exist between the sexes without marriage. It assumed, that it was utterly impossible for a widower to live with the sister of a deceased wife, without some improper con-

707
nexion. He admitted the dangerous tendency of placing young persons to live together in the same house, but he did not think the objection applied to cases of this kind. He thought, that in these cases the law might create the very feeling they wished to avoid. He could not agree to the principal proposition on which the bill was found d, and on the fullest consideration which he could give to it, he had come to the determination to vote against the introduction of the bill.
Mr. O'Connell:It had been said that this measure had been demanded of the House by the state of society, especially among the poorer classes in this country. It certainly was not demanded by anything that had occurred in Ireland, for such marriages as those which were contemplated to be legalised were never heard of among the Roman Catholic population of that country. He did not oppose this Bill upon the ground of such marriages being prohibited by the Christian law. He had heard some theology spoken upon this question, and very indifferent theology it was. The hon. member for Salford was mistaken in his view of the Roman Catholic doctrine upon the subject; and he would afford him some consolation, by assuring him that, if it should happen that a clergyman of the Anglican church should be reconciled to what he would call the mother church, he might hold his living without parting with his wife. But he opposed this measure upon a strong conviction that it would not have a moral tendency. He would not enter into the train of reasoning which had conducted his mind to this conviction; but upon a most deliberate view of the case he had arrived at that conclusion, and having done so he should vote against this bill.
Lord Ashleywould only offer a few words for the purpose of stating some facts, which he thought had some bearing upon this question. It was said that the practice which was sought to be introduced into this bill was in harmony with that of the greater part of Christendom, but that there were no moral statistics by which positive information upon the point might be obtained. There was evidence, however, of a highly important character upon the question which he would bring before the House. First, as to the practice of Protestant Europe. The hon. and learned Member for Liskeard would not
708
derive much benefit from this point, because, if he considered what was the law of marriage in Europe, he would perceive that the tie of marriage was looked on with a less strict eye on the continent than in England, and any argument which he might draw from the state of things which he had remarked, therefore, lost much of its weight and applicability. He believed that nearly all the thinking men of Germany were of opinion that the present law of marriage could not be maintained, but that recourse must eventually be had to a return to the old canon law. But the subject was not now broached for the first time. It had been discussed at length, and had been decided upon in France by persons who had no sympathies for the ecclesiastical or the canon law, and who came to a conclusion contrary to that now sought to be acquiesced in by the House, simply and solely because they looked to the domestic position and comforts of the people, and to the future safety and security of the institutions of the country. At the time when Napoleon was drawing up his civil code, amongst other things, the law of marriage was submitted to the consideration of the Council of State, to which the general questions of the laws of France were referred. The Council of State was the body to which the discussion of this question was confided, and Napoleon himself occasionally presided over its sittings. By the law of 1799, passed in the time of the republic, the ecclesiastical and canon law of the kingdom were totally abandoned, and marriages were prohibited only within the natural and legitimate degree in the direct line; brother and sister were interdicted from marrying, but marriage was permitted in every other degree, and it was necessary in drawing up the code that this matter should be considered. The subject which was discussed in 1804, was the same which was now submitted to the attention of the House; namely, whether brother-in-law and sister-in-law should be allowed to marry, as provided by the law of 1792. By the authority of the Emperor the deliberations of the Council were published. On a debate on this article, at which Cambacéres, Laplace, Rennier, Tronchet, and others were present, an argument was raised precisely similar to that which had now been brought forward. It was said, "There is no reason for prohibiting the marriage

709
between brother-in-law and sister-in-law, and the welfare of the children of the first marriage demands that such marriage should be authorized." To this argument it was answered that what had been said with regard to the interests of the children of the first marriage would apply in very few cases, but that motives much less respectable would ordinarily determine this kind of marriage, and the frequent occurrence of cases of divorce would lead these relatives to very indecent practices. M. Rennier, the minister of justice, on this observed, that the facilities given to such marriages by the law of 1792, had given rise to numerous divorce suits, and after M. Tronchet and another had expressed their views, the First Consul gave his opinion, and the result was this, that having said that marriages between uncles and nieces, and aunts, and nephews, were prohibited, with power, however, of dispensation, he came to the conclusion, and it was now the law of France, that marriages between brothers and sisters-in-law should not be permitted under any circumstances. That was the conclusion to which the council came, and they did so simply and solely on the experience which they bad had upon the law of 1792; and although Napoleon carried this measure, he yet carried a law of divorce so stringent that it was almost impossible to obtain a decree of divorce under it. This, then, he held to be something to guide the House, at all events, upon their coming to a decision upon this question. But if the bill of the noble Lord were carried, he did not know how they were to stop the progress of further legislation upon this point. Now, the line of demarcation, beyond which parties were not to go in contracting marriages, was clear and well defined; but this point once broken down, it was impossible to see to what extent the mischief might be carried. And this objection appeared to have been very strongly felt by the noble Lord who had introduced a similar bill in another place during the last year, because in that bill he reduced the number of prohibited degrees from thirty to twenty. He thought, however, that the House would agree with him that this was not a question upon which any new legislation was called for. Where such a measure was proposed, not only must the most overwhelming necessity be shown for it, but the national voice ought to be most powerfully expressed in favour
710
of it, to induce the House to accede to it. Scarcely anything had been said in favour of the measure, and the utmost which had been urged in support of its popularity, was a petition of some few clergymen and other persons residing in a small district of country. He believed, that the feeling of the clergy of England was against this proposition, and he was sure, also, that the feeling of the great body of the people of this country was against such an alteration of the law; and, if he might take the opinion of the women, who were no bad judges of what was most conducive to domestic honour, and what was best for the ultimate good of mankind, a measure of this kind would never have been introduced within the walls of the House.
Mr. C. Woodconfessed, that he thought the noble Lord who had just sat down, had much misrepresented the bill before the House, in stating, that it would make an innovation in the practice of the country; for he believed, the innovation was made by the clause introduced into what was called Lord Lyndhurst's bill, which clause was introduced, not by the noble Lord who moved that bill himself, but in the course of the debate thereon, and actually and altogether prohibited those marriages which, when the bill was brought in, were almost universally sanctioned by the practice of the country. The state of the law was, that such marriages were voidable, but not void. He believed, that not only amongst the higher classes, but also amongst the most respectable portion of the middle classes, and people whose morality and regard for considerations of that sort nobody would question, as well as among the lower orders, these marriages were carried to no inconsiderable extent. He had heard, from a learned Gentleman of no mean authority on questions of this nature, that the effect of the clause so introduced in Lord Lyndhurst's Act, had produced no effect whatever in checking those marriages, and that in point of fact, the practice had gone on to an extent of which hon. Gentlemen were not aware, the parties trusting that no question would be raised as to the validity of those marriages. The innovation, therefore, he apprehended, was made by the law passed to check those marriages; and the interruption to domestic happiness and the accession to property would arise, not from the bill of the noble Lord, but from the effect of the clause in Lord Lyndhurst's bill,

711
which was admitted into that measure almost without discussion, attracting but little notice, and was passed through this House under the assurance that it might be re-considered in the next Session of Parliament. As to the conclusion which his noble Friend drew from a discussion of the Council of State in France, it must be evident that the arguments against the measure rested on the facility of divorce which existed under the then law in France. The opinions which the noble Lord had quoted, were of two persons, who said, that in the then existing facility of divorce, it was exceedingly objectionable, that inducements to divorce with a man's wife should be sanctioned by the possibility of a marriage with her sister. He apprehended, that that facility did not exist in this country, and he hoped it never would. That being the case, the arguments which his noble Friend derived from that position was entirely inapplicable to the present discussion. It was his opinion, therefore, that to the marriage of a man with his deceased wife's sister there ought to be no obstruction, ecclesiastical or civil, and that the House ought again to pass this bill.
Sir W. Follettthought, that the hon. Gentleman laboured under a great misapprehension as to the state of the law on this subject previously to 1835. The effect of the bill was not to render valid that which was invalid before; for, as he read the law, such marriages had always been illegal in this country. These marriages were not only prohibited by the canon law, but they were also prohibited by an act of Parliament so far hack as the reign of Henry the 8th. The bill of Lord Lyndhurst was introduced to alter an anomaly in the law, which stated that these marriages must be declared invalid in the ecclesiastical courts, but that they could only he declared void during the lifetime of the parties. The same law which prohibited the marriage of a man with his deceased wife's sister, also prohibited marriages between a father and daughter, a brother and sister, and an uncle and niece, for they were only voidable through a process in the ecclesiastical courts, for the common law courts could not take up the inquiry, for the matter must be first questioned in the ecclesiastical courts. If in any of these cases the matter was not taken up during the lifetime of the parties, the marriage would to
712
all intents and purposes be regarded as legal. But these marriages were not merely voidable on the case being brought before the court, for not only any person interested with the parties might take steps to destroy a marriage, and bastardise the issue, but any person who wished to extort money might institute proceedings against the parties. Surely this was a state of the law which ought not to be allowed to continue. The hon. Member for Salford said, that this clause was introduced into the bill on bringing up the report, and he was the person who brought up the clause. and he assured the House that he had never regretted having done so—by which it was enacted that, whenever parties married within the prohibited degrees of consanguinity, it should not be left to other persons to adopt proceedings to question the marriages, but that they should at once be declared void and invalid in themselves. The subject had been fully considered when this clause was introduced, and he denied that there was any understanding that the clause should be altered in the subsequent Session. If any hon. Gentleman thought that marriages should be declared legal contracted within certain degrees of consanguinity, he should bring forward a specific motion to exempt them from the operation of the act, instead of going to the repeal of the whole of the clause. Lord Lyndhurst's bill did not alter the general law in this matter; for it had always been the law of the country, and he believed that these marriages had always been inconsistent with a healthy tone of moral feeling, and that the public opinion of this country had always been opposed to such contracts. He did not deny that such marriages took place, but he believed that the feeling was as strong amongst the lower as amongst the higher classes against this description of marriages. He had no wish to enter upon any discussion of the religious question, for he thought that all such topics should be avoided as much as possible in that House. He believed that the moral feeling of the country was, that it was better that they should keep the law as it then was. He thought that the arguments of his hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Liskeard, with respect to the reasons why the higher classes of society were opposed to this description of marriages, was equally applicable to all the other classes in the community. He was satisfied that the sister of a deceased wife

713
was the best person to act as a mother to a man's children; but if such a proposition as the present was adopted, the sister would be merged in the stepmother, and all the best affections of the sister would be lost. He was convinced that, if the Legislature once relaxed the law on this point, it would be impossible for a person to live in the same House with the husband of her late sister, for the voice of society would be strongly opposed to it, and would always regard her in the light of a man's future wife. Under these circumstances, he thought that the happiness of society made it necessary that they should not attempt to relax the law on this subject. On these grounds he should feel it to be his duty to give his vote in opposition to the introduction of this bill.
Mr. Wakleysaid, it must be very gratifying to the hon. and learned Member for Liskeard, to learn that his speech had produced such an impression on the mind of the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just resumed his seat. He thought the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Liskeard, a very eloquent and argumentative one, but it appeared that it had produced a conviction on the mind of the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down, that the relaxation proposed with respect to the law of marriage should not take place. That was another example of the danger which attended hon. and learned Gentlemen when they made speeches without fees. He believed the hon. and learned Member's speech to have been a perfectly honest one, since he did not speak as an advocate, but as a senator; and if the hon. and learned Gentleman made such a mistake, he hoped it was participated in by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-general. He had been much surprised to see to what source the noble Lord the Member for Dorsetshire, had resorted to find materials for arguing against the bill before the House, and that he had gone to the council of France in the year 1804. He hoped, after this, that revolutions would not appear so terrible and frightful to the aristocracy of this country. ["Oh, oh!"] Why, the sentiments and doctines which the noble Lord advanced against the proposition before the House were those which were uttered in the council of France under the presidency of Napoleon. The noble Lord, with his ability, must have been
714
very hard pressed indeed to go to such a quarter for doctrines with which to support his opinion. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-general, had informed the House for what purpose he conceived the bill of 1835 to have been introduced. An opinion existed in the House at that time, and it existed out of the House at present, that that bill was brought in for relieving a nobleman from the peculiar situation in which he was placed. That opinion existed then, and continued to exist now, and he for one believed it to be the truth. He was somewhat surprised at the manner in which some gentlemen had treated the character of English women in this debate. Those who opposed the bill, made it appear that a wife's sister was a kind of female with whom the husband could do just what he pleased. ["Oh, oh!"] That was their doctrine—that she had no virtue—that she had no firmness of mind—that she had no power to resist importunity. They treated her as a child, as an infant, as a person who had no reason, who had no will of her own. [" No, no,"] No doubt it was exceedingly unpleasant for them to hear this, but such was the fact. If that was not the tendency of the arguments which had been urged, why did they fear the course she would pursue? Why did they apprehend danger from her conduct? Why did they believe, that she would pollute the fountains of society? Not one fact had been stated, or argument advanced, which ought to induce the House to reject the motion of the noble Lord. When these restraints on the liberty of the subject were proposed, it was the bounden duty of those who were the advocates of restriction to show its necessity, and if that was not done, their case fell to the ground. Believing that that had not been done in this case, he should give his most cordial support to the bill of the noble Lord.
Mr. Hardydid not mean to detain the House one moment ["Oh!"], but the hon. Member for Finsbury ought to recollect that there was such a thing as an argument à fortiori. When the noble Lord the Member for Dorsetshire referred to the council of France, he did so in his apprehension, and that of every other Member in the House but the hon. Member for Finsbury, to show that the people of France having had experience of the effects of the relaxed law from 1792 to

715
1804, obliged even the liberal Napoleon and the council of France to bring back the law to its former state, as being more in conformity with their feelings and wishes.
Lord F. Egertonsaid, I have in the first place to thank my right hon. and learned Friend, the Judge Advocate, for a correction which his legal knowledge enabled him to apply to an error of mine on the instant. I have not any distinct recollection of the expressions of mine which called for that correction, but I have no doubt that they were such as to imply my belief that the marriage law, up to a recent period, had rested entirely on the canons of 1603, and had no foundation in statute. It was not my intention to lay down such a doctrine. I have said that I do not recollect, or at all defend my expressions, but what was in my mind and intention was this, that there was no statutory definition of the prohibited degrees now in force. I will not now proceed to illustrate this position by a detailed reference to statutes, because the operation would be a tedious one, and the object after all, of little consequence. I admit that, though the acts of Parliament of the 25th and 28th of Henry 8th, which alone contain a positive enumeration of the prohibited degrees, are repealed, yet the 32nd of Henry 8th, which has survived various tamperings of Henry's successors, implies a reference to the degrees of affinity so prohibited. On the other hand, I think that if we look to the origin and motive of these two statutes of Henry 8th, it will be admitted that they have not that character of sanctity about them which should make us hesitate to alter or amend them if we see ground of reason, justice, and expediency to apply such amendment. Having made this acknowledgement, and bowed to the just correction of my right hon. Friend the Judge Advocate, I beg also to assure another of my opponents, the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that I have felt the force of his observations when he pointed out the evil and inconvenience of stirring this subject at all in this House. No man is more alive than myself to the delicacy and difficulty of the proceeding, but in this instance, as in many others, it seems to me that the discussion, with its attendant evils, has been unavoidable. I have known many subjects discussed here which I, for one, should have been glad to have suppressed. The Reform Bill itself was one of them; still, while I acknow-
716
ledge the evils complained of, I must claim to throw the responsibility for them from my own shoulders on those of legislators whose acts I think it necessary to consider with a view to their amendment, and I leave it to others to apportion the burden between Lord Lyndhurst and Henry 8th, who, I think, may more justly bear it than myself. I have next to notice the observations of my noble Friend the Member for Dorsetshire, to whom I listened with the attention and deference which I always give to anything that falls from him, especially in any matter into which considerations of religion or morality can possibly enter. My noble Friend has drawn his principal conclusions from the state of society and the state of the law in two different countries of continental Europe, Prussia and France. With regard to Prussia, he traces to the state of the law in that country,—which, as he rightly says, permits, under certain restrictions, the marriages of collateral affinity which I desire to legalise here,—a laxity of morals which he considers to prevail in that country. He tells us, that the state of society there is such, especially with respect to the relations of marriage, as to make moralists and patriots sigh for a return to the old canon law. Sir, I am reluctant to draw in general uncomplimentary comparisons between the state of morals in my own country and any other,—such comparisons are often deceptive. I am nevertheless inclined to believe that between ourselves and Prussia a comparison would result to our advantage, and, knowing that my noble Friend has good sources of information, I attach considerable weight to his opinion, and I believe that the evils of which he speaks exist. I am however by no means so sure that the state of the Prussian law with regard to the degrees within which marriage may be contracted has as much to do with those evils as my noble Friend's argument would make us suppose. I strongly suspect that the facilities with which marriages may be dissolved contribute far more to any social irregularities or laxity of morals which may exist in Prussia than does the absence of that particular restraint on the contraction of marriages which I wish to remove in England. And is not my noble Friend well aware of other causes of the evil at work in that country? I know not whether its subjects would be well advised or not to return to the old canon law, but this I know, I wish they could return to the bible. I fear I do not overstate facts

717
when I say that in Protestant Germany the influence of that volume has been almost nullified by the systematic attack which for the last century and half has been conducted by rationalists and neologists against its inspiration. The denial of that inspiration has for at least that period been the purpose and object of a series of able and laborious men, whose names are as unpronouncable as the catalogue would be interminable, and that catalogue has reached its climax in a name at this moment of the greatest notoriety in Europe.* These are circumstances which may well account for any features we may regret, if such exist, on the social condition of Protestant Germany. I know that the efforts of wise and good men, with one of the best of modern sovereigns in their van, are raised against this mighty evil. God send them success, but the task is one which will tax those exertions to the utmost. The disease lies too deep, in my opinion, to be reached by legal changes, but in so far as legislation can reach it, I doubt whether the cure should not rather be sought in a revision of the Prussian law of divorce than in any restriction upon the degrees of affinity within which marriage may now be contracted. Following my noble Friend to France, I find myself at issue with him on the fact that the marriages now in question are really prohibited in that country. That such prohibition is to be found in the code Napoleon, I am well aware, and I have no doubt my noble Friend is correct in his history of the introduction of the regulations he quotes, and that Napoleon and Cambaceres were its immediate authors. I venture, however, to assure the House that my noble Friend is mistaken in supposing that these prohibitions are now in force. I hold in my hand a legal statement, which I have the better right to quote because it is not only drawn by an unexceptionable authority, the legal adviser of the British embassy at Paris, but it fulfils the condition which, in the opinion of the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Wakley), gives weight to legal advice,—it is paid for. It states that, marriage with the deceased wife's sister may be and is contracted in France by permission of the sovereign, and it points out all the forms and regulations under which that permission is obtained. The present law, therefore, in France, I state positively, is precisely on the same footing
718
as it is in most of the countries of Protestant Europe, in which the sovereign certainly assumes a discretion which a Roman Catholic can only attribute to the pope. Of course I presume that the strict Roman Catholic in France, as elsewhere, would think it necessary to procure a further dispensation from Rome, but with this the law has nothing to do. In all these instances it is clear that such marriages are not considered as conflicting with religion or morality. The restrictions imposed upon them have reference only to the circumstances of the individuals; they seem to me such as would not be practicable in this country, but they leave untouched the great principle that neither pope nor temporal sovereign can claim a right to dispense with a positive law of God. With regard to Scotland, I am far from saying that parties desirous to contract the marriages rendered void in England by the act of 1835, can do so effectually by resorting to Scotland for the purpose. But this I know, that such an opinion prevails, and that parties do resort to Scotland with such intent. I have a letter in my pocket from one of them, who seems content with the success of his proceeding. I fear that much confusion may arise from this state of things, and I may say in passing, that I should think this discussion, with all its possible evils, well bestowed if it could direct the attention of the Legislature and the Government to certain incidents of the marriage law of Scotland, and its possible effects upon English property and inheritance, which call loudly, in my opinion, for consideration. My hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford, has rested his opposition to the principle of my measure mainly on the practice of the early church. I regret that the lateness of the hour operated to make my hon. Friend compress materially his observations on a subject which he has deeply studied. I can claim for myself no such profound acquaintance with it as I attribute to him, and as he was under such disadvantage in discussing it, I wish to touch it now no further than to show that I have not altogether neglected its consideration, and that if I demur to his conclusions it is not from any want of respect for the authorities on which he relies, or from a presumptuous contempt for antiquity. My own general impression is just this, I think that for the first three centuries of the church we have little direct evidence of its practice. Towards the fourth century we have two facts in evidence.

719
First, that the practice prevailed to a certain extent, at least; this is clear even from Basil's famous letter against it: further, that when it came to attract the special attention of the heads of the church, when, if I may use the expression, they went to division upon it, the ascetic tendency of the age to restriction prevailed, and that various prohibitions were enacted, principally however, applied to the clergy. My hon. Friend, however, is well aware how many objects were embraced in these prohibitions, how many restraints were enacted by the same councils which he would be the first to disclaim and the last to revive. He is well aware that the marriage with the first cousin is forbidden under the same penalties. I have mentioned the name of Basil, who, I am sure, would be quoted by my hon. Friend as a very leading individual authority in his favour. No name ranks higher for learning and piety, and yet there is none in my mind who shows more distinctly to what an extent uninspired wisdom and learning may be misled by the circumstances of the time in which it flourishes. Take that prelate's opinion on slave marriages. What does he tell the slave who contracts a marriage without leave of the master. Does he say, as a Christian you should bow to the laws, however tyrannical, of the state in which you live? Had he confined himself to this, he would have, perhaps, spoken wisely and well. No, he says, you who contract a marriage without the leave of the heathen master who has fixed the chain on your neck, and the brand upon your brow, to the male he says, You are a fornicator; to the woman, You are an harlot. Sir, I have great respect for Basil, but I cannot admit him as an unquestionable authority. In conclusion, Sir, allow me to say, that if I felt myself possessed of any of that influence which has been kindly and flatteringly attributed to me by one of my opponents, the hon. Member for Northampton, I would not use it on such a subject as the present, to sway the deliberate judgment of any individual who hears me. There are many points of the question of expediency which hardly admit of argument or proof on which individuals must and will be guided by the results of their own reflection or experience. There are parties pleading at your bar for release from a restraint which they consider unreasonable and unjust. Give your unbiassed verdict, but if it be an adverse one, give it not in lightness of heart, or with that pardonable exultation with which you
720
go into the lobby to raise perhaps to power and office the idol of your political predilections, or to remove from them the minister you distrust; give it rather as the jury, when its foreman returns into court with the capital sentence on his faultering lips, for rest assured that to some at least of your fellow-subjects the death warrant it will prove of peace of mind and happiness on this side the grave.
The House divided on the question, that leave be given to bring in the bill. Ayes 100; Noes 123:—Majority 23.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Heathcoat, J.

Ainsworth, P.

Hill, Lord M.

Aldam, W.

Hindley, C.

Antrobus, E.

Hodgson, F.

Arkwright, G.

Horsman, E.

Baldwin, C. B.

Howard, hn. C. W. G.

Bell, J.

Jardine, W.

Berkeley, hon. C.

Johnson, General

Bernal, R.

Langston, J. H.

Blewitt, R. J.

Larpent, Sir G. de H.

Borthwick, P.

Leader, J. T.

Bowring, Dr.

Lemon, Sir C.

Brotherton, J.

Lindsay, H. H.

Bruce, Lord E.

Macaulay, right hon. T. B.

Buckley, E.

Buller, E.

Marshall W.

Childers, J. W.

Mitcalfe, H.

Cobden, R.

Mitchell, T. A.

Colborne, hon. W. N. R

Morris, D.

Mostyn, hn. E. M. L.

Colebrook, Sir T. E.

Muntz, G. F.

Collett, W. R.

Neeld, J.

Craig, W. G.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Crawford, W. S.

Paget, Col.

Currie, R.

Paget, Lord A.

Curteis, H. B.

Parker, J.

Dalmeny, Lord

Pechell, Capt.

Dalrymple, Capt.

Rawdon, Col.

Denison, J. E.

Rennie, G.

Dodd, G.

Repton, G. W. J.

Dowdeswell, W.

Rice, E. R.

Duff, J,

Ricardo, J. L.

Duncan, G.

Round, C. G.

Dundas, Admiral

Scholefield, J.

Easthope, Sir J.

Scott, R.

Ebrington, Visct.

Smith, B

Ellis, W.

Strutt, E.

Elphinstone, H.

Thornely, T.

Ferguson, Col.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Ferrand, W. B.

Tuffnell, H.

Forster, M.

Villiers, hon. C. P.

Gaskell, J. Milnes.

Wakley, T.

Gibson, T. M.

Walker, R.

Gill, T.

Wawn, J. T.

Gregory, W. H.

Wilde, Sir T.

Grimsditch, T.

Williams, W.

Hall, Sir B.

Wilson, M.

Harford, S.

Wood, C.

Hastie, A.

Wood, G. W.

Hay, Sir A. L.

Worsley, Lord

721

Wynn, rt. hn. C. W W.

TELLERS.

Young, J.

Egerton, Lord F.

Buller, C.

List of the NOES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Hatton, Capt. V.

Acland, T. D.

Hayes, Sir E.

Ackers, J.

Henley, J. W.

Acton, Col.

Hepburn, Sir T. B.

Adare, Visct.

Holmes, hon. W. A' C.

Adderley, C. B.

Hope, A.

Allix, J. P.

Howard, Lord

Bailey, J.

Howard, Sir R.

Bailey, J., jun.

Jermyn, Earl

Baird, W.

Johnson, W. G.

Barrington, Visct.

Johnstone, Sir J.

Baskerville, T. B. M.

Lambton, H.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Lincoln, Earl of

Blackstone, W. S.

Lockhart, W.

Bodkin, J. J.

Lowther, J. H.

Boldero, H. G.

Mackenzie, T.

Bramston, T. W.

McGeachy, F. A.

Broadley, H.

Mahon, Visct.

Browne, hon. W.

Mainwaring, T.

Bruce, C. L. C.

Manners, Lord J.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Marsham, Visct.

Bunbury, T.

Master, T. W. C.

Burrell, Sir C. M.

Maunsell. T. P.

Busfeild, W.

Mundy, E. M.

Cavendish, hn. C. C.

Murray, C. R. S.

Cavendish, hn. G. H.

Neeld, J.

Chelsea, Visct.

Neville, R.

Chetwode, Sir J.

Newry, Visct.

Cholmondeley, hn. H.

Nicholl, rt. hon. J.

Christmas, W.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Clerk, Sir G.

O'Brien, A. S.

Cochrane, A.

O'Connell. D.

Colvile, C. R.

O'Connell, J.

Corry, right hon. H.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Courtenay, Visct.

Ossulston, Lord

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Packe, C. W.

Crosse, T. B.

Patten, J. W.

Darby, G.

Power, J.

Dawnay, hon. W. H.

Pusey, P.

Dickinson, F. H.

Rashleigh, W.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Reade, W. M.

Drummond, H. H.

Reid, Sir J. R.

Duffield, T.

Richards, R.

Duncombe, hon. O.

Rolleston, Col.

Egerton, W. T.

Rous, hon. Capt.

Egerton, Sir P.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Escott, B.

Russell, J. D. W.

Esmonde, Sir T.

Seale, Sir J. H.

Estcourt, T. G. B.

Shaw, rt. hon. F.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Sheppard, T.

Follett, Sir W. W.

Sibthorp, Col.

Fuller, A. E.

Smith, rt. hon. R. V.

Gladstone, right hon. W. E.

Smythe, hon. G.

Somerton, Visct.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Stanton, W. H.

Greenall, P.

Stuart, W. V.

Greene, T.

Tollemache, hn. F. J.

Grogan, E.

Trotter, J.

Hamilton, W. J.

Tyrell, Sir J. T.

Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H.

Vernon, G. H.

Hardy, J.

Welby, G. E,

722

Whitmore, T. C.

TELLERS.

Wilbraham, hn. R. B.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Ashley, Lord

CHILD MURDERS.
Mr. Colvillemoved for returns of the number of convictions for the murder of illegitimate children in England and Wales in each of the years from 1828 to 1841, both inclusive, and similar returns of the number of convictions for concealment of the birth of illegitimate children.
Mr. Wakleysaid, it could not be possible to frame a return which would give more incorrect information than that just moved. The number of convictions would not give one-tenth, one-fiftieth of the number of illegitimate children who had been destroyed; and as, of course, the object must be to arrive at a correct knowledge of those numbers, he hoped the motion would be withdrawn and remodelled; for, as at present framed, the result must deceive the House and the country. Nothing was more common than for children to be exposed in roads, and he had sometimes three or four such cases in one day; but in many instances, although it could be seen that murder had been committed, no convictions for murder took place; consequently the return of convictions would not at all indicate the extent of child murder.
Mr. Colvillesaid, his object was to arrive at a knowledge of the effect of that part of the New Poor-law which regarded bastardy; but if the hon. Member thought the object would not be attained by this motion he would withdraw it, provided the hon. Member would give his assistance in framing one more efficient.
Motion withdrawn.
Adjourned.