Commons Sitting of 19 February 1862

Preamble
PUBLIC BILL.—1o Marriages (Ireland).

QUALIFICATION FOR OFFICES ABOLITION BILL.—SECOND READING.
Order for Second Redding read.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he hoped that his hon. Friend would not press this Bill upon the House. He wished, however, to take that opportunity of correcting an error into which be had fallen when the measure was introduced. He (Mr. Newdegate) had said, that last Session, when the second reading of the Bill was proposed, it was passed in a not very full House by a majority of thirteen; and this was true. But it was to a previous period that he alluded when he stated that the Bill had attracted little attention in the House, and had been rejected by a majority of two to one by the House of Lords. The Bill was certain to be thrown out by the other House of Parliament; but only last Session, through some accident or another, by a majority of eleven. The Bill proposed to repeal the declaration taken by all persons who are admitted to corporate offices that they will never exercise any power, authority, or influence which they might possess by reason of such offices to the detriment of the Church of England as by law established, or disturb the bishops or clergy of that Church in any rights to which they may be by law entitled. He wished to point out to the House that the declaration in no way fettered the free action of any man as a citizen, as an elector, or as a Member of that House; but it did prevent persons invested with corporate functions and with the power attached to those functions from exercising that power to the detriment of the Church of England. The power of the corporation was conferred by the State, and he held that the State had a perfect right to define the purposes to which the powers which it conferred should be exercised. Let them look at the consequences
456
which would ensue from the abrogation of the limitation. That abrogation would tend to convert every corporation into a political club, with express permission to use the corporate powers against the Church of England. The declaration was embodied in the Test and Corporation Act, which passed in 1828, and for which the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office had since derived so much honour and credit. It was also included in the oath framed in 1829 for the admission of Roman Catholics to corporate offices and seats in this House. It was inserted also in the oath taken by Jewish members of the House. The reservation did not say that any man should be limited in any legitimate political function, but simply that he should not abuse the municipal power with which, by virtue of admission to a corporate office, he became invested. The Declaration was as follows:—
"I will never exercise any power or authority which I may possess by virtue of the office of to injure or weaken the Protestant Church as it is by law established in England, or to disturb the said Church."
There was nothing illiberal in that limitation. The hon. Member for Sheffield considered the declaration an annoyance, and had stated that on one occasion, when he had to make it in order to act as assessor in conjunction with the Mayor of Manchester, some foolish persons jeered him. The hon. Member ought to have treated those cheers or jeers with the contempt they merited, because it was a proof that whoever cheered or jeered were so ignorant as not to understand that he was accepting a function the performance of which was inconsistent with his using the powers thereof against the Church of England. He regretted that the hon. Member for Sheffield should persevere in his attempt to press the Bill, because its effect would be not to establish religious freedom, but to direct the powers of the corporations against the Church of England; and for these reasons, and from no wish to limit the religious freedom of any man, he begged to move as an Amendment that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. What had occurred in the United States was sufficient to show that a nation could not be free unless it guarded not only the social but the political order to be observed by the several powers of the state; and as one who valued the free action of the corporations of this country in all that related to the administration

457
of the several municipalities, he deprecated the proposed change, which would tend to divert the corporations from the due performance of their legitimate functions, and subject them to influences at variance with the municipal interests and order of the cities and towns which they were bound to guard.
Mr. SELWYNseconded the Amendment.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "this day six months."
MR. SOTHERON-ESTCOURTremarked, that a great deal might be said in favour of abolishing the declaration; but the subject had such wide ramifications that he held that it was a matter which should be dealt with by the Government, and not by a private Member. It was not to be expected that a private Member could give the House those assurances and guarantees which would enable them to feel justified in removing the declaration from the statute book. If the Government would have the subject investigated by their law officers and would give the House an assurance that there was no ground for apprehending danger to the Church from the abolition of the declaration, he should regard it as upon a different footing from that which it now occupied, introduced year after year as the crotchet, apparently, of an individual Member, with no further information or guarantee upon which the House could proceed.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he did not think the Bill was of sufficient importance to require that it should be adopted by the Government. In his opinion the grievance of the declaration had been much exaggerated on the one side and the danger of its abolition on the other. The grievance was rather theoretical than practical, and the apprehensions entertained by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr.Newdegate), as to the effect of suppressing the declaration, had no substantial foundation. The declaration afforded no real protection to the Established Church, and he did not think that it was ever seriously proposed as such. The Test and Corporation Act was repealed at the instance of his noble Friend the Foreign Secretary as a private Member; and this declaration was not pro posed by him, but it was probably thought at the time that it would quiet the apprehensions entertained as to its effect. He agreed with the hon. Member for War-
458
wickshire that the State had a right to limit the powers which it conferred; but after thirty or forty years experience could any one say that the declaration gave any real security to the Church, or that it was worth while to retain it? Parliament had expressed its belief that it was of no value by passing an annual Indemnity Bill, which suspended the penalties imposed for not taking the declaration. As the Bill had already received the sanction of the House on several occasions, he would vote for the second reading.
SIR MORTON PETOsaid, that the best; proof that the Nonconformists were suffering under a real grievance was the passing of the Indemnity Act. The declarations afforded no protection whatever to the Church, but were rather a source of weakness, diminishing her usefulness, which after all was the only thing that would preserve her position. As she enlarged and widened her sphere of action she could afford to give others the civil equality which was due to them. He was sure the hon. Member for Warwickshire might dismiss his alarms, as the passing of the Bill would not have the slightest possible effect in the direction he feared.
Mr. WALPOLEsaid, he doubted whether the declaration afforded any real protection to the Church; but, on the other hand, he could not see that it formed a serious grievance to the Dissenters. It was perhaps a matter of little consequence what was done with the declaration; but it was always undesirable to re-open vexed questions which had once been settled by the Legislature, and the removal of a condition which had hitherto accompanied the appointment of persons to corporate offices would tend by implication (though, no doubt, erroneously) to the conclusion that Dissenters might, by virtue of their official position, do what was detrimental to the Church. For these reasons he should support the law as it stood.
Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
House divided:—Ayes 63; Noes 54: Majority 9.
Main Question put, and agreed to. Bill read 2o,

MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER.—SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read, Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
MR. LYGONsaid, that the circumstances under which the Bill then came before the House were such as to induce hon. Member to consider very carefully the course which they should adopt with regard to it. As on a former occasion, the hon. Member for Pontefract had moved the second reading of the Bill without stating the grounds on which he introduced it; so now he had abstained from stating his reasons for embracing Scotland and Ireland in its provisions. Considering that it was the first occasion upon which it had been proposed that the alteration of the Law should extend to Scotland and Ireland, it was scarcely courteous to bring on the second reading of the Bill at a time when many Scotch and Irish Members were unavoidably absent from the House, and no sufficient opportunity had been given for their constituents to express their opinions upon it. The extreme haste with which the hon. Member who had charge of the Bill pressed it on, showed that he entertained a lurking belief, that if the subject was fairly discussed after due notice, it would be very difficult to pass such a measure. There was no reason, either, for hurrying on the Bill, as the Order Book for Wednesdays, as well as for every other day in the Session, was a comparative blank. Although, in compliance with the resolution which was passed last year, that it was inexpedient to make a change which would place the Law in the three kingdoms Upon a different footing, the provisions of the Bill had been extended to Scotland and Ireland; yet, while it was declared that in England marriages contracted before the Act were to be valid, such was not to be the case in Scotland; and while in England vested rights were saved, there was in the Bill no similar provision with regard to Scotland and Ireland. He (Mr. Lygon) objected to the Bill, as he believed it would lead to endless litigation, and confuse and disturb many family arrangements. He was very unwilling to make that House the arena of theological controversy; but he thought that they were entitled to ask the supporters of the change, why, if they defended it on the ground that marriage with the sister of a deceased wife was not prohibited by express words of Holy Scripture, they did not ask Parliament to sanction marriage in at least fourteen other cases in which it was forbidden, but in which no such express prohibition existed; and more particularly why they had abandoned the case of marriage with a deceased wife's niece,
460
which used to be included in their Bills. A publication had been sent round to hon. Members of that House by the indefatigable agitators on the part of the measure, which was headed "Facts and Opinions," and which purported to contain statements of no less than twenty-seven facts bearing upon the subject. He had had the document in his possession for two or three days only, but he had already discovered that many of these facts were as fallacious as possible, and might with greater propriety be described as fictions. The first fact was, that "marriage with a deceased wife's sister is in no way prohibited, either expressly or impliedly in the Old or New Testament. "Assuming that such was the ease, the same observation would apply to the fourteen other cases to which he had referred, the abandonment of the prohibition in many of which would lead to consequences most shocking and revolting to humanity. Fact the second asserted that marriage with a deceased wife's sister was expressly permitted by the Law of Leviticus. Now, it must be borne in mind, that however Archbishop Parker and those who were subsequently concerned in framing the authorized version of the Scriptures in the year 1603 might differ as to the translation of a particular verse of Leviticus, they were agreed as to the meaning which that verse bore, because they were the persons who drew up and sanctioned the table of kindred and affinity upon which the restrictions upon marriages of affinity were based. In another "fact" it was asserted that the Church of England nowhere claimed authority to prohibit marriages which were not contrary to Holy Scriptures. That was so, but these marriages were by all the authorities of the Church who had spoken collectively declared to be contrary to those Scriptures. It was true that there had been exceptions within the last few years, but many of the prelates who bad adopted the idea of a mistranslation had afterwards changed their opinions. The late Bishop Blomfield was for a time led away, but after further consideration he deliberately changed his opinion, and voted in favour of the restrictions. Great stress was also laid upon the opinion of the late Bishop of Durham, but within the last two or three years of his life he expressed deep regret for the course which he had taken. ["Where? Where?" He was aware that the statement had not been made public, but he believed that in what he had said he had stated no more than

461
was the fact. Individual bishops might have given opinions in favour of these marriages, but the Church of England speaking in a responsible manner, and in her corporate capacity, had always declared that they were contrary to Holy Scripture. Nor was that declaration confined to the Church of England; it was shared by the Church of Scotland and by every branch of the Presbyterian Church. Again, it was said that in 1563 Bishop Jewell expressed the opinion that these marriages were proper. That might or might not be so, but in 1571 Bishop Jewell was a party to drawing up the table of kindred and affinity which condemned them. The 13th "fact" stated that these marriages were before the year 1835 virtually permitted in this country. That was a misrepresentation of the facts, because, if it were true that these particular marriages were virtually permitted before that year, so were all other unions which were within the prohibitions of the table of affinity. But the matter had not been left where it was in the year 1835. In the case of "Fenton v. Livingstone," it had been laid down by Lord Brougham, Lord Cranworth, Lord Wensleydale, and Lord Chelmsford, with, he believed, the full concurrence of the late Lord Campbell, that all incestuous marriages within the prohibited degrees of kindred and affinity, including that with a deceased wife's sister, were not voidable, but void ab initio. Prior to the Act of 1835, however, the question of these marriages was a question for the spiritual courts, and one of which, until it was decided by them, the temporal courts could not take cognizance. In the Ecclesiastical Courts it was possible to protract a suit until the death of one of the parties, after which the marriage could not be questioned, and thus, by means of a sham suit, any of these marriages might be protected. By the Act of 1835 the procedure was altered, and the temporal courts were authorized to deal with these marriages without waiting for the decision of the spiritual tribunals; and so far he thought that the Act of 1835 was not open to attack. It then became a question in what position those who had contracted these marriages should be placed, and, from a feeling of, perhaps, mistaken kindness, it was agreed that they should be placed in the position in which they would have stood if a suit bad been begun and one of the parties had been removed by death. It was stated that thousands of such mar-
462
riages had been contracted; but as far as any opportunity had been given of examining the question, it had been found that for whosever benefit this measure might be intended, it was not designed for that of the poor man. These unions did not exist in any considerable numbers among the poor. Some time ago Sir William Page Wood carefully inquired how many of such marriages had occurred in the parishes of St. Margaret and St. John, and he could find only two. [Mr. Monckton MILNES: "74."] It was afterwards shown that there were two more, and he saw that it was now stated that there were 74—a statement, however, to which, resting as it did on an anonymous authority, he was certainly not disposed to give entire credence without further investigation. They were told that a great number of petitions had been presented in favour of the Bill; but what was the reason of that? Why, that neither time, money, expense, nor trouble had been spared in getting them up. It was not difficult to get signatures at the rate of two guineas for 400; and it was not surprising, considering that those who were anxious to maintain the law had no private interests to serve, and no funds to expend, that the petitions which they had presented should be signed by a smaller number of persons. It was quite impossible—and he believed that in using that expression he was quoting the words of Earl Russell—it was quite impossible to stop at the change proposed by the Bill. All the arguments which had been used in its favour might he advanced in support of polygamy, and would lead to conclusions most revolting to human nature. It was a thing wholly unprecedented in the history of legislation that those who had set at naught the law of England should receive a privilegium. If persons came to that House for relief, they ought to come there with clean hands. The Bill had not advanced in public favour. It was once carried by a majority of 40; but last year it did not succeed in passing that House. He trusted that the House would, upon further examination, affirm its decision of last year, and, carrying out the fair and legitimate expression of public opinion, would prevent the further agitation of that most odious and unsatisfactory proposal.
MR. COLLIERsaid, he thought the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Milnes) had exercised a wise discretion in the manner in which he had brought the

463
subject before the House. Hon. Gentleman opposite appeared to misconceive an important question which lay at the threshold of this discussion, namely, on which side the burden of proof rested. Primâ facie marriage was a lawful thing: when the question arose whether or not any particular marriage, or class of marriages was lawful, surely it did not lie on those who asserted that they were to prove a negative, namely, that there was no impediment: but it lay upon those who forbad the banns to prove affirmatively that some impediment did exist. They were bound to show that such marriages were forbidden by Scripture, or, if not, that they were repugnant to what the hon. Gentleman called the moral instinct of the world—at least of the Christian world. The hon. Gentleman seemed to forget that marriages such as those now under the consideration of the House were sanctioned by every Protestant country in Europe except our own, and were also legal in Canada and the United States. In Roman Catholic countries they might likewise take place whenever a dispensation was procured, and he could not believe that in Roman Catholic countries dispensations were granted to legalize incest. The moral instinct repugnant to these marriages, therefore, was only to be found in England; and it evidently did not animate the majority of the House of Commons, as that assembly had over and over again adopted the principle contained in the Bill. Was there then any spiritual prohibition? Hon. Gentlemen could find none in the New Testament, and were obliged to go back to Leviticus. There would be a considerable difficulty in applying all the moral precepts of that book to society as at present constituted; and, if even an express prohibition were there to be met with, he was not sure that he should feel himself bound by it. But the fact was, that the single verse bearing upon the subject sanctioned by implication instead of prohibiting these marriages. It was important to inquire in what way the marriage law propounded in Leviticus, was understood by the people to whom it was addressed. Dr. Adler, one of the chief Rabbis of the Jews, deposed that from the time when the law was promulgated these marriages had not only been contracted, but were looked upon with peculiar favour. Yet, notwithstanding these constant violations of a supposed law, he challenged hon. Gentlemen to point out A single instance in which a divine re-
464
buke for their backslidings in that particular had been levelled at the Jews. The hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Lygon) had invoked Church authority, by which he supposed he referred to the apostolic canons. [Mr. Lygon dissented.] Well, the subject had been very often discussed, and if the hon. Member had not already referred to those canons, some other Gentleman on his side of the House would be sure to do so. By the apostolic canons, promulgated in the fourth century, not merely these particular marriages, but marriages with widows were prohibited; and yet in the present day he was told that several Members of the Bench of Bishops had married widows, showing thereby their reverence for the apostolic canons. Other marriages, such as those with servant maids and actresses, were forbidden; in fact, for a lengthened period the Church showed a disposition to restrict marriages as much as possible. The Council of Lateran went so far as to forbid marriages within the degree of fourth cousin. That ascetic tendency, however, which prevailed for many ages in the church, and which multiplied impediments and restrictions in the way of marriage, had given way before the progress of intelligence and of true religion. Therefore, the high ground taken by hon. Gentlemen opposite was no longer tenable; it was impossible to show that marriage with a deceased wife's sister was prohibited either by religion or natural morality; what then was the real objection to the measure? it lay in the opposition of a great number of highly conscientious and religious people in this country. That would be an unanswerable argument if the Bill were one compelling a man to marry his wife's sister, or even to associate with another man who had done so. But the simple answer to those who pressed the objection was "Don't marry your own wife's sister; you are not bound to hold intercourse with any other man who does so; you may blackball him at your club, if you think proper; but do not impose your sentiments and your tastes—for they are nothing more—on people who, differing from you, hold their opinions as conscientiously and religiously as you entertain yours." It was said that inconvenience would follow the alteration of the law, and dark pictures of future domestic unhappiness had been drawn. But all these objections applied as strongly to the wife's cousin as to her sister; and yet no one would venture to say that husbands habi-

465
tually intrigued with those relatives. Experience refuted these allegations. If practical inconvenience had arisen from the operation of the law in other Protestant countries, it would long since have been repealed. The evils anticipated from such a measure in our own country were entirely fanciful and imaginary; but those arising from the continuance of the prohibition were real and undoubted. It was in itself a great evil to perpetuate a system to which numbers entertained the strongest objections, when, moreover, the law was inoperative and ineffectual. What were the facts? The Royal Commissioners on the Law of Marriage, the Bishop of Lichfield, Dr. Lushington, the Lord Advocate, and Mr. Justice Williams, stated—
"We do not find that the persona who contract these marriages, and the relations and friends who approve them, have a less strong sense than others of religions and moral obligation, or are marked by laxity of conduct.……These marriages will take place when a concurrence of circumstances give rise to mutual attachment; they are not dependent on legislation."
It was impossible to exclude from consideration the position of the children of such marriages. The parents themselves were often among the most respectable members of society; the children were well brought up and educated; and if the strong measure of bastardizing them were persisted in, they would never cease to regard themselves as innocent victims of an unjust and tyrannical law. Nothing would persuade persons who had gone abroad and contracted such marriages in countries where they were legal that they were not valid in the eye of God, and that they would not be committing adultery by marrying again, Among the poorer classes marriages of this nature were contracted to a much larger extent than was generally known. On the death of the wife her sister became the natural guardian of the children; and if she and the husband were not allowed to marry, the result frequently was that they lived together in a state of concubinage. He concluded then that it had not been shown that these marriages were prohibited by any precept of natural or revealed religion, or by any rule of morality. The objections to the Bill resolved themselves I into mere objections of taste and sentiment, and he maintained that for any section of the community, how much soever they might be entitled to respect, to impose their tastes and sentiments in the shape
466
of a prohibitory law upon others who did not share them, was a violation of the principles of civil and religious liberty.
Mr. BLACKBURNsaid, he rose to record his protest against the discussion of the subject having been brought on with so short a notice, especially as it was now sought to extend the operation of the proposed change to Scotland and Ireland—at a time, too, when many of the Scotch and Irish Members were absent from town. The hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. Collier) while setting the Gospel above the law, had declared that even if the Gospel contained an express prohibition of these marriages, he should feel himself at liberty to disregard it. But the fact was, that the Scriptures, rightly under stood, did contain an express prohibition, to discover which it was only necessary to admit, as they did with all Acts of Parliament, that wherever the word "men" was used the injunctions must be taken as extending to women also. Altering the words so as to impart to them this meaning, it would be seen that the interpretation put on the last verse of the passage in the 18th Chapter of Leviticus, verses 15 to 18, by the hon. Member for Plymouth, was at best a piece of sophistry, and led by inevitable and logical sequence to the sanctioning of polygamy. The Bill was not a mere alteration of t e law of 1835; it was an alteration of what had been the law of England and Scotland for the last 300 years, and of Christendom since Christianity arose. He trusted the House would throw out the Bill, and never again permit such a disagreeable subject to be introduced.
Mr. HBADLAMsaid, as he had always voted in favour of the Bill since he first had the honour of a seat in the House, and as his opinion with regard to it remained unchanged by anything he had read or heard, it was his intention to vote for the present measure, and to state shortly the reasons which induced him to do so. In the first place, with reference to what was called the theological argument—that is to say, the construction to be placed on the chapter in Leviticus—he was not going to enter into any minute discussion, partly because the subject was a very unsuitable one for the House, but more especially because he did not think any passage could be found in Scripture from which a conclusion could be deduced. If in the pages of the Bible there was to be found any express recognition of these marriages, as was some-

467
times contended by the supporters of the Bill, or if there was any direct prohibition, as was alleged by its opponents, then it would, of course, be our duty to obey the mandate at once; and, in so doing, we should be saved from all responsibility, and we should also have the satisfaction of knowing that our legislation, resting upon such a foundation, would be acquiesced in by all classes of a Christian community. It was, however, antecedently improbable that Providence should have given us an explicit declaration on such a question. We know how all attempts to deduce from the Bible direct information on other matters of human learning and science have been worse than useless, and on reference it appears that on this matter as on others we are left to act upon our own judgment, guided only by those general rules of justice and morality that ought to guide the House on this as on other occasions. For his own part, his opinion in favour of permitting these marriages was grounded chiefly upon the experience of the past, and upon facts, concerning which there was no doubt. For every practical purpose these marriages were tolerated and permitted in England before 1835. True, a canon of the Church had been levelled against them; but when they found how ineffectual even an Act of Parliament had been, it was not to be wondered at that a mere canon, unenforced by any Act of Parliament, had been impotent to restrain men in a matter in which their interests and passions were involved. The Commissioners who investigated the subject found that thousands upon thousands of these marriages had taken place in all grades of society; that the parties had lived and died under the influence of the marriage vow; and that the children had inherited as if the canon had never existed. It was said that these marriages were voidable, but, in point of fact, there was not a single instance in which any one of them had been set aside. Earnest and sincere men predicted that the permission to contract these marriages would weaken the sanctity of the marriage vow, and lower the standard of morality in the country. But he asked the House, had there been the slightest proof of any evil consequences arising from these marriages during the time they were practically tolerated? If it were true that they had been injurious to morality, he should have expected that the bishops and clergy would have denounced them, and shown the evils that had in fact arisen from them. If mar-
468
riages of this kind were so pernicious, then in the time when they were tolerated the pulpit would have thundered against them, and the writers on ethics and morals would have shown in fact the mischiefs they had revealed. But it was not so. He did not know how it was with other hon. Gentlemen, but he had never read in the literature of this or any other country that injury had been done to morals, or the sanctity of the marriage vow weakened, by these marriages. They were told, that if such marriages were legalized, ladies could not go on visits to their married sisters, and that gentlemen could not be on the same terms with their sisters-in-law. If such results could be traced in cases in which such marriages had taken place, he should have expected to find in the light literature of the country—in novels and in the plots of plays—some allusion to such jealousies and suspicions; but he had never been able to do so. It was not on record that previously to 1835 there had been a single Motion in that House, or a single petition presented from the clergy, complaining of the evils arising from these marriages. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Tewkesbury said that the Act of 1835 had been introduced in consequence of such evils.
Mr. LYGON: No, I said that the Bill of that year had been introduced in consequence of the inconvenience arising from the temporal Courts not being cognizant of these marriages.
MR. HEADLAMsaid, that impression was totally erroneous. The Act of 1835 was not introduced in consequence of any evils that had arisen from these marriages, but from a fear lest one of these marriages should be set aside in a case where a title to a dukedom and a great estate depended upon the marriage remaining valid. The first object of the Bill was to make this particular marriage, which had then taken place, valid. With respect to future marriages, the Bill, as originally introduced, so far from making them invalid in consequence of evils that had been found to arise from them, actually made it easier to contract them for the future; for it contained a clause, that unless proceedings were instituted within a certain time, a marriage of this kind should be valid. It was proposed, however, subsequently in the House of Lords, that whilst all past marriages were made valid, all subsequent ones should be made absolutely void. The noble Lord who introduced the Bill, having

469
secured his first and primary object of establishing the particular marriage on account of which he introduced the Bill, left posterity to take care of itself, and instead of facilitating, as he had originally proposed, all such marriages for the future, he consented to make them absolutely void ever after the date of his Act. In this state the Bill came down to this House. and it is important to observe, that with all the experience that men then had of the practical effect of these marriages, the opinion of this House was clearly in favour of permitting them; and, accordingly, the clause that had been introduced in the House of Lords to make future marriages of the kind void was struck out in Committee of the House of Commons. On the third reading the House was persuaded to reinstate the clause, by the argument that the Bill would certainly be lost elsewhere unless it was restored to the shape in which it had come down, and also by the argument that even with the clause as to future marriages, the Bill effected a certain amount of good by making valid all these marriages that had then taken place. No person was interested in opposing the Bill as it then stood, for this obvious reason:—all who had married their wives' sisters had a direct interest in the Bill passing, because it prevented the possibility of their marriages being ever set aside; and as respects the future, as no man anticipates that he will at some future time wish to marry his wife's sister, no one cared about a clause which prohibited such a marriage after the date of the Act.
So the Bill passed. Now, let the House compare the state of things before the Act with the state of things since the Act. When these marriages were tolerated there was no semblance of a grievance or complaint. Since the Act of 1835, prohibiting these marriages, one continual agitation has existed and an ever-increasing number of persons are found setting the law at defiance and complaining of its injustice. It appears from experience that out of the number of persons annually wishing to contract marriage, a certain number will wish to marry their wives' sisters. With respect to these persons, how does the law operate. Some of the feebler submit to the law, and go through life with their tempers made morbid, and a strong sense of the injustice inflicted upon them in a matter affecting their domestic happiness. This is the success of the Act, the utmost
470
that can be obtained from it. It does not, however, always succeed even to this limited extent. Those in the lower classes who wish to contract one of these marriages, even if they do not succeed in getting the ceremony performed, live as if they had been married, and dispense with the ceremony. Some there are who commit perjury for the sake of obtaining a licence, and then, on a licence so obtained, get a marriage which is absolutely invalid solemnized. Persons in the upper class go abroad, and obtain some ceremony to be performed which satsifies their own consciences, and then they let society say what it pleases of them. Is it wise to continue such a state of things? The fact is, that there is no argument to offer to an earnest and sincere man who wishes to contract one of these marriages sufficient to convince him that what he wishes is wrong. It cannot be seriously told to such a person that Scripture prohibits such a marriage, when bishops and clergymen contend the contrary. Assuming it to be true, which he totally disbelieved, that if this law passed great ladies would be jealous of their sisters, that was no sufficient reason to offer to a man who wished to contract such a marriage. He contended that this Bill as it now stands was quite sufficient, inasmuch as it dealt with the only practical grievance, but, even if it was illogical, that was a reason for correcting it in Committee, but it was no reason for maintaining the law as it now stands. The clear conclusion to his mind was, that this Act of 1835 did no good, but that, on the contrary, it acted with cruel injustice upon those who were affected by it, and was to many a stumbling-block and cause of offence.
LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, that the promoters of the Bill furnished the House with no valid reason for interfering with the existing law. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Plymouth (Mr. Collier) had dealt largely in general principles. He started with this grand principle—he said the natural theory was that any man might marry any woman. The hon. and learned Gentleman, however, subsequently admitted that there might be some restrictions on that universal liberty, and proceeded to lay down what those were. He then gave the House a number of reasons by which they might test whether those restrictions were sound, and whether, in the case under consideration, a man might avail himself of the universal liberty given to any man to marry any

471
woman. In testing any general principle, the soundest course was, not to test it by the case before them, but to test it by other cases which might arise, and to which the general principle might be applied. In that instance the hon. and learned Gentleman's general principle might be applied not only to the case of those who wished to marry a deceased wife's sister, but also to that of those who wished to marry two wives. He undertook to show that the restrictions which the hon. and learned Gentleman said were applicable to the case of a man desiring to marry the sister of his deceased wife did equally apply to the bigamist who wanted to marry two wives. That, he submitted, was a sound and logical way of testing the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument. First, as to revelation. The hon. and learned Gentleman treated the new Testament with some contempt—
MR. COLLIER: I beg pardon. I did not.
LORD ROBERT CECIL: Or perhaps, rather, set it aside—
MR. COLLIER: All I said was that no argument from the New Testament had been adduced against these marriages.
LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, he would beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon, as he had misrepresented him. The hon. and learned Gentleman argued that from Leviticus no restriction or prohibition could be shown; and he also stated that there was no prohibition in the New Testament. Well, he now begged to apply the same argument to his present clients, the bigamists. Was there any prohibition in Leviticus, or any in the New Testament, against a man marrying two wives instead of one? He had never heard any argument on the subject, and he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman must take the same view of it as he did himself. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said that these marriages must be forbidden either by revelation or by a moral instinct accepted by all mankind. He had shown that the bigamist might avail himself of revelation equally with the man who wanted to marry his deceased wife's sister. He now wanted to know whether the prohibition against marrying two wives was a moral instinct accepted by all mankind. It was accepted by Englishmen and Continental nations, he admitted; but the vast majority of the human race were in favour of marrying more wives than one; so that it was impossible to say that it was prohibited
472
by a moral instinct accepted by all mankind. The hon. and learned Gentleman then went on to say, that if these marriages were not forbidden by revelation, or by a moral instinct, accepted by all mankind, they ought to be permitted. That was just what his client the bigamist might allege. He also said that the House ought not to object to the Bill because it was not restrictive, but merely permissive—because it did not order any one to marry his wife's sister, but only stated that any one ought to be at liberty to do so. Well, the bigamist said—"I do not wish to force any man to marry two wives; I only want to be left in peace according to my conscience. It is very hard that gentlemen who do not like to have two wives should interfere with those who do." The hon. and learned Gentleman made use of another argument. He said that if other countries had discovered marriages with a deceased wife's sister to have a bad effect, they would have pressed those evils on their Governments with a view of putting an end to the cause. Now, did the fact that no pressure had been brought on a Government for the removal of certain evils prove of itself that those evils did not exist? He wanted to know whether the Turks or the Mormons had pressed for the removal of the evils arising from men having a plurality of wives? There was only one other argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman on which he would touch. He said, "Look at the number of persons who marry their deceased wives' sisters in opposition to your law." He was afraid that they would only have to consult the police reports every day to see the number of persons who, in spite of all their legislation, insisted on marrying more wives than one. The right hon. Gentleman who had last addressed the House had urged them not to be deterred from relaxing the law in this case by any fear that they would be asked to make further relaxations. He said, "If other cases arise, bring them forward, and let us deal with them." It could scarcely be doubted that persons would be found ready to bring forward other cases. Unfortunately, cases were constantly arising of men giving way to their passions and violating the law, and then complaining that the law punished them. He did not want Parliament to be logical; but he did ask it, if there were two grievances, not to disregard the greater one and legislate for the removal of the lesser. He was not going into the

473
theological question. If he did so, he might be disposed to agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman. He thought that the grounds for saying that there was a Scriptural prohibition against these marriages were too doubtful to make them decisive; but he could not be satisfied with the principle of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Headlam) that they should look at the case before them, and not go beyond it. If the Bill passed, he did not see what they were to do, supposing any estimableman—say a duke—wished to marry his step-mother. He did not see how they could refuse to give him that relief which they now proposed to give to the men who wanted to marry their wives' sisters. Once they broke the established law—once they interfered with the law of marriage—they had no logical ground to stand on. They might say they despised logic. His reply was, "I dare say you do." But that was not a case in which they could afford illogical and anomalous legislation. The opponents of restrictions on marriage would make use of every argument in the logical armoury, and Parliament would be forced to withdraw from a position of further opposition. If they passed the Bill, they would set every one in the kingdom thinking whom they might marry, and whom they might not. He did not think that those who knew human nature could have any ground for hoping that marriages even more repulsive to the general sentiment than those which were the subject of discussion, would not be contracted by per sons who were not restrained by any legal enactments. Though he frankly confessed that, if founding a new republic, he might be disposed to authorize marriage with a deceased wife's sister, yet he was opposed to a violent dislocation of traditionary feelings, or disturbance of existing laws; and he thought the House of Commons would act wisely in refusing to disturb the marriage law at all. On those grounds he begged to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
SIR GEORGE GREY: Sir, in explaining the grounds on which I support this Bill, I decline to enter into the theological argument. I entirely agree with the noble Lord that the theological ground is too doubtful a one on which to decide this question. The theological argument is one on
474
which every man must make up his mind for himself. Certainly this is not the tribunal to which he must apply for a decision on doubtful texts. If there were an unambiguous prohibition in Scripture, we should know what to do at once; but, as I do not find that there is, I feel myself at liberty to regard the existing law in its results and bearings on society. On this point I am bound to admit that there is much to be said on both sides; but, on the whole, I am of opinion that the balance of advantages to society is on the side of a relaxation of the law. I have always thought it unfortunate that the law of 1835 should have been passed. If the question arose de novo, I think it would not be prudent to encourage these marriages; and the state of the law before 1835 served as a discouragement. But the provision in the Act of that year, declaring subsequent marriages of this nature to be absolutely void, has led to terrible consequences. It is now in the power of a husband who has married a deceased wife's sister to desert her without any provision, and to marry another woman without involving himself in any penal consequences. My right hon. Friend the Judge Advocate has given an accurate account of what passed in 1835. The noble and learned Lord who introduced the Bill of that year proposed it with a very different intention from that with which it was carried into effect. Originally he had no intention to make subsequent marriages invalid. That was forced upon him, I think, as a condition on which the Bill should pass. Therefore, the authority of Lord Lyndhurst cannot be quoted by those who are in favour of keeping the law as it is. I believe that, practically, the law worked well before the passing of the Act of 1835. Now, as regards bigamy, there is this important distinction between it and the marrying of a deceased wife's sister,—the bigamist subjects himself to penal consequences, involving, perhaps, a long term of penal servitude. That is not the case with respect to a man who has married and subsequently deserted his deceased wife's sister. Some few days ago a poor woman applied to a police Magistrate, stating that her husband had married another woman, and deserted her. The Magistrate, of course, said, "If he has done so, he is liable to a prosecution for bigamy;" but it turned out that the poor woman was sister to her husband's first wife, and the Magistrate was obliged to inform her that he could give her no assist-

475
once. I must say that I think, morally, that man is guilty of a great crime who, having married his deceased wife's sister and lived with her a number of years, then deserts her. Therefore, though much may be said on the other side, I cannot but come to the conclusion that the balance of advantages is in favour of a relaxation of the law. But, regarding this as a social question, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. M. Milnes) will permit me to say that I doubt very much if the interests of society would be served by its being agitated year after year in this House without the prospect of some such Bill as this being passed. I have heard a complaint made of my hon. Friend not having made a speech in moving the second reading; but he said, when introducing the Bill a few evenings ago, that one of his reasons for so doing was that the Bill of last year had not been met by a direct negative, but merely by a resolution declaring that it was not expedient to have a different law in different parts of the kingdom. I doubt if including Scotland and Ireland will help my hon. Friend; but, under the circumstances explained by him, I think he is justified in asking the House to express an opinion on his measure this year. However, if Parliament refuse to accede to my hon. Friend's proposal, or if it should assent to it by only a small majority, and there be no real prospect of an alteration in the law, I think that repeated agitation of the question will only be calculated to encourage these marriages and bring misery upon many of those who enter into them, I throw out these suggestions with a view of guarding myself against being considered pledged, under all circumstances, to support a similar proposition in future.
MR. WALPOLE:—Sir, I think that nothing could be more satisfactory than the admirable tone and temper which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department has brought to bear on this question, and, feeling very strongly on it, I will endeavour to imitate that tone in the few observations which I have to address to the House. There was one part of my right hon. Friend's speech with which I was particularly pleased. I think it is not desirable that a question of this kind should come before us year after year, disturbing the marriage relations of the country, or giving rise to the supposition that there is a probability of their being disturbed. Therefore, what-
476
ever may be the result of this discussion, if my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract finds that he does not get any great support for his proposition, I think on moral grounds it would be very detrimental to the interests of society that we should hear of it again. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has addressed to us an argument which I think should have led him to a contrary conclusion from that at which he has arrived. He says that if the question came before us de novo he should rather discourage those marriages; while the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth, taking a much broader and bolder line, lays it down as a basis fur legislation that, prima facie, any man may marry any woman. Now, it will have an important bearing on this question to know whether that statement of the hon. and learned Member is, or is not, to be the basis of our legislation, supposing that you carry this Bill. After such an announcement, are you not bound to look at the consequences of the Bill before you? I wish my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract were now in his place, because I think I should be able to show him that some of the clauses in his Bill carry the principle much further than he intends in the case. The House should be careful before they undertake to disturb the law of marriage as known to the people of this country since the establishment of Christianity among us. That the law of marriage has been uniform in this country, I think no one can have a doubt. That it has been consistent is also obvious; and not only has it been uniform and consistent, but it has also been identical. No change has ever been made, with the exception of that made by the Act to which the hon. Gentleman has alluded, and which I shall refer to presently. Not only has it been uniform, consistent, and identical in England, but in Ireland and Scotland also. Now, it is a strong presumption in favour of this law to find that since this has been a Christian country no one, until lately, had attempted to alter the degrees in which marriage is to be contracted, and the degrees in which social life is to be affected. It is a dangerous thing to make any alteration in the law, unless you are sure of the ground on which you stand; and this applies more especially to an alteration affecting the social relations. I believe that no law ever promulgated by God or man has done more to raise the female character through—

477
out the world, and to give woman that status which she ought to have in society, than the law which puts the sexes on the game footing, and does not give to one or the other supremacy as between the two. I have said that the marriage law has been uniform in the United Kingdom since we became Christians. Nobody has doubted it. It has indeed been intimated by a body, whether persons, or a single person, who call themselves "The Law of Marriage Amendment Society," that there has been a doubt as to whether marriage with the sisters of deceased wives was illegal or invalid before the Act of Will. IV. I know as a fact, that acting on the mischievous advice of that society, persons have been induced to contract these marriages; though the decision of the highest tribunal in the land has been in accordance with what has been stated year after year in this House as to it being impossible to contend that such marriages are legal. Now, it has been justly said, and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department put the argument admirably, that a religious matter ought not to be brought into discussion here if you can possibly avoid it. If, however, any one thinks that religion is more or less implicated in any matter under discussion, he is, I think, at liberty to say that, on religious grounds, there are objections to the change you are going to make. I do not rest the religious objection on this or that verse of Scripture, but on that which has always been declared by every authority of this country, Parliamentary, ecclesiastical, and judicial, to be the foundation of the law. If you refer to the Parliamentary authority, you will find it stated in the statute law that these very marriages which are now sought to be legalized are among the prohibited degrees of Leviticus. If you go to the declarations of the Church, you need only refer to the Prayer-book on your table, or to the 99th canon, in which you will find these marriages are stated to be within the prohibited degrees of Leviticus. If you refer to the decisions of the courts of law, you will find that they have taken the same view. If, again, you refer to that able work—most valuable as the declaration of the Protestant feeling of this country—the Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum, you will find this principle laid down, that these marriages are prohibited, and that the prohibition rests on the only religious prin-
478
ciple on which I ever objected to the validity of these marriages in this House—that there ought to be a perfect unity in the marriage state, as ordained by God at the beginning, and sanctioned by our Saviour when on the earth. It follows as a legitimate deduction, that whatever may be the relations existing in consequence of that mysterious union, all the relations of the one party become the relations of the other. And thus the marriage of a man with his deceased wife's sister is as much a marriage of his sister-in-law as the marriage of a woman with the brother of her deceased husband is the marriage of a woman with her brother-in-law. I apologize, however, to the House for adverting to the religious point in the argument. I only do so to guard myself against the notion that it has no bearing on this question. Then, if this has been your law, and if all your authorities agree that it in founded on religious obligations, on whom does the onus probandi rest of altering a law that has existed so long? The hon. and learned Member for Plymouth says it is upon us to show that these marriages ought not to be allowed. But the onus is always with those who wish to alter the law, and not upon those who wish to maintain it. If that be so, there is another argument that must not be lost sight of, which has been adverted to by the noble Lord the Member for Stamford (Lord R. Cecil) in a speech of great ability. He says, and says truly, that when you are seeking to alter a law of this kind—especially with the announcement from the friends of the change, which must never be forgotten in these discussions, that prima facie any man ought to be able to marry any woman—you ought to inquire and satisfy yourself to what results this change will lead. Nay, more, I should be glad to ask my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract for information as to the changes he intends to make in the Bill now before the House. Will the hon. Member follow me for a moment? In the first and main clause of this Bill he says he provides (I omit the references to Acts of Parliament) that—
"No marriage which has been celebrated since the passing of the 5 & 6 Will. IV., c. 54, at any place whatever, within the realm or without, between a man and his deceased wife's sister, or which shall hereafter be celebrated between the like parties in the office of any registrar, shall be deemed to have been nor shall be void or voidable by reason only of the affinity of the parties thereto, or by reason of any statute, or of any

479
canonical or other objection or impediment, founded only on such affinity, to the validity of any such marriage or to the celebration thereof, or to the validity of any licence or certificate under which the same may have been celebrated."
Now, does the hon. Member mean that every marriage of affinity is to be sanctioned in future? If he means that, I have in my hand the table of prohibited degrees, which are thirty in the whole, and I find that no less than twenty out of the thirty are marriages by affinity. But does my hon. Friend mean that? If not, what does he mean? Because it has always been held by this House that when any hon. Gentleman, especially a Member of so much experience as my hon. Friend, brings forward a Bill for altering the law on so important a subject, the House is entitled to know what is the precise object and purport of that Bill. In plain words, is this Bill to be confined to marriage with a sister-in-law, or does it extend to marriages within all other degrees of affinity also? The House is entitled to have an answer to this question. If it is simply to authorize marriage with a sister-in-law, I ask on what ground a man is not to be permitted to marry the niece of his wife? Also, if a man may marry his sister-in-law, why may not a wife marry her husband's brother? Why, because we know that the laws of God are against such a marriage. You dare not propose such a change in the law as that; and if you dare not propose to enable a woman to marry her husband's brother, what becomes of your proposition to substitute for those civilizing and elevating influences of Christianity which placed both sexes on the same footing a change in the law by which the woman is to be put down to a lower and different position from the man? My hon. Friend (Mr. M. Milnes) is a man of literature and learning. He is an historian and a poet. Let me remind him that when a change in the law of marriage was made in the decline of the Roman Empire the most philosophical of historians, Tacitus, traced the most unfortunate results from the change. The author of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, also adverted to the same marriage laws, and stated the result of the changes made was to bring about a state of things in which "marriages were without love, and love was without delicacy and respect." If changes in the law of marriage produced such results then, why should they not be equally unfortunate now? My hon. Friend knows that the
480
event which perhaps made the greatest change of any event for many years in our own history was the solemnization, through the dispensation of the Pope, of a marriage of this kind. As a poet, my hon. Friend must well remember that the greatest drama of the greatest dramatic poet who ever lived is founded on what is by him called an "incestuous marriage" of this description. I will remind my hon. Friend of that passage in which Hamlet, addressing his mother, and speaking of a marriage of this kind, says it—
"Takes off the rose
"From the fair forehead of an innocent love,
"And sets a blister there; makes marriage vows
"As false as dicers' oaths: O! such a deed,
"As from the body of contraction plucks
"The very soul; and sweet religion makes
"A rhapsody of words."
In that beautiful passage Shakspeare alludes to the very argument upon which I have always founded my objection to this Bill. The religious ceremonial which has made two persons one is indeed nothing but a "rhapsody of words" with reference to the mysteries of that union unless you recognise the original law which prohibits to the man what you prohibit to the woman, which esteems the relations of the one the relations of the other, and follows this principle out into all its consequences in their mutual interests and duties. I might almost part with the question here if the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth, founding his notions on the prima facie natural liberty of men, did not seem to think that any person ought to be at liberty to marry any woman. But I will ask whether there was ever a time or a country in which some restraint was not put on the liberty of marriage? If so, all arguments founded on natural liberty, and the prima facie right of every man to marry any woman, fall to the ground. I ask him where he will find such a right existing in any civilized society? I tell him that we have been stopped here in this Christian country, by a definite and well-known rule, which you propose to supersede by a new and different rule that goes much further than you now intend to go. If natural liberty is to be the foundation of your marriage law, what is to become of all the marriage obligations that have existed and now exist in this country? Say how far you will go, and where you will stop. Define your limits. I defy you! In my opinion there is such a thing as Christian liberty, which

481
imposes valuable restraints where restraints ought to be imposed, but which does not sanction the indulgence of uncontrolled desires. That is the liberty for which I contend, and when I find that the law has laid down limits consistent with reason and religion, I am for maintaining those limits. Then there is the old argument, that the children will benefit by these marriages. This argument has been often advanced, and has been over and over again answered. I say that the orphan children will gain more advantage from the care and protection of the unmarried aunt than they can possibly gain from that aunt becoming their stepmother. The next argument is that derived from the injury which the poor of this country sustain, unless such marriages are sanctioned. That is an argument which my hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner) is fond of using. There is nothing like coming to facts, and we have a fact in regard to this question. When the Royal Commission was appointed, they made a very vigilant search in order to ascertain the number of marriages which had occurred or had been prevented by Lord Lyndhurst's Act, and in a table in the appendix of their Report they published the number of these marriages, divided into three classes of society. In the upper classes of society there were seventy cases where parties had either contracted or been prevented from contracting these marriages; in the middle classes 1,600, and among the class of labourers and mechanics a few above forty. I think, therefore, that those who use the argument of injury to the poor man had better consider whether the condition of the labouring man will not be more raised by maintaining the law as it is than by degrading the practice of the poorer classes to the level of those among the middle classes who have endeavoured to contract these marriages in spite of the law, and who have too often entered into concubinage where they could not contract marriage. The last argument—and it is one that ought to be fairly met—is that derived from the number of persons who, we are told, do not and will not keep this law, and therefore we are asked to alter it. Now, Sir, if there is one point more important than another for this House, as a legislative body, to declare, it is that it will not alter a law because a few persons choose to violate it. My notion is, that when Parliament declares a thing to be
482
law, and persons declare that they win commit an act known to be in violation of that law, they commit not merely a penal and legal, but also a moral offence. I say I that for the good of society in this country, as long as the law declares that this or that ought to be prohibited, we as a Legislature are bound to say—unless the violation of that law is so extensive that it cannot be kept—that we will listen to any reasons for a change, and to any arguments showing our policy to be wrong; but that there is one thing we will not listen to, and that is when the minority go and break the law and then come to the House and demand that it shall he altered. These are the only arguments that can be urged for this measure, and we have to weigh against them the undesirableness of changing what has always been the law of this country, and which has produced a state of moral purity in our domestic relations as great as can be produced by any law. Bearing in mind, then, that if an alteration is once made, there is no rule which points out where we shall stop without going to excesses which you yourselves would now revolt from; and hearing in mind, too, that those are not here who are more interested in this matter than any others, and who are most repugnant to the change that you are now asked to make, I beg, I entreat and implore the House not to sanction this Bill.
MR. BUXTONsaid, the right hon. Gentleman who had spoken last had endeavoured to show that his hon. and learned Friend had argued for absolute liberty of marriage, whereas, what he really urged was that prima facie any man might marry any woman; and he then pointed out the principle of the restrictions that were necessary. He did not advocate universal liberty of marriage. He (Mr. Buxton) was sorry to hear it argued that the question before the House was not a poor man's question. He had heard from clergymen that in a great number of cases marriages of the kind were contracted between persons of the humbler class; and that where they were prevented from marrying, concubinage prevailed to an extent that was greatly to be regretted. The petitions in favour of a change in the law had been signed by 1,100,000 persons. It was in vain to allege that such a result had been brought about by any machinery, for no machinery could have induced so large a number of persons to petition for a change which they did not care a faithing about.

483
It was worthy to be remembered that the Jews had always permitted these marriages. Coming to the Church of England, they found that nineteen bishops, two archbishops, and between 400 and 500 clergymen in the neighbourhood of London had declared that in their opinion there was nothing in the law of God to prevent these marriages. The leading Dissenters had expressed a similar opinion upon the religious question. Protestant communities across the Atlantic and across the Channel shared the same views. As for the House of Commons, it had thirty-one times affirmed the principle of the Bill. With all these authorities in favour of the measure, he thought that the Scriptural argument against such marriages ought to be no longer persisted in. Nor could he allow that it was a question of mere expediency. It was a question of right and justice. In forbidding a man, when God bad not forbidden him, to marry the woman he loved—in forbidding him to give his children a mother already devoted to them, instead of a strange step-mother—they were as cruelly wronging him as if they snatched away his money or his land. He had a claim on their justice to be allowed to do that, and they were trespassing on his rights in debarring him. If Scripture said nothing, people would be left to form their own opinions. But when a line had been precisely drawn between allowed and disallowed marriages, surely those who demanded to use the freedom which God had given them were wronged if that freedom were taken away, upon the pretence of some fancied awkwardness arising to imaginary people. The case for the Bill seemed overwhelming, if they took the ground of expediency alone. But the true, the decisive reason for supporting it was that the existing law was a trespass on men's natural rights, and that it filched from them the freedom reserved to them by the law of God.
SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, he had always supported a measure of the kind now before the House, on grounds that more peculiarly applied to England. He wished his hon. Friend had still confined his Bill to England; but if it were the opinion of the House that the change in the law ought to extend to the whole kingdom, he should not oppose the extension of the measure to Scotland. That, however, was a matter which would be more properly discussed in Committee on the Bill.
MR. SPOONERsaid, it was always with great hesitation that he differed from his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Walpole), who seemed to think that these marriages were forbidden by Scripture. He had given to the subject the most anxious consideration, and had come to a different conclusion. He looked on the question as a social question: and, from what he had learned from many clergymen with regard to the large town of Birmingham, he believed that the prohibition against these marriages operated injuriously among the poorer classes. His right hon. Friend had referred to what had fallen from him on former occasions as to the immoral effect produced by the law as it now stands amongst the working classes in great towns. He quoted some figures from the Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the state and operation of the Law of Marriage, showing that the working classes were in very small proportion interested in that law. The accuracy of such a statement depends entirely where the line between the middle classes, as the Report calls them, and the working classes was drawn. He would state a case which, from the very best authority he had been informed, was not a singular case. A mechanic living in a cottage lost his wife, who left him, perhaps, two or three children. His work necessitated his absence from morning to night; it was necessary that he should seek some one to take charge of his children without cost, and, naturally, he looked to his wife's sister. She came, attended the family, and it was almost impossible that such close intimacy should not originate affection. Was it then just that a connection not prohibited by the Word of God should be prohibited by man? And would not the effect of such marriages being prohibited be to produce far more immorality than would be caused by the proposed alteration?
MR. KINNAIRDsaid, the Bill would not be looked upon with favour in Scotland, totally irrespective of religious opinions; and therefore he felt it his duty to oppose the second reading.
MR. MONCKTON MILNES: It is unnecessary that I should make an elaborate speech to vindicate the course I have pursued in bringing in this Bill, more especially as in the course of this debate hon. Members have spoken with so much ability that I would rather hear any one than myself. Perhaps, however, it will only be

485
respectful to the House that I should reply to some of the lending arguments that have been brought against this Bill. There are certain technical arguments which have been brought forward by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Walpole), which may be disposed of at once in Committee by Members of greater legal subtlety than I can pretend to possess, and which will entirely disperse the imaginary apprehensions entertained by my right hon. Friend, and thus prevent the Bill from extending any further than the legalizing of marriage with the sister of a deceased wife. I can have no other object in proposing this Bill; and if my right hon. Friend finds any flaw in it of the kind he has indicated, I shall be happy to assist him in putting it right. But I must say that my right hon. Friend has taken a line of argument that he will find it very difficult to carry out, when he tells us that I am seeking to disturb what has been the law of this country during the last 300 years. I am about to do no such thing. I find the law already disturbed—I find public opinion already disturbed—I find the minds of religious men already disturbed—I find the conscience of the people already disturbed, and I try the best I can by this Bill to set things right, and to restore the missing link between the law of the country and the conscience of the people. My right hon. Friend has said that these marriages had been prohibited from time immemorial. He has said nothing about the first three centuries of Christianity, to which we in England look back with so much interest and so much affection. He is too good an ecclesiastical historian to include the first three centuries in his historical retrospect. During that time the question of marriage remained a question of great doubt and difficulty, not only with regard to affinity, but to poly gamy itself. A great controversy was carried on between the Christian Church and the Civil Government, which was at that time so loose in its habits and so forgetful of the old principles of the Roman law that but for the interference of the Church—the most salutary interference—great confusion on the subject of marriage might exist. And this controversy went on from century to century until the Roman Church grasped the whole subject, and at length marriage was taken out of the hands of the Civil Power, and, according to the condition of the participants, was crowned as a sacrament or branded as a sin. I think my right hon. Friend was somewhat
486
at issue with the facts of history when he spoke of the subject never having been agitated in this country in former times. Did not the English Reformation itself hang mainly on the agitation of this question? If marriages of this nature had been of that abominable and incestuous nature of which he spoke, would the Church of Rome ever have sanctioned them? No; the Church of Rome withheld her sanction from those marriages, not because they were incestuous, but because they were unadvisable, and ought rather to be discouraged than encouraged. I am quite ready to admit that the state of the law before 1835 was very good and very salutary, and it is because I find that the law was disturbed by Lord Lyndhurst's Act that I ask you to carry out the intention of that Act, and to do what Lord Lyndhurst would have done had he not been prevented by the overwhelming vote of the House of Lords. The House of Lords decided on that question in a way so utterly opposed to English legislation that no one would have thought that any English Legislature would have ever sanctioned such a course. What would any person think of a state of law that would say that certain marriages were legal up to a certain day, but would be illegal afterwards? The legal state of the case is in one word simply this:—These marriages of affinity were forbidden by the common law of England; that common law was founded on the ecclesiastical law, and during all that time only certain marriages of this kind were contracted. It is perfectly true that those marriages of affinity did not differ from other marriages of affinity; but did you find that the people of England contracted other marriages of affinity? No; they only contracted those marriages, which now amount to thousands contracted in perfectly good faith. Therefore, you have introduced into the habits of the people the custom of making those marriages, and when Lord Lyndhurst's Act declared that they were legal up to a certain day and illegal afterwards lie disturbed what I believe up to that time was a very good state of things. The state of the law, which was then disturbed, exists in five-sixths of the British Empire—it exists in all the colonies which were established before the passing of Lord Lyndhurst's Act; because as in those colonies there are no ecclesiastical tribunals, those marriages cannot be disputed, and they are contracted as easily as in any other coun-

487
try. But in such colonies as Victoria and Queensland, which have been founded since that time, the Duke of Newcastle has been compelled by the decision of "Brooke v. Brooke," to disallow those marriages, and to establish a state of the law totally different from that which exists in the more ancient colonies. And thus it happens that a marriage is good in Sidney which is not good in Victoria, and it is good in Canada though it is not good in England. This is a state of things which ought not to be permitted to continue if yon wish the good understanding between this country and her colonies to be preserved. With regard to marriages of consanguinity, as marriages between cousins-german, there is not a council of any Church, not a canon of any Church, not a civil decree which does not bind up those two things together, and does not regard marriages between cousins-german as marriages of this nature. Why, then, are marriages between cousins-german at present allowed? Because there has grown up in the minds of the English people, and of all other people, the conviction that, though there may from physiological reasons be grounds against those marriages, yet it is for the good of society that they should be permitted. It has been remarked that the question of the Reformation turned very much upon the validity of those marriages. Do you suppose, that had the conjugal relations of Henry VIII. lain in such a direction as to be favourable to the recognition of those marriages, the present state of things would have been what it is? From that historical fact alone we can explain that anomalous circumstance that all other Protestant Christian people have admitted those marriages which the law of England to a certain degree did prohibit. But before Lord Lyndhurst's Act it did not prohibit them absolutely, and therefore it ought not to prevent them now, because it would be unjust to permit them once and to forbid them now. I have only one word more to say, which is, that I bring forward this matter in no theoretical or poetical spirit. I want hon. Gentlemen to look at the plain statements of fact—to look into the homes of the thousands of Englishmen who are at present disturbed by the state of the law. I ask them to look into the minds of those men and to see what agitation you have produced in them. What they believe to be a legitimate marriage you declare to be incestuous and abominable. What is the inference that
488
they draw? Why, this—that you permit things in one class of society which you do not permit in another, and hence they come to the conclusion that concubinage in those circumstances is lawful and permissible. If you consult large employers of labour, such as my hon. Friend whose name appears on the back of the Bill, they will tell you how injuriously this law is acting on the morals of the people in their employment, how it is teaching them to disregard marriage in its most sacred attributes, how it is teaching them to believe that they are conforming to the law of God when they are not conforming to the law of men. I have seen such a man as Dr. Hook declare that he desires those marriages should be made legal from a regard to the general morality of the people. I know that feeling to be largely prevalent in that important manufacturing district with which I am connected, and I know it to be the feeling of the bishop who presides over the diocese. It has been said that the late Bishop of Durham deeply regretted before his death that he had enunciated those opinions; but I may be permitted to say that it is taking a liberty with his memory to make any such statement; and that unless proof can be brought forward, it would be as well not to make it in this House. Then, I have in support of my views the opinion of that eminent theologian, Mr. Hartwell Hone. He is now gone to his rest, but he has left behind him this record—
"From the best consideration which I can give to it, it appears to me that Lord Bury's Bill offers a fair and reasonable compromise amid the conflicting opinions respecting the marriage of a deceased wife's sister."
Again, there is the testimony of Dr. M'Caul, who may be regarded as one of the best Hebrew scholars of the day, at the same time that his orthodoxy cannot be disputed. Dr. M'Caul says—
"I confess that when I entered upon this inquiry I had not an idea that the case of those who wish a change in the present marriage law was so strong. I had thought that the opinions of grave and learned students of the Bible were more equally divided; and that as authorities were pretty evenly balanced, they who had contracted such marriages must bear the inconveniences arising from doubtful interpretation. But I do not think so now. Confirmed by the testimony of antiquity, and the judgment of the most considerable interpreters at the Reformation, and since the Reformation, I now believe there is no reasonable room for doubt—that there is no verse in the Bible of which the interpretation is more sure than that of Leviticus xviii. 18; and I think

489
it a case of great hardship that they should by the civil law be punished as transgressors, whose marriage, according to the Divine law, is permitted and valid; and harder still that the children of such marriages, legitimate in the sight of the infallible Judge, should be visited with civil disabilities."
I will say nothing more. I have followed the decision of the House in extending this Bill to Ireland and Scotland. I have been confirmed in the course that I have followed with regard to one of those countries by the petition which I laid on the table today from a large portion of the Dublin clergy and from a considerable number of the inhabitants of that city. I have no doubt, too, that a considerable number of the Irish bishops have given their opinion in favour of this Bill. The opinion of Archbishop Whately on the subject is well known. I have not made the Bill retrospective with regard to Scotland, because I wish to adhere to the principles of Lord Lyndhurst's Act, and because I would give no encouragement to the opinion that I have brought in this Bill to condone the breaking of the law in any way whatever. This is merely a declaratory Act; it is to continue to the mass of the people that which has been partially granted by Lord Lyndhurst's Act. In that spirit alone I have brought it forward, and in that spirit I now beg the House to give it a second reading.
Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes 144; Noes 133: Majority 11.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read 2o.

MARRIAGES (IRELAND) BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  SIR HUGH CAIRNS: I rise to ask leave of the House to introduce a Bill on the subject of the solemnization and registration of marriages in Ireland. Having towards the close of last Session introduced a similar Bill, and stated the objects of the measure, probably I shall best consult the convenience of the House by merely asking permission for the introduction of the same Bill, and deferring any lengthened remarks until the second reading. The main object of the Bill is to remove certain inconveniences and difficulties which have prevailed for a number of years with regard to marriages in Ireland, more especially with regard to marriages celebrated between persons belonging
  490
  to the various Protestant dissenting bodies. But inasmuch as to meet these inconveniences it is necessary to consider thoroughly the Act of Parliament which now regulates marriages in Ireland, and which was passed some fifteen or sixteen years ago, I propose to repeal entirely that Act, and to I introduce a Bill which, if accepted by the I House, will for the future form one complete code regulating all marriages in Ireland. At the same time, as any system for celebrating marriages would be incomplete without at the same time providing for their registration, I have appended to the Bill which I ask leave to introduce those clauses for the registration of marriages which were approved by the Select Committee of the House during the last Session of Parliament. I did not understand that it was the intention of the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for Ireland to introduce a Bill himself on the subject of the registration of marriages, although he has given notice of a Bill upon the subject of the registration of Births and Deaths; therefore I propose to append the clauses to which I have referred to the present Bill, If, on looking over the Bill, it meets the approval of Her Majesty's Government, and the right hon. Baronet will take charge of it in its future stages, I shall only be too happy to resign it into his hands. I am sure that the right hon. Baronet can confer no greater boon upon Ireland than by passing a Bill of this description.
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he had no intention of opposing the introduction of the Bill. What he had told the House the other night was, that it was his intention to introduce a Bill for the registration of Births and Deaths; but that a Bill for the registration of Marriages was under the consideration of Government, and he hoped to be able to introduce that Bill also. He quite agreed with what had fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman as to the grievances of the Protestant Dissenters; and if the House would give a general system of registration in Ireland, great relief would be afforded.
  MR. VINCENT SCULLYsaid, he had not been aide to collect from the speeches which they had just heard whether the Bill was to go beyond the Protestant Dissenters. He wished to warn the hon. and learned Gentleman and the right hon. Baronet how they interfered with Roman Catholic marriages, which were celebrated in a manner satisfactory to the people of the country.
  SIR HUGH CAIRNSsaid, that in answer to the hon. Gentleman he had to state that the Bill in two respects proposed to deal with Roman Catholic marriages. First, as regarded their registration, it proposed those clauses which were agreed upon in Committee of the House last year; and secondly, it proposed the repeal of the old Act of George II., with regard to what were called mixed marriages, upon very much the principle which had been suggested by the late Lord Chancellor in the House of Lords, and to introduce provisions in place of that Act.
  Leave given.
  Bill to amend the Law relating to the Solemnization and Registration of Marriages in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Sir HUGH CAIRNS and Mr. WHITESIDE.
  Bill presented, and read 1o.
  House adjourned at half after Four o'clock.