§ Order for Committee read.
§ MR. COLLINS moved an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to make provision for a woman to many her deceased husband's brother. He altogether disclaimed the notion that he brought forward this Instruction either from what had been called in a paper, signed by the hon. Member for Marylebone, a manœuvre, or with a view to make the issue of this Bill more complex. He wished the House to have a distinct not a complex issue. The Bill had this great blot, that it laid down a different law with reference to the marriage of a man from that laid down with reference to the marriage of a woman. It would permit a man to many his deceased wife's sister, but would not 1449 permit a woman to marry her deceased husband's brother. It might be said women did not wish to many their deceased husband's brother; but such cases did occur. In 1860, at the Shrewsbury Assizes, Sir George Lewis, as Home Secretary, had ordered to be prosecuted a woman of the name of James for having married the brother of her deceased husband; she was tried and suffered the penalty of imprisonment. Therefore it was idle to say those cases did not occur. The same justice ought to be dealt out to the woman as to the man, and what he asked was that the Committee should have power to consider both cases. In Scotland the United Presbyterian Synod had objected to baptize the child of a woman who had married the brother of her deceased husband, because it had come in an improper mode. Since he had given notice of his Instruction he had received many letters from women who had married two brothers. He would not trouble the House by reading- them, but what he meant to insist on was this—that if it was right to remove the obstacle to a man's marrying two sisters, they should also remove the obstacle to a woman's marrying two brothers. If they altered the law let them make the alteration logical, and let them not set up one law for the woman and another for the man. He held in his hand a letter from a woman who had married two brothers, and who stated that she deemed the supporters of the Bill for legalizing marriage with a deceased wife's sister very selfish, adding that she had married two brothers, and felt particularly interested in. the latter case. To say that the law was to be altered to enable a man to marry a blood relation of his deceased wife, and not allow a woman to marry her deceased husband's blood relation would be unworthy of the House. Lord Russell was opposed to these marriages. When a Member of this House, in 1859, he had said if they made the alteration proposed by this Bill, they could not stop there; for he could not see why the woman should not have the same privilege as the man. He was not in favour of an alteration of the Law of Marriage, but he protested against the Bill as being of an illogical character, and he thought it was too late, at one o'clock in the morning, to discuss the great principle involved.
1450
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to make provision for a woman to marry her deceased husband's brother." —(Mr. Collins.)
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHagreed in thinking the hour too late for the discussion of this important question, and moved the adjournment of the debate.
§ MR. T. CHAMBERSsaid, he hoped the hon. Member would not persist in the Motion for the adjournment of the debate. A Bill of this kind had passed the Commons four times, after deliberate discussion: whereas the principle of the Amendment had never been discussed at all. The Bill was brought forward to meet a great practical grievance. It might not be thoroughly logical and consistent; but neither were many other Acts of the Legislature. He hoped the Bill would be passed.
§ Motion made, and Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Sclater-Booth.)
§ The House divided:—Ayes 63; Noes 113: Majority 50.
§ Question again proposed.
§ COLONEL NORTH, moved the adjournment of the House.
§ Motion made, and Question put, "That this House do now adjourn." — (Mr. Cross.)
§ The House divided:—Ayes 63; Noes 98: Majority 35.
§ Question again proposed.
§ MR. R, FOWLER moved the adjournment of the debate.
§ MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENappealed to his hon. and learned Friend who had charge of the Bill to yield to the power of the minority. They had done enough to assert their opinion.
§ MR. T. CHAMBERSultimately agreed to the Motion.
§ Motion agreed to.
§ Debate adjourned till To-morrow.