INSTRUCTION. ADJOURNED DEBATE.; (Hansard, 22 June 1869)

§ MR. BERESFORD HOPE
appealed to the hon. and learned Gentleman who had charge of the measure (Mr. T. Chambers) not to go on with it at that late hour (one o'clock). If it was too late to discuss the question of the rating of Bagged Schools at half-past twelve, a fortiori they could not proceed half-an-hour later with an alteration of the whole Marriage Law of England. The proposed Instruction to the Committee that "they have power to make provision for a woman to marry her deceased husband's brother," opened up a very wide question. He honoured Dissenters for opposing this Bill. The argument for extending marriages might be pushed further on the same ground, for a father to marry his son's wife, for who was more likely to be a good father to his son's children than their grandfather? He moved the adjournment of the debate.

MR. T. CHAMBEBS
said, those who proposed the Instructions were not doing it for increasing the efficiency of the Bill, but to defeat it and a principle that had been sanctioned over and over again. If the Amendments were withdrawn, he would not press their going into Committee.

§ SIT HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
moved the adjournment of the House.

§ MR. COLLINS
said, if a man were allowed to marry two sisters, a woman ought to be allowed to marry two brothers. The Marriage Laws should be discussed in a whole, and not in this piecemeal manner. Let it be done broadly, and not in this wretched manner. He supported the Motion for the adjournment of the House.

§ MR. MONK
said, that as an imputation had been, made on him and the hon. Member for Boston (Mr. Collins) who had placed Instructions to the Committee on the Notice Paper, he begged to say he had not been actuated by any factious feeling against the Bill. It was impossible to discuss the Bill without noticing the absence of principle in every clause. He had no such sinister motive as had been attributed to him by the hon. and learned Member for Mary- 468 lebone (Mr. T. Chambers.) He called upon the First Minister of the Crown and upon the Government generally to oppose a measure which was so exceptional to the general law of marriage of this country, while the Report of the Commissioners on the Laws of Marriage was lying on the table and recommended uniformity in the three Kingdoms. The Bill proposed to allow a man to marry his wife's sister, who stood towards him in the second degree; but it did not propose to allow him to marry his wife's niece, who was related to him in a more distant degree.

MR. BRIGHT
The hon. and learned Member who introduced this Bill has just told us that this measure has been before the House for at least thirty years. It has passed this House on repeated occasions, and by considerable majorities. It passed the second reading after as much discussion as such a Bill was likely to have by a majority of 100. To-night the division shows a majority of 2 to 1, and there can be no doubt that, so far as this House is concerned, the Bill is destined to pass; and there are strong reasons for supposing, looking at the opinions of those who direct the conscience of the other House, that the Bill may meet with a not unfavourable reception there. The hon. Member (Mr. Monk) says it is an exceptional measure. What was the Bill of 1835, which this Bill is intended to meet? There is nothing in this Bill more exceptional than that Bill. I will not now go into the discussion whether the hon. Gentlemen opposed to it have any reason in their objections or not. But see how many hundreds of fathers with their wives and children throughout the country, whose interests, whose peace of mind, and in some sort, whose characters are concerned in the passing of this Bill; and I ask hon. Gentlemen whether, when the Bill has received the sanction of the House so many times—and during this Session, I believe, by a larger majority than on any former occasion—they will not consent to let it go through? The hon. Member says—why pass a partial measure like this? If they were in favour of this Bill, so far as it goes, and wished for something farther, they could consider it in Committee. But they are not in favour of the Bill so far as it goes. The object of the Bill is to meet an existing and admitted grievance. When 469 the brothers and the nieces, of whom the hon. Members (Mr. Collins and Mr. Monk) speak—when they are in great suffering and have a great cause of grievance, then the House of Commons shall take that into consideration. For it is a good custom of the House to take a grievance as it stands, and not to remedy grievances and put into Bills more than the public ask for and are prepared to accept. I do not want the Bill to go over, because I think there are many hundreds and many thousands in this country who have a right to ask Parliament to relieve them from the sufferings which they now endure; and when the House of Commons has said they should have that remedy, I should not like to be in the position of those who, after such incessant action on the part of the House of Commons, should still interpose against this great measure of relief, which many hundreds of fathers, as good as any Members of this House, ask to meet their case. I therefore hope that the hon. Member will allow the measure to go into Committee.

MR. HENLEY
said, that nothing could be more inconvenient than business upon which there was a difference of opinion being brought on at so late an hour of the night. The question raised by the Bill was whether there was to be a different Marriage Law for England, Ireland, and Scotland. Sir Robert Peel's rule of allowing no contested business to come on after twelve o'clock at night was an excellent one, and facilitated Public Business.

MR. GLADSTONE
said, that the rule the right hon. Gentleman referred to was well worthy of consideration; but it was scarcely fair to revive it, after it had been a dead letter for so many years, just in time to put off the hon. and learned Member's Bill. The proposition of the hon. and learned Member that the extraneous Instructions should be cleared out of the way was only reasonable, and he trusted that the House would assent to it.

§ COLONEL BARTTELOT
moved the adjournment of the debate. It was time that the House should be adjourned.

§ MR. T. CHAMBERS
said, that all that had been yet done was in the way of obstruction, and he wished to know whether the hon. Member who had proposed the Instruction would at any time, or under any circumstances, take the sense of the House upon it. He should submit to the wish of the House.

§ MR. EYKYN
complained at the delay that would be occasioned by the adjournment of the debate, but he was ready to concede it.

§ MR. ASSHETON CROSS
remarked that the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade—that this Bill had been incessantly passed by the House of Commons—was inaccurate, as it had been thrown out by the last Parliament, and he believed the Parliament before.

§ MR. MONK
said, that the hon. Member who had accused him of obstruction did not know what he was talking about. No opportunity of moving the Instruction had yet been afforded to him.

§ MR. BERESFORD HOPE
urged the Government to give a Morning Sitting for the discussion of the question.

§ MR. T. CHAMBERS
reminded the House that the principle of the Bill had been already discussed, but of course he should be glad to get a Morning Sitting. He could not then, however, further resist the opposition on the other side.