SECOND READING.

HC Deb 17 February 1875 vol 222 cc455-83

Order for Second Reading read.

SIR THOMAS CHAMBEES,

in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that was the seventh time he had moved the second reading of the Bill, not a single line or word in which had been altered for many years past. He had never before made the Motion from that side of the House, and he might, perhaps, feel somewhat discouraged, notwithstanding the success of the measure in times past, by the circumstance that the last General Election had not only transferred power from one party to the other, but had also altered the constitution of that House very materially. Indeed, were it not that he remembered that as long as that measure had been before the House of Commons it had been repeatedly declared on both sides that it was not a party measure, he would not proceed with it. It had nothing to do with the principles of Party politics, or with the controversies which went on between two opposite branches of the Legislature. It was purely a social measure, and did not touch any of those questions on which politicians honestly enough differed widely. He, therefore, ought not to feel discouraged on the ground that he spoke from the Speaker's left. Indeed, he did not know whether he ought not on that account to feel some encouragement, for as it was not a Party measure, and it secured considerable support from those who differed from himself and his Friends in politics, so he brought it forward at a time when a Government was in power which was pledged to introduce measures of social importance—measures in which especially the social welfare of the people was sought to be promoted. Nobody could deny that the measure before the House was for the settlement of a question exceedingly important in the interests of the people. It was said by some that religion had a controversy on this subject. He would endeavour to show that religion, as an element in the discussion was entirely eliminated. It was not a question on which the clergy or members of the Established Church stood on one side, and all other sects on the other—it was a question in which all were equally interested, whether they belonged to the Church or Dissent. He did not deny that some religious persons still thought there was a valid religious objection to marriage with a deceased wife's sister; but, speaking practically and broadly, the idea that any religious objection existed ought now to be considered absolutely settled, for two reasons—first, the most recent and profound scholarship on Oriental questions and on theology was on the side of those who advocated this change in the law, had had found expression in the most emphatic form in the last Commentary on the Bible, published under the sanction of the late Speaker. But more than that, if a question which turned on the meaning of an ancient language might be taken out of the hands of scholars, this had been so taken, and had been settled in absolute independence of that authority by this circumstance. The question was as to the meaning of a law given by inspiration to the favoured people to govern them in respect to their domestic affairs. From the very time that precept was delivered until this hour, there never had been among that people the smallest difference of opinion as to its meaning: so that his opponents had to face this difficulty—that an inspired precept given by an inspired Lawgiver in relation to a matter of adult domestic custom had been understood by the people in the reverse sense to which the Divine Lawgiver intended. No opponent of the measure would be willing to say that inspiration had defeated its own object, so that instead of prescribing the duty in respect to marriage in such a manner that the people would understand it, the duty had been so proscribed as that it had boon totally misunderstood and acted upon in the wrong sense. The question was entirely one of historical fact, and the historic aspect of this question delivered him from the necessity of arguing the religious question at all. The opponents of the Bill were thus driven to what was really their only reason for supporting the present state of the law, and that was expediency. Was it possible to exaggerate the mischief likely to arise from introducing the doctrine of expediency into the restriction adopted in the marriage law? How many classes of marriages did not many people consider inexpedient, such as the marriage of first cousins and other blood relations, of people of different religions, or languages, or nations? Was it not inexpedient to marry flagrantly out of a person's own rank in life? But who would contend that any of those grounds would justify any community in restricting the freedom of marriage? In marriage, freedom was the law; restriction could only be justified on the ground that it was contrary to the law of God. Did the Constitution of this country in its statutes, or the Church in her doctrines, lay down any grounds of expediency? Nothing of the kind; the statute law, 32 Henry VIII., c. 38, declared "All persons to be lawful that be not prohibited by God's law to marry." The marriage he sought to render valid was therefore in accordance with the statute law. In the address to the parties who came to be married, they were forewarned that if they were joined together contrary to God's law, theirs was no true marriage at all; thus affirming in the strongest terms that marriage was good in the sight of God if it was in accordance with God's law. The inference was irresistible, therefore, that marriage with a deceased wife's sister was a valid marriage. If, then, it could not be said that such a marriage was contrary to God's law, and it was considered a question in which expediency should have no place, what was the policy of maintaining the present state of things? Perhaps, it might be said that the interests of the whole community should be consulted, and that interference could only be justified by the result. Of all the interferences with social life, those with marriage had been more productive of evil than any other social restraints whatever. The history of centuries throughout Christendom in respect to the restriction of marriages was a history of the most flagrant social corruption. Was this particular restraint in conformity with the moral sense of the community? Quite the opposite was notoriously the fact. He did not deny that many persons had a sentimental objection to marriage with a deceased wife's sister; but as regarded the moral sense of the community nothing could be more baseless than to affirm that it was not in conformity with that sense. Thousands of such marriages had been contracted in all classes of the community; and with what result? Were the parties who contracted them thought the worse of in society? No; they were not considered to have forfeited any claim to the regard of those around them. It would be easy to select names of the highest eminence in every class—including the aristocracy—who had contracted marriages of this kind without incurring the slightest stigma, except from those who entertained the sentimental objection. There never had been a question upon which a more effective mode had been taken of testing the public feeling than had been taken in respect to this Bill, and what had been the result? The number of Petitions had been very large. Considerably more than 1,500,000 individuals had signed Petitions in favour of the Bill—less than 174,000 had signed Petitions against it—208 corporations had presented 793 Petitions in favour of the Bill, and these corporations were representative bodies, constituted with absolute freedom of franchise. He would admit that it was possible to get up Petitions on any subject; but he thought it a difficult matter when such subject went against the moral sense of the community. He would also say that it was as easy to get up Petitions against as for, and would hint that there existed a Marriage Protection Society, who could have made an effort, if they had chosen, equally as well as, the Marriage Reform Society, but whether with the same effect, remained to be seen. Take Scotland, which the friends of the Bill used to consider against them. In early days, in deference to the fooling in Scotland, the Bill was not made applicable to that country. In one debate, an hon. Gentleman—now in the Admiralty—moved an Amendment which he (Sir Thomas Chambers) would have supported, to the effect that it was not expedient to have a different marriage law for different portions of the United Kingdom. That Amendment was carried—as he thought, properly. But what was the condition of things now in Scotland? There were 81 corporations in Scotland, all of which—at least, with very few exceptions—had petitioned in favour of the Bill. Those corporations met in convention once a year, and that convention had petitioned the House in favour of the Bill; so that a Presbyterian community of Established and Free Churches, which must be hampered to some extent by the doctrines of the "Westminster Confession, came and asked for this change in the marriage law. From Ireland, Petitions had come both from the Corporation of Dublin and from the people of that city. These instances furnished a sufficient criterion of the state of public feeling. Then, as to the Church, he was glad to think that a feeling of sympathy between the clergy and their flocks was widening upon many subjects. 500 clergymen of the Church of England in the metropolis and the vicinity had petitioned in favour of the Bill, which also had many friends in Convocation. Of the Roman Catholic clergy, 88 of the most eminent men in Dublin had petitioned in favour of the Bill, that civil validity might be given to a marriage which was sanctioned by their Church. Some people urged that the Bill would conduce to immorality. Dr. Vaughan, Dr. Hook, and other clergymen of wide experience were in favour of the Bill. Wore not such men in the interests of morality? They had better opportunities than most people of ascertaining public feeling, and they supported the Bill. Men who had the best opportunities of knowing the effect of the existing law emphatically condemned it. He thought further that as it was hopeless to wait for perfect unanimity in favour of any legislative proposal, Parliament was bound to regard with deference the large and important expression of the people's views which had already been made known. It was worthy of remark also that, in addition to the large numbers of individuals and corporations already referred to, the principle of the Bill had been supported by the late Lord Palmerston and Earl Russell, and many others had strongly advocated this measure. Its supporters now included a long list in both Houses of Parliament. A considerable proportion of the Members of the present Government had voted for the Bill over and over again. Years ago the present Archbishop of Canterbury signed a Petition, in which he said— Whether the question is considered in a religious, moral, or social point of view, such marriages are unobjectionable, while in many instances they contribute to the happiness of parties and the welfare of the motherless children, and among the poor have a tendency to prevent immorality. The late Archbishops of York and Dublin, Dr. Musgrave and Dr. Whately, supported the measure, and four Bishops recently voted for it. At that moment England and three or four colonies were the only places in the whole of Christendom, European and Transatlantic, whore these marriages were not lawful. Quite lately three Australian colonies—South Australia, Victoria, and Tasmania—had passed Acts legalizing marriage with a deceased wife's sister. Who would presume to say that the Queen, under the advice of the Privy Council, had given her Royal Assent to a law likely to promote immorality? If restraints on marriage were urged on the ground that a Christian nation should not take the liberty to contract matrimony, where circumstances and affection pointed to it, then we were on the edge of a dangerous precipice. We now stood almost alone as regarded the Empire of which we formed a part. The Cape of Good Hope, New Zealand, and another colony—he had forgotten which—were about to send Acts over shortly for the Royal Assent, following in the wake of the Australian colonies. Although other Gentlemen were now in Her Majesty's counsels than those who advised the Royal Assent in the previous cases, he had no doubt that in this matter they would follow the example of their predecessors, and then we should have the whole of the colonies enjoying the privilege of contracting such a marriage as he advocated, and England standing alone. What had been lately done in Germany? A new marriage law had been passed which put marriage with a deceased wife's sister on the same footing as any other marriage. It had been objected that the Bill would have a retrospective operation—that its object was to put those persons right who had broken the law. With regard to the point he thought it only just, and that it would be a gross thing to make the law only prospective. Priests used to be forbidden to marry, and the Act which took away the restriction was retrospective as well as prospective. Had it not been retrospective they might have had this anomalous state of matters—that on the same day six priests might be coming from church with their brides, while other six priests were being taken from Newgate to be hanged at Tyburn for the felony of getting married. When, in 1835, Lord Lyndhurst introduced his measure on the subject, the Bishops expressed their willingness to assent to it upon condition that it should be only prospective. Lord Lyndhurst took the Bill under that condition, and it was sent down to the House of Commons in that shape. The objection, however, was raised that the scope of that Bill was too limited, and it was understood that the error should be corrected, but that had not been done up to the present time. The present Bill did not propose to alter the law, but to make the law consistent with itself, and to show that the Act of Henry VIII. and the doctrine of the Church should have free scope in this country. It could not be said that the proposal was hostile to the moral sense of the community, for the Bill had been sent up to the other House seven times, as he had already stated, and on one occasion had only been rejected by a small majority of 4. He therefore urged that as it had been so long before the country, it ought now to be at once settled. If it were a question respecting an alteration in the Parliamentary franchise, the Lords would not have rejected the Bill with a remonstrance from the Commons. Perhaps, when the Bill again reached them, they would treat it with more respect, for the people were more earnest on the subject now than they had been during the last 40 years. In conclusion, he had great pleasure in moving the second reading of the Bill.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir Thomas Chambers.)

MR. ARTHUR MILLS,

in rising to move as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, said, that he entirely agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Marylebone that that was not a Party measure, nor did he consider it a question involving a controversy between the two Houses of Parliament. There could be no doubt that the Bill had been sent up to, and rejected seven times by, the House of Lords; but there was another fact which ought not to be overlooked, and that was, that during the last 15 years the Bill had been three times rejected by the House of Commons. No doubt, also, a great many Petitions had been presented in favour of the measure, and he did not undervalue them; but it was notorious that there had been an artificial agitation on the subject, and his Parliamentary experience warranted him in believing that on many questions of less importance than this, it would have been possible to obtain a very large number of signatures to Petitions. The hon. and learned Member had stated that there were 1,500,000 signatures attached to Petitions in favour of the Bill; but he (Mr. A. Mills) should not be at all surprised if there were as many signatures to Petitions in favour of the person called "The Claimant," now sojourning in the moors of Devonshire. He was not at all undervaluing the importance of Petitions under certain circumstances; but he must say he thought there had been a great deal of "tall talk" with reference to the number of signatures attached to the Petitions in support of this Bill, both in the circulars recently sent to the Members of the House and in statements made elsewhere. It was stated on a previous occasion, by a former hon. Member for Bradford, by way of illustrating what was the opinion out-of-doors on this question, that every man in Bradford wanted to marry his deceased wife's sister. Of course, if that statement was correct, it represented a strange state of things, because it implied that every man in Bradford was a widower. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman whom he saw opposite (Mr. Forster) would tell the House whether the opinion in Bradford now on this subject was the same as when that statement was made. At all events, he ventured to say that the tone which had been adopted in reference to the Bill, and the statements about the public opinion out-of-doors, had been grievously exaggerated up to the present time, and that in that way the agitation in favour of the Bill had been kept up. The question was, whether the agitation was not supported by those who had already broken the law of the country, and who therefore wished to secure for themselves an indemnity, and to destroy that marriage law which he would undertake to say nine-tenths of the intelligent men and women of England desired to be upheld. This Bill, said the hon. and learned Gentleman who moved its second reading, was a Bill simply to legalize marriage with a deceased wife's sister. The hon. and learned Gentleman assumed that if the law was altered as he proposed, it would end there, and that there was no danger of any further infringement in respect of marriages of affinity. Indeed, he (Mr. A. Mills) believed it had been said in a former discussion of the matter that it was altogether idle to suppose that an alteration of the marriage law simply in this particular would lead to further alterations of that law. He would, however, ask the House what would be the consequence if that state of the law which now prevailed on the Continent—not on all the Continent, as the hon. and learned Gentleman represented, for in Russia and those countries where the Greek Church prevailed these marriages were not allowed—but in those countries in which the marriage laws had been relaxed, were extended to this country? There were abundant facts which could be adduced to prove that if this alteration were made they would be logically bound to extend it further; he believed that if the Bill were passed it would introduce chaos and confusion into our marriage laws, because it would be impossible to refuse concessions exactly collateral to that which was proposed by this measure. He had read a day or two ago in The Saturday Review quotations from The Almanach de Gotha, from which it appeared that within recent years there had been only four instances of marriages in the Royal and "Illustrious" Houses, with which the book dealt, between men and their deceased wife's sisters, one of a man with his brother's widow, but no less than six between uncle and niece. That, at least, proved that in countries where the marriage law had been relaxed, marriages were sanctioned which were absolutely abhorrent to the feelings of the people of this country, and abhorrent, he believed, to the feelings of the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone. If we relaxed the law, were we prepared to have the law in such a state that everybody might marry any one he pleased?—which he believed would be the result of a relaxation of the marriage law? He believed that public opinion was against every notion of marriages between uncles and nieces, and between aunts and nephews. But if this Bill were to pass, the experience of the Continent of Europe warned them that such marriages would become inevitable. The question of the representation of women in that House was on the tapis. What might be the issue he did not venture to predict; but certainly as long as women were unrepresented in Parliament, it behoved the House to be very careful in their legislation to consult the reasonable feelings and the interests of women. He ventured to say that if the women of this country should ever be included in our representative system the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone would not be again returned for that borough as the advocate of this Bill. The hon. and learned Member for Marylebone alluded to the feelings and the necessities of the working classes. He (Mr. A. Mills) would not yield to the hon. and learned Gentleman in his anxiety that their legislation should take full account of the feelings and necessities of the poor. The hon. and learned Member had mentioned the names of several eminent men, both statesmen and clergymen, who were of opinion that the proposed relaxation of the marriage law would be absolutely good to the poor, and was desired by the working classes. The hon. and learned Member said very truly that this was not a party question. He (Mr. A. Mills) would quote Liberal authorities who were greatly respected in that House and in the country. Lord Hatherley, speaking on the Bill in the House of Lords in 1870, said— I know something about the poor, and I am confident they will he the class least affected by the Bill. The poor marry early, and it is very seldom among the poor that a widower finds a sister of his wife unmarried.…. The first time I opposed this Bill 'elsewhere' a clergyman wrote to me saying that—' You have ventured to say that the poor do not desire this Bill. I know 20 or 30 cases in which widowers were ready to marry their deceased wives' sisters.' I replied that I would recant all I had said if he would state, on his own authority, that he was prepared to furnish names and addresses so that I might inquire into the facts. I never heard anything more from him. … I inquired in my own neighbourhood in two parishes, containing 60,000 people and 40,000 poor; and, after employing a very active person to search, I could only hear of one such marriage. However, one of the newspapers, which objected very strongly to my view, said that a City missionary, who had made inquiries in the same district, had found two more. So, after scouring the whole field we found three such marriages among 40,000 poor."—[3 Hansard, cci. 950,951.] In the House of Lords, Lord Selborne, speaking on this Bill in 1873, quoted a Scripture-reader's letter to himself—dated April 26, 1861—as follows:— Being in daily and constant association with the labouring and poorer classes, as one living among them, and being in their homes in the most poverty-stricken neighbourhoods; intimately knowing hundreds of the families of the superior working men, and also of those in the deepest poverty; being in the habit for years past of daily teaching many of the children of the very poor, and also being gratuitously occupied in reading ☦. every Sunday to upwards of 200 men of the labouring class. I know from my own observations and conversations I have had with many on the subject of the proposed Bill, that the marriage with the deceased wife's sister is not approved, and is very rarely to be met with among them."—[3 Hansard, ccxiv. 1906.] The hon. and learned Member told the House that all arguments of a Scriptural or ecclesiastical nature were now abandoned by the opponents of this Bill. He (Mr. A. Mills) did not agree with that statement. But he would frankly say that he attached far more importance to what he ventured to call the moral and social aspects of this question than to its religious or ecclesiastical aspect. There had been much ridicule on the subject of what was termed "the abolition of sisters-in-law;" but he maintained that a great and serious question was involved which should not be treated lightly—namely, whether a widower was to be deprived of that comfort which he would naturally derive from his sister-in-law, and be placed in an uncomfortable and anomalous relation towards that member of his family who was the most natural person to be the consoler of his sorrows. He based his opposition to this Bill mainly upon the social and moral aspects of the question. It was not because the ancient constitutions of Christendom forbad these marriages—it was not because they were forbidden by the Code of Theodorius, or deprecated by the venerable authority of Ambrose and Augustine and Basil—it was not because they were uniformly opposed by Lutherans, Calvinists, and Presbyterians in Scotland, in Geneva, and in France, that he resisted this Bill, but because he believed that, if passed, it must necessarily revolutionize the home life of this country, and that it would place at the mercy of the self-interested wire-pullers of an agitation which was fostered for the purpose of giving immunity to those who had already broken the law, the most solemn and precious relations of our domestic life. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the rejection of the Bill.

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

seconded the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Arthur Mills.)

MR. SERJEANT SIMON

said, he rose with great reluctance to take part in the debate, and should not have done so had it not been for the attack just made on those who were anxious for the passing of this Bill. He regretted that the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. A. Mills) should have spoiled his otherwise moderate speech by the attack he had made on those who had promoted Petitions in favour of the Bill. If there had been no Petitions in favour of the Bill its promoters would have been met with the objection that no public interest was felt in it; but when the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone referred to the Petitions which had been presented—many of them signed by corporate bodies—then it was said that they had been produced by wire-pullers, agitators, and dangerous persons. There was no necessary sequence between the Bill and the eases he had quoted from The Almanach de Gotha. The object of the Bill was not to make the marriage laws logically consistent, but to meet a practical grievance, and in that respect to legislate according to the principles upon which alone legislation took place in this country. The measure was produced because it was required in order to meet a practical grievance from which there was more extensive suffering than the hon. Gentleman seemed to imagine. He denied the assertion that they asked to change the marriage law in the sense intended by hon. Gentlemen opposite. When he heard it said that the supporters of the Bill intended to change the marriage law, to revolutionize the whole social life of the country, and produce mischief on the domestic hearth, he wondered what had become of the memory and experience of at least some hon. Members in the House who must remember that before Lord Lyndhurst's Act was passed, widowers contracted marriages with their deceased wives' sisters. Such marriages were not prohibited by the Common Law of England, although under the Canon Law they were voidable in the life-time of the parties. What was the condition of the social life of our country before Lord Lyndhurst's Act was passed? Were domestic jealousies and differences, domestic unhappiness and suspicion prevalent? They heard nothing of the kind. He did not care to refer to the experience of two of the most Christian and most civilized countries of Europe—Holland and Germany—but he appealed to our own social experience in these realms to show that before the passing of the Act of 1835 there was nothing like social disturbance or domestic unhappiness arising from the fact that a man might marry the sister of his deceased wife. A distinguished foreigner once remarked to him that in England we never passed a law because it was right, but because it was required. In this case the change demanded was not only required, but it was right; and hon. Gentlemen opposite who were so ready to reject the Bill had no idea of the misery and the suffering which were entailed by its being refused. Among the Jewish people these marriages had through all time, as far as history or tradition showed, taken place. They were a people particularly free in their social intercourse, and particularly pure in their domestic life—a people who respected as much as any in the world all the sanctities of the domestic relations. As a member of that community he had known of these marriages amongst them; but he had never heard it hinted that there was any ground of unhappiness, or any feeling of jealousy or suspicion on the part of any Jewish woman with regard to her sister. It would be urged that before the Act of 1835 these marriages were voidable provided the Canon Law was enforced; but he protested against the authority of an ecclesiastical law which at least one-half of the people of this country did not recognize. Speaking for the very large class of the population which he represented, he could say that they were almost to a man in favour of this—as it was called—change of the law. With regard to the opinion of the working classes, he represented a borough with a population of about 70,000, chiefly composed of working men, and he had scarcely ever visited that borough without being questioned as to his views upon this subject. The hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. A. Mills) said the Bill aimed a blow at the relations of private life, and deprived the widower of the benefit of the consolation of his sister-in-law; but if a widower had to marry again, and had to seek a mother for his children outside the family of his deceased wife, he had to break with all the sacred connections of the past, with all the tender reminiscences of his youth, and if he wished to load a tranquil, not to say a happy, life, he must repudiate all his past connections and memories. Was the widower deprived of his sister-in-law's society before the passing of Lord Lyndhurst's Act? Were the Jewish people or the people of Holland or Germany subject to the same deprivation? The objections that had been urged were mere mythical speculations without any substantial foundation. The very fact that Lord Lyndhurst's Act recognized all past marriages of this description as legal put an end to the religious objection, for if such unions were incestuous now they must have been then. That Act imposed a hardship upon the people which did not before exist, and it was to reverse that change, and to make these marriages for ever binding, that that Bill was brought forward. He heartily supported the Bill.

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

Mr. Speaker—I have been long enough, a Member to have been often astonished by very monstrous statements; but, considering that it fell from one of Her Majesty's Serjeants learned in the law, I was never so astonished as I have been in the last quarter of an hour, at hearing the hon. and learned Member say that the Bill which is now before us is to restore the law to the condition in which it stood prior to the passing of Lord Lyndhurst's Act. What was the case before the passing of that Act? Why, that marriages with a deceased wife's sister, like those within the other prohibited degrees, were as illegal then as they are now; but that the process for arriving at that illegality was an imperfect and a barbarous one, the marriage being voidable, not void. "Voidable" simply meant that the illegality of the marriage had to be proved in the lifetime of the two parties. The marriage was known to be illegal, but by a misplaced mercy it was allowed to stand, unless disproved. If the disproof was not effected in a certain technical manner, the law shut its eyes, and refused to know anything beyond the fact that A and B, the man and woman, had had a marriage ceremony performed between them, and so there was no further investigation. Lord Lyndhurst's Act did away with this anomaly for the future, while it must be owned stereotyping it for the past, but with this portion of it our generation is not concerned. Does the Bill of the hon. and learned Common Serjeant say that, unless a process of law shall be instituted in their life-time, the marriage of a man and his daughter shall be lawful now? Does he dare to say that? If he does not, then this statement of the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury falls to the ground.

MR. SERJEANT SIMON

What I said was, that before the passing of Lord Lyndhurst's Act these marriages were legal at Common Law, and that any impediment to them arose out of the Canon Law, which, unless our Courts recognized it, would have had no force in this country.

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

The hon. and learned Gentleman has not answered my question. He has merely given the authority from which the illegality proceeded. I deal with the statement of a fact. He began his speech by saying that this Bill would restore the state of the law to what it was before the passing of Lord Lynd-hurst's Act, and he wound up by saying that he wished to return to that state of things. I tell him that, according to the law before the passing of Lord Lyndhurst's Act, a process of law was needful to annul a marriage between any man and woman, however nearly related by ties of blood, not of affinity; and unless this Bill does the same, his statement falls to the ground. Now, that has never yet been answered. The state of the law was confessedly barbarous when marriages which are incestuous in the eyes of all people who were in a state of civilization beyond that of the most degraded tribes of Central Africa still required a process of law in the life-time of the two parties—a process which a collusive suit might prevent—in order that the law should be able to recognize the antecedent illegality. I think, then, I need not deal much farther with the arguments and statements of the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury. He has told us that he is the Representative of a borough with 70,000 inhabitants; and there he seems to have come across strong propensities for unlawful alliances. I may tell him that at one time I myself was connected with a larger constituency than that of Dewsbury, and that I only came across three instances of a marriage of the sort. One of these was the case of a solicitor, eminent for his services to the Liberal cause in the borough; another was that of a manufacturer, a warm partizan of the Conservative side, who was so satisfied of my honesty that he gave me his support, though he knew that, if elected, I should vote against the legality of such unions; the third was a basket-maker, whose politics I did not care to inquire into. I pass now to the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone, who certainly did also astonish me. He repudiated, with all the earnestness of his very earnest nature, any idea of expediency on such a question. Expediency; monstrous! The idea of expediency! You must have right or wrong: away with expediency! I ask the non-expedient and learned Common Serjeant, then, how he will defend the monstrous anomaly of this Bill, which, whilst allowing a man to contract an alliance with the sister of the deceased wife, forbids the marriage contract with that more distant relation, the daughter of the sister of that wife? Could there be a more ridiculous anomaly? I ask him, again, why he allows an alliance with the sister of a deceased wife, and does not allow two brothers to call themselves successively the husbands of one woman? The relationship is absolutely parallel; and nothing but expediency can—I will not say justify; there is no justification about it—but nothing else than expediency can show the least pretext for a Bill to legalize one kind of marriage and not to legalize the other. I know that the hon. and learned Member professes to be very shocked indeed at the idea of marriage with a deceased brother's widow; and I must say that I know of no man who can look so shocked at the right time as the hon. and learned Common Serjeant. There is not a country in Europe in which such marriage can be celebrated, whore the distinction between a wife's sister and a brother's widow exists. In the laws of France, of Germany, and the other States of Europe, the expression is brother-in-law and sister-in-law. In France, by the dispensation of the head of the State; in the Southern States of Germany by dispensation at one time; in Prussia without dispensation, and now without dispensation all over Germany, this marriage with a brother or sister-in-law is legalized, whether the relationship proceeds in the line of two brothers or two sisters; and yet the hon. and learned Common Serjeant can get up here and tell us that the idea of expediency has no place in his conscience. He would allow a man to marry his deceased wife's sister, but he would not allow him to marry his brother's widow or his wife's sister's daughter. That is another difficulty on which he has been long impaled, and off which I will do him the justice to say he has never attempted to wriggle. There is no country in the world in which marriage between brothers and sisters-in-law is legalized, either absolutely or relatively by way of dispensation, in which marriage is not also legalized between uncles and nieces, and nephew and aunts. He may say that that is a curious coincidence. In France it is legalized, in Germany it is legalized, and in Portugal and Spain it is legalized. We know that the so-called Legitimist claimant for the Throne of Spain is himself the grandson of an alliance between an uncle and a niece, a Princess of Portugal, after whose death that uncle, the original Don Carlos, married another niece, who happened also to be the sister of the first wife. Then the hon. and learned Common Serjeant talked of the growing feeling in favour of his proposal all over the country, and professed that nine-tenths of the reasonable people of England—all indeed but a knot of bigots—desired it. Well, if this be so, how is it that the Association in Parliament Street have for the last quarter of a century acted under the single name of Joseph Stansbury? For Mr. Joseph Stansbury I have the utmost respect; but he is the sole representative of a pertinacious body of persons who, we are told, include among them the great and good of the land; but if the cause is so holy and pure, why are its advocates so modest that they are content to blush unseen behind the mantle of Joseph Stansbury? The assertion answers itself. Then the hon. and learned Member told us that he has brought forward this Bill seven times, and he talks as if it had received the approbation of successive Parliaments. It has been sent from the House of Commons to the House of Lords only by three Parliaments, and there thrown out. At one time the hon. and learned Common Serjeant talked of 40 divisions, and there may have been that number of divisions including those on the question of adjournment and on going into Committee upon the Bill; but he is now more modest and only counts up to seven. Let me, on my side, give some further statistics. This Bill has not been before the present Parliament until now; but the measure has been before seven Parliaments; but of those seven Parliaments, how many were there in which this House sent it up to the House of Lords? In how many of them has it been thrown out by this House? In how many of them has it foundered and suffered shipwreck without going to the House of Lords? Out of those seven Parliaments it has only three times got from us to the Lords; in three we rejected it, and once it broke down in this House. In the Parliament which was elected in 1865 it was once thrown out in this House and was never again revived. In the Parliament which was elected in 1859, and which sat till 1865, it was twice thrown out in this House, and never reached the House of Lords. In the long Parliament which sat from 1852 to 1858, it once crept through a second reading by a very narrow majority in this House, then collapsed mysteriously, and was not heard of again here. So much for statistics. After the measure had been thrown out in the two preceding Parliaments by this House, it was during the successive Sessions of 1870 and 1871 rejected in "another place." What, then, did the hon. and learned Common Serjeant do? I trust the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury will listen to this for a minute, as it was a transaction in which he had a share, for I recollect a Notice he gave which had something to do with the Episcopal Bench in the House of Lords at that time. But in 1871 the feelings of the hon. and learned Common Serjeant were too much for him. His pet Bill had been twice thrown out by the House of Lords, after having been thrown out three times in this House; and in the month of April, 1871, a public meeting was held in St. James's Hall, the hon. and learned Common Serjeant in the chair— To protest against the unconstitutional proceedings of the House of Lords in rejecting a measure which had "been repeatedly passed by the House of Commons, and to demand the removal of the Bishops from the House of Lords. Well, the hon. and learned Common Serjeant being in the chair at that meeting, a gentleman who was not a Member of this House, though he did try to obtain a seat for Greenwich—Dr. Baxter Langley—moved the first resolution, which was affirmatory of that policy. Upon that an amendment was moved and seconded by another gentleman, who had also tried to enter this House for Nottingham and failed—the well-known and generally-respected Mr. Odger. His amendment was not only to remove the Bishops, but everybody else from the House of Lords and to abolish that institution altogether. Then followed a great row. The question was put, and the hon. and learned Common Serjeant declared the original resolution, which only abolished the Bishops, to be carried; but a considerable minority of those who were present and in favour of the amendment were of a different opinion. A vir pietate gravis interposed in the person of an hon. Gentleman who has long been a Member of this House, the senior Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley), and the meeting broke up amid great disturbance. After this a certain Motion, which the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury will re-collect appeared on the Notice Paper of this House for some time, and then disappeared without coming on for discussion, either on a Tuesday or Friday. I must remind the House of these things when I find a person in the high legal and judicial position of the Common Serjeant making such an appeal as he has addressed to us to pass his Bill. I must be allowed to point out that all his statements are not strictly accurate, and that the Parliamentary history of the question as he has narrated it is not the same as I read it, while its extra Parliamentary history contains very singular incidents, some of which I have attempted to describe to the House. I could say a great deal more upon this subject. I have often spoken upon it before; but on this occasion I have no need after the admirable speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. A. Mills), of whom I will say that I am glad that the mantle of his predecessor in the representation of that city has fallen upon one so able and eloquent. I cannot forget the eloquence, the devotion, and the fervour with which the Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas always opposed this Bill. I cannot forget how Lord Selborne, Lord Hatherley, Lord O'Hagan, Lord Chelmsford, as well as the present Lord Chancellor, and the late Lord St. Leonards, always opposed this fatal change of law; nor how the present heads of the Scottish Judiciary gave vote and voice the same way. But after what my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter has said so well to-day, I will not detain the House longer. Before setting down, however, I must appeal to hon. Members not to put faith in the garbled statements and coloured representations of a society which, after five-and-twenty years existence, can only put forward one ostensible representative—Mr. Joseph Stansbury—as the exponent of the feeling of the educated, the refined, and the virtuous people of this country.

MR. ALDERMAN COTTON

said, that much wisdom was expressed on the subject by our Divine Master, when he said that in Heaven there were neither marriages nor giving in marriage. He thought a great deal of foreign matter had been introduced into the debate. The House was distinctly asked to assent to marriage with a deceased wife's sister, and not to marriage with any mother, daughter, sister, aunt, niece, grandmother, or great grandmother. It was more a question of property than propriety. The one single question to consider was, whether it was or was not a proper thing for a man to be allowed to marry the sister of his deceased wife. He (Mr. Alderman Cotton) thought that it was. So far as consanguinity was concerned, there was not the slightest relationship between a man and his wife's sister, any more than there was between a man and his wife before marriage. Who could be so fit and proper a person to take charge of the children of a deceased wife as her own sister? It was notorious that second marriages generally resulted in the first family being turned out of doors; and unless the step-mother was in some way related to them, it was impossible to secure any regard on her part for the children of the first wife. The whole of the arguments against the Bill were of a peculiar and curious kind, and he considered that the opponents of the Bill did not take the most delicate side of the question. They were always assuming a position which could not exist in a family. They assumed that a man, having made his choice from a family of sisters, liked his wife's sister better than herself, and that the whole aim of his existence would be to get rid of the wife and marry the sisters in succession. Such a state of society was not at all proper to contemplate, and the assumption was equally applicable to any woman who visited a man as to his wife's sister. There was no argument in Scripture which justified the opposition to the Bill. True, the Levitical law forbad a man to marry his wife's sister whilst his wife was alive, but it did not forbid him to do so after his wife's death. He hoped the House would strip the opposition to the Bill of the foreign matter that had been introduced, and take a plain matter-of-fact view of the question, whether there was really anything improper in such marriages. He believed it was the fact that thousands of marriages of this kind had taken place, and he had heard the number stated as 20,000. People went abroad to contract these marriages; and if they remained there, the children would be legitimate, whilst if they returned, the issue would be branded with illegitimacy. If for the sake only of these children, he urged the House to pass the Bill. He did not think its operation ought to be retrospective as regarded property, although it should be as regarded the matter of legitimacy. The measure was not opposed to morality, it was in accordance with common sense, and it did not interfere with the happiness and welfare of any body of persons.

MR. MACDONALD

I do not rise, Sir, for the purpose of making any lengthened remarks on this question, but simply to say that I think this Bill should be passed, with the view of removing what I consider a very great scandal existing in many parts of the country. We have refused up till now to legalize marriage with a deceased wife's sister, and what is the result? The result is, that the law is openly set at nought and trampled upon. Among the working classes you find people living in open violation of the law, and receiving no condemnation or reprobation. I therefore ask the House to pass this Bill, in the hope that it will have a salutary effect, and will be the cause of stopping the very gross immorality that exists in consequence of the present state of things.

LORD HENRY SCOTT

said, he had never in his life been so astonished as when the worthy Alderman the Member for the City of London asserted that there was no more relationship between a man and his sister-in-law than had existed between him and his wife previously to his marriage. The whole law of affinity was based on the one principle of the unity of man and wife, the relations of the one being made equally the relations of the other—if this principle were broken down in one degree of affinity, all others must be broken down also, and the consequence would be that, if this Bill was passed, we should have men very shortly marrying their deceased wife's niece, a woman her deceased husband's brother, and so on. In that case, he would venture to predict that before many years had elapsed another measure would be brought in for legitimatising all the children of these marriages born before the passing of the Act, and giving them all the rights of legitimacy. Although he should not go into that part of the subject, there could be no doubt that the religious arguments based upon the Mosaic law were more in favour of those who wished the law to remain as it was than in favour of those who desired to alter it; but the Christian law of marriage, though based on the Mosaic law, was not identical with it, but rested on the one principle he had before stated. Were they really prepared to enter into an entire revision of the marriage law of the Kingdom? because if they passed the Bill, they would have to do so. They could not alter it ever so little without being obliged to go further. In his opinion, to pass the Bill would be to do away with, to a great extent, the sanctity of marriage, and which in these days when there was a tendency to relax moral and religious obligations, would be a sad blow to the morality of this country; he should, therefore, decidedly oppose the second reading.

MR. MUNTZ

said, he wished tocall the attention of the House to the fact that the hon. Member for Cambridge University had said that the management of the Bill had been entrusted to a Mr. Stansbury, of Parliament Street, who had not changed his name for 30 years. How many times did the hon. Member think a man ought to change his name during that period? He denied that the demand for the legalization of marriage with a deceased wife's sister was the result of an agitation got up by Mr. Stansbury. On the contrary, it was founded upon a belief which had a strong national feeling in the hearts of the people. In proof of that, he might mention that he had that day presented a Petition from the Mayor, Aldermen, and Common Council of Birmingham in favour of an alteration of the law, and another, also from Birmingham, signed by 9,340 persons, of whom at least as many were women as men. Those Petitions were not got up by any agitators whatever, and he would defy any hon. Gentleman who said or who thought otherwise to hold a public meeting at Birmingham, and carry a resolution in favour of the present state of the law. He wished to point out that in Victoria, New Zealand, and Canada, Her Majesty had sanctioned the principle which the Bill would carry into effect, and the consequence was that a man might go out from England and marry a deceased wife's sister in any of those colonies, and all his children would be legitimate; while if, after making his money, he returned to this country, his modest wife would become his mistress, and his children bastards. Now, he asked the House to consider whether that was a desirable state of things to continue, especially when it was borne in mind that in all Catholic countries these marriages were sanctioned directly a dispensation had been obtained, which was invariably granted immediately it was asked for. Under such circumstances, and considering the fact that England stood alone in her dignity with reference to this question, why should they retain a law which was so offensive to a considerable number of the population? Who was more likely to make a better mother to the children of a deceased wife than that wife's sister? And it was, no doubt, that consideration which led to so many of these marriages being contracted. At present people often lived together without being married, in consequence of the existing law in this respect. Surely that was not a kind of immorality which ought to be encouraged merely in order to carry out a fancy. The religious question was all, in his opinion, on the side of the Bill. By the Levitical law, the custom of marrying a deceased wife's sister was not only recommended, but was even made compulsory; the lady was entitled to ask the husband to marry her, and if he objected, she spat on her shoe and struck him in the face, which, although it might not have the effect of making him amorous, at any rate showed her disdain at his refusal. It was also clearly laid down in these words—"Thou shalt not marry thy wife's sister while she is alive "—[Laughter]—no, he did not mean that; what he intended to say was—" Thou shalt not marry thy wife's sister while thy wife is alive." It had been said that the wife would be vexed if she thought her husband, after her death, would marry her sister; he believed the wife would be equally vexed if she thought her husband was likely to marry any other woman; but, as a matter of fact, it was well known that many wives on their deathbeds had entreated their husbands to marry their sisters, in order that their children might be sure of being well cared for. He believed that if a poll of the whole country was taken, there would be a large majority in favour of the Bill, and for this reason and others he had mentioned, he should have much pleasure in voting for the second reading.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, that on the present occasion, he must be taken as offering only his individual opinion on the subject. He thought that if there was such a desire for the Bill as had been alleged, that the hon. and learned Common Serjeant was bound to prove that a considerable number of people in this country were suffering from the law as it at present stood. In his belief the hon. and learned Member had failed to do this. By means of an energetic organization the House of Commons had been inundated with Petitions; but he did not think they represented the real feeling of the country. During the many years the question had been before the House, he had not found that it had been a question at the hustings, or had in any way decided the fate of an election. His own constituency was decidedly opposed to the measure, as he believed the great majority of the people of the country were. There was another portion of the Kingdom which ought to be considered. Ireland had most decidedly protested against the proposed change ever since it was first mooted; and notwithstanding the continued and persistent agitation which had been kept up for so many years, the resistance to it had not abated, nor had the public opinion in its favour grown. In proof of that assertion, he well re-collected the late much-lamented Mr. Maguire's appeal to the House not to pass the measure, because the people of Ireland did not want it, and they had also more lately had the opinion of Lord O'Hagan on the subject, who was as strongly opposed to the Bill as Mr. Maguire. It was sometimes said that this was a poor man's question, but statistics on that point proved that a great deal was to be said on the other side. Why was the Legislature called upon to meddle with laws which, as they stood, were distinct and intelligible, merely because a certain number of men had knowingly broken the law? If you relaxed the law with regard to this degree of affinity, how could you justify the law which prohibited marriages in other degrees of affinity—for example, with a deceased wife's niece? Without entering into the religious part of the question, his belief was that the history of Christian marriages was really expressed in our Redeemer's words—" They twain shall be one flesh." The kinsmen of the wife were the kinsmen of the husband, and vice versâ; and the Bill, if it passed, would involve the destruction of this relationship. He objected also to its retrospective operation, believing that those persons who had knowingly broken the law had no claim to be relieved from the consequences of their wrong-doing. They could not pass the Bill without setting up a whole system of anomalies which they would find it extremely difficult to deal with; and so far, therefore, as he was concerned, he should have no hesitation in voting against the second reading.

MR. RONAYNE

said, he had very little personal interest in the Bill, seeing that his wife had no sisters; but he wished to state, with reference to the Petition said by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Common Serjeant to be signed by 80 clergy of the diocese of Dublin in favour of the Bill, that they only desired such marriages to be legalized, if the parties had received dispensation from the Church. The Roman Catholic Church, however, invariably disapproved such marriages; and so far from a dispensation in such cases being easily got, they were most difficult to obtain; and he knew many influential and wealthy people who had been refused them. With regard to the measure itself, the Catholic people of Ireland were undoubtedly opposed to it.

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided:—Ayes 142; Noes 171: Majority 29.

Words added.

Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

Second Reading put off for six months.

AYES.
Anderson, G.	Beaumont, Major F.
Ashley, hon. E. M.	Beaumont, W. B.
Barrington, Viscount	Bentinck, G. C.
Bassett, F.	Biggar, J. G.
Bazley, Sir T.	Bolckow, H. W. F.

Brassey, H. A.	Kensington, Lord
Brassey, T.	Laverton, A.
Briggs, W. E.	Lawrence, Sir J. C.
Bright, rt. hon. J.	Leatham, E. A.
Bristowe, S. B.	Leeman, G.
Brogden, A.	Lefevre, G. J. S.
Brooks, M.	Legard, Sir C.
Brown, A. H.	Leith, J. F.
Bruce, hon. T.	Lloyd, M.
Cameron, C.	Locke, J.
Carter, R. M.	Lowther, J.
Cave, T.	Lusk, Sir A.
Chadwick, D.	Macgregor, D.
Childers, rt. hon. H.	MacIver, D.
Clarke, J. C.	M'Arthur, W.
Clifford, C. C.	M'Kenna, Sir J. N.
Cole, H. T.	Marjoribanks, Sir D. C.
Collins, E.	Massey, rt. hon. W. N.
Colman, J. J.	Mellor, T. W.
Cotes, C. C.	Milbank, F. A.
Cotton, Alderman	Mitchell, T. A.
Cowan, J.	Morgan, G. O.
Cowen, J.	Morley, S.
Cowper, hon. H. F.	Mundella, A. J.
Davies, D.	Muntz, P. H.
Denison, C. B.	Mure, Colonel
Dickson, T. A.	Norwood, C. M.
Dilke, Sir C. W.	O'Loghlen, rt. hon. Sir CM.
Dillwyn, L. L.
Dixon, G.	O'Shaughnessy, R.
Dodson, rt. hon. J. G.	O'Sullivan, W. H.
Dundas, J. C.	Pennington, F.
Earp, T.	Perkins, Sir F.
Egerton, Adm. hon. F.	Plimsoll, S.
Evans, T. W.	Puleston, J. H.
Eyton, P. E.	Rathbone, W.
Fawcett, H.	Reed, E. J.
Ferguson, R.	Richard, H.
Fitzwilliam, hon. C. W. W.	Ripley, H. W.
	Robertson, H.
Forster, Sir C.	Russell, Lord A.
Forster, rt. hon. W. E.	St. Aubyn, Sir J.
Gardner, J. T. Agg-	Samuda, J. D'A.
Gardner, R. Richardson-	Seely, C
	Shaw, R.
Goldsmid, Sir F.	Stacpoole, W.
Gloldsmid, J.	Stansfeld, rt. hon. J.
Gourley, E. T.	Starkey, L. R.
Gower, hon. E. F. L.	Storer, G.
Gurney, rt. hon. R.	Stuart, Colonel
Hankey, T.	Sullivan, A. M.
Harrison, C.	Swanston, A.
Havelock, Sir H.	Talbot, C. R. M.
Hayter, A. D.	Taylor, D.
Herschell, F.	Tollemache, W. F.
Hill, T. R.	Tracy, hon. C. R. D. Hanbury-
Hodgson, K. D.
Holland, Sir H. T.	Trevelyan, G. O.
Holms, J.	Villiers, rt. hon. C. P.
Holms, W.	Wait, W. K.
Hopwood, C. H.	Walsh, hon. A.
Howard, hon. C. W. G.	Whalley, G. H.
Hughes, W. B.	Whitworth, W.
Ingram, W. J.	Wilson, Sir M.
Jackson, H. M.	Yorke, hon. E.
James, Sir H.	Young, A. W.
Jenkins, D. J.
Johnston, W.
Johnstone, Sir H.	TELLERS.
Kay-Shuttleworth, U. J.	Chambers, Sir T.
	Simon, Mr. Serjeant

NOES.
Anstruther, Sir W.	Hardy, J. S.
Arkwright, A. P.	Hervey, Lord F.
Ashbury, J. L.	Heygate, W. U.
Assheton, R.	Hick, J.
Baggallay, Sir R.	Hogg, Sir J. M.
Bailey, Sir J. R.	Holmesdale, Viscount
Balfour, A. J.	Holt, J. M.
Baring, T. C.	Home, Captain
Bates, E.	Hood, Capt. hn. A. W. A. N.
Beach, rt. hn. Sir M. H.
Beach, W. W. B.	Hubbard, J. G.
Beresford, Colonel M.	Hunt, rt. hon. G. W.
Boord, T. W.	Jenkins, E.
Bourne, Colonel	Johnson, J. G.
Bright, R.	Jolliffe, hon. S.
Brise, Colonel R.	Kinnaird, hon. A. F.
Buckley, Sir E.	Knatchbull, Sir W.
Burrell, Sir P.	Knowles, T.
Callender, W. R.	Laing, S.
Cameron, D.	Learmonth, A.
Campbell, C.	Leslie, J.
Cave, rt. hon. S.	Lewis, C. E.
Cecil, Lord E. H. B. G.	Lewis, O.
Chapman, J.	Lloyd, T. E.
Christie, W. L.	Lopes, Sir M.
Churchill, Lord R.	Lorne, Marquis of
Clive, Col. hon. G. W.	Lowther, hon. AV.
Clowes, S. W.	Macartney, J. W. E.
Cobbett, J. M.	Macduff, Viscount
Cobbold, J. P.	Mackintosh, C. F.
Cochrane, A.D.W.R.B.	M'Combie, W.
Coope, O. E.	M'Lagan, P.
Cordes, T.	Mahon, Viscount
Corry, hon. H. W. L.	Maitland, J.
Corry, J. P.	Makins, Colonel
Cross, rt. hon. R. A.	Manners, rt. hn. Lord J.
Cubitt, G.	March, Earl of
Cuninghame, Sir W.	Marten, A. G.
Cust, H. C.	Matheson, A.
Dalrymple, C.	Merewether, C. G.
Davenport, W. B.	Mills, Sir C. H.
Deakin, J. H.	Monckton, F.
Denison, W. E.	Montgomerie, R.
Dickson, Major A. G	Montgomery, Sir G. G.
Dunbar, J.	Mowbray, rt. hn. J. R.
Dyke, W. H.	Mulholland, J.
Dyott, Colonel R.	Naghten, A. R.
Edmonstone, Adm. Sir W.	Neville-Grenville, R.
	Newport, Viscount
Egerton, Sir P. G.	Noel, E.
Egerton, hon. W.	North, Colonel
Elcho, Lord	Northcote, rt. hon. Sir S. H.
Elliot, G.
Elphinstone, Sir J. D. H.	O'Clery, K.
Emlyn, Viscount	O'Gorman, P.
Errington, G.	Onslow, D.
Ewing, A. O.	Peek, Sir H. W.
Floyer, J.	Peel, A. W.
Forester, C. T. W.	Poll, A.
Forsyth, W.	Pender, J.
Garnier, J. C.	Percy, Earl
Greenall, G.	Phipps, P.
Greene, E.	Pim, Captain B.
Gregory, G. B.	Price, Captain
Grieve, J. J.	Raikes, H. G
Hall, A. W.	Ramsay, J.
Halsey, T. F.	Ridley, M. W.
Hamilton, Lord C. J.	Ronayne, J. P.
Hamond, C. F.	Round, J.
Hardcastle, E.	Russell, Sir C.
Hardy, rt. hon. G.	Ryder, G. R.

Sackville, S. G. S.	Taylor, rt. hon. Col.
Sclater-Booth, rt. hn. G.	Tennant, R.
Scott, Lord H.	Torr, J.
Scott, M. D.	Turner, C.
Selwin-Ibbetson, Sir H. J.	Walpole, rt. hon. S.
	Walter, S.
Shute, General	Waterhouse, S.
Sidebottom, T. H.	Watney, J.
Simonds, W. B.	Whitelaw, A.
Smith, F. C.	Wilmot, Sir H.
Smith, S. G.	Wilmot, Sir J. E.
Smith, W. H.	Winn, E.
Stanhope, hon. E.	Wyndham, hon. P.
Stanhope, W. T. W. S.	Yarmouth, Earl of
Stanley, hon. P.	Yeaman, J.
Starkie, J. P. C.	TELLERS.
Steere, L.	Hope, A. J. B. B.
Talbot, J. G.	Mills, A.