MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER.—RESOLUTION.

HC Deb 06 May 1884 vol 287 cc1548-94

Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,

MR. BROADHURST

, move— That, in view of the painful and unnecessary hardships inflicted upon large numbers of people in this Country by the Law prohibiting Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister, it is the opinion of this House that a measure of relief is urgently called for, said, he felt that in making the Motion some explanation was due to the House of the manner in which he became associated with it. It had for some time past been very ably dealt with by the hon. and learned Member the Recorder of the City of London (Sir Thomas Chambers); but after some length of time and after the continual pressure of friends, and especially of his constituents, he at last consented to take charge of the question. To show the House the interest his constituents took in it, he would that state last winter a requisition in its favour was sent to him signed by 25,000 of them, of whom more than 10,000 were women above 18 years of age, and representing not only the working classes of the borough of Stoke-upon-Trent, but also the middle classes, besides many Town Councillors, Aldermen, and members of Local Boards. Another reason for his connection with the subject was to be found in the Petition which he had the honour of presenting to the House yesterday, signed by 115 delegates representing the trades of the country at the last annual Trades Union Congress. There were really 170 signatures; but some 55 failed to sign the proper paper. In the hurry of their week's work they failed to get near the Petition, and they signed letters instead, expressing regret that their names were not attached to the original document. But for this circumstance the original Petition would have contained 170 signatures of the leading working men of the United Kingdom, representing altogether something like 500,000 of the people of this country. At the outset of his speech he wished to state that he did not profess to represent every working man's opinion in the country. He never did profess to. There were a great many opinions in the country he would be very sorry to represent; and he would be glad to transfer them to hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House, or anywhere else, who chose to espouse their views. As Representative of Stoke-upon-Trent, he had endea- voured to represent the constituency as a whole, and not any one class. His own opinion as to the importance of the subject was that, with the exception of the Franchise Bill, then before the House, there was a more general consensus of opinion upon this than upon any other. So far as signatures to Petitions were concerned, his experience showed that the possibility of obtaining them was only limited by a person's time and opportunities; and, indeed, he had never met a person who declined to sign one in favour of the proposed alteration. ["Oh!"] He did not say that no such person existed; but, whereas 2,000,000 people had petitioned in favour of the Bill, not one-tenth of that number had petitioned against it. Three hundred and fifty Town Councils had at different times sent Petitions in favour of the amendment of the law. One hundred and thirty Boards of Guardians in the country had petitioned in its favour. The Town Council of Edinburgh had petitioned 11 times, and the Convention of Rural Boroughs had petitioned 11 times. He mentioned signatures of Town Councillors and members of Local Boards especially because they might be taken to represent the highest and best form of Conservative feeling in the country. By this he meant Conservative, not in a political point of view, but Conservative in its best and highest sense; and he would say this especially with regard to Boards of Guardians, than whom there were no representative Bodies in the country more capable of giving expression to what was desirable on a subject of this kind. Coming to another form of organization, the Liberal Associations of the country, no less than 225 of these Associations had passed resolutions in favour of these views. He thought that it was known to most people that His Holiness the Pope and the greater number of the leading Catholic clergy, as well as the more prominent laity of the Catholic Church, were in favour of this alteration in the law. The general interest in the subject was very great. As regarded Scotland, in the City of Glasgow 42,000 people had signed Petitions for the change in a short time last year, and over 300 Scotch ministers had expressed themselves in its favour, while the leading organs of the Scotch Press were also favourable to it. In England itself, as apart from any other portion of the United Kingdom, he thought it was safe to say that public opinion, if not unanimous, at least came nearer to being so than it had done upon any great question that had engaged public attention for many years past. Many also of those who sat on the other side of the House were in favour of it; so that this Motion was no outrage upon Conservatism. What had been the result of the attempt to create a feeling adverse to this proposal? The most supreme efforts had been put forth to elicit opinions in opposition to it; but they had met with most signal failure, and had by no means repaid the labour and expenditure employed. He had been told that the right hon. Gentleman the senior Member for Cambridge University had called upon the clergy of the Church of England to come to his assistance and place notices upon their church doors in opposition to this measure, calling upon the people to use their best efforts against it. What had been the result? After months of labour about 12,000 signatures had been obtained, many of them under questionable circumstances. A very remarkable Circular had also been issued on the subject marked "Confidential," and addressed to Members of Parliament, from a special meeting of C. E. W. M. S., which he was told meant the Church of England Working Men's Society. It said that he (Mr. Broadhurst) could not be accepted as representing the working classes on this question, and it requested Members to vote against the Motion. It was especially requested that there might be no mention of the Church of England Working Men's Society, or of any Church Society. It was signed on behalf of the Society by S. Powell, Secretary, Tavistock Street, Covent Garden, W.C. He had given these particulars because that was rather an out-of-the-way place for an institution of that kind. The Bishop of Lichfield, of whom he wished to speak with great respect, had made a great effort to stir up the people in defence of the law as it at present existed; but after going through the whole of his district he had succeeded in getting something like 8,000 signatures, or less than one-third of the number of signatures in favour of this Motion, obtained within the boundaries of his own constituency, and of grown men and women. It had been stated that this was not a working man's question at all, but that it was simply for the convenience of a very few rich people. He was sorry to hear such prejudice expressed on the Conservative side of the House against justice being done to people who were rich. His own Liberalism knew of no distinction between rich and poor in matters of justice. It would be a bad day for the country when Parliament legislated for the convenience of either rich or poor; the ground of its action should be justice, and not consideration for any class of people. He was not prepared to admit that this was a rich man's question only. Undoubtedly, rich people had the good sense to make these marriages in the interest of their own happiness and that of the bereaved children; but such marriages were far more numerous among the working classes than among the upper or the middle classes; and that was some justification for the position he occupied. The difference between rich and poor in these matters was very great. The rich man's resources enabled him, if he was a widower, to obtain proper treatment for his children; and, as a rule, if he married again, the opinion of his class prevented his second wife from ill-using her step-children. These advantages the poor man did not possess. He, perhaps, had to leave his home before dawn, and all day his children were in the hands of the step-mother, and infancy was often a barrier to their communication with others. No one was more likely to be a second mother to the children than the sister of her who bore them; she often became so during the long illness of the mother; and to wrench her from the children was often to them as a second death. Not only in the interest of the children themselves, but in the interest of humanity, the House should not stand for one moment between the Resolution and the hopes of these poor people, but should concede their reasonable and just demands with as little delay as possible. Hundreds and thousands of these marriages were already contracted, and thousands more would be contracted if the law was amended. He sincerely hoped that the House would pass his Motion. Society did not condemn these marriages, whilst every sensible person in the country—he did not use the word "sensible" in an offensive sense—approved of them, Parliament ought to be abreast of the opinion of the country, and the expression of a decisive judgment on the part of this House would probably have great weight with the other House, and induce it to yield to the claims of common sense, justice, and humanity. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Resolution which stood in his name.

MR. HENEAGE

, in seconding the Motion, said, he regarded the prohibition of these marriages as most unjust and inexpedient. The law was contrary to Divine law and to natural law. There was nothing in the Old Testament or the New Testament against these marriages. Within the last few weeks unanimous testimony had been given by Professors of Greek and of Hebrew as to the interpretation of the controverted passages in favour of these marriages, which, indeed, had always been approved by Jews and by Mahomedans. The Roman Catholics did not say that these marriages were against the Divine law, but simply that they were against the moral law, which could be dispensed with at the pleasure of the Pope. The Protestants, whether Churchmen or Nonconformists, desired this amendment of the law. The marriages were legal in the other English-speaking nations of the globe. Cardinal Newman wrote that if he looked upon this question as one affecting the rich he should, perhaps, think the marriages inexpedient; but in the interests of the poor he thought they were expedient. ["Read on!"] The Cardinal spoke further of the danger of relaxing the sanctity of marriage; but that had nothing whatever to do with the subject before the House. If, these marriages were expedient they ought not to be prohibited because of the inexpediency of any other marriages which nobody contemplated. We had two laws in two different parts of the Empire; and a marriage in Canada might be repudiated here without any redress for the woman; although the law of Canada had received the assent of the Queen. Looking at the question from a social point of view, he maintained that the objection founded on alleged intimacy and relationship was all nonsense. There was closer relationship between first cousins, particularly where two brothers had married two sisters; and, as a rule, they would be well known to each other. In the case of a husband and his wife's sister, they might not even know each other until they attended the wife's funeral. This was not a question for the small social circle of London; it was a question for the nation at large, and for the English-speaking people of the Colonies. It had been stated that if they altered the present law, and allowed marriage with the deceased's wife sister, the number of divorce cases would be increased. He did not know whether that would be so or not, but he would point out that two wrongs did not make a right; and if that House had passed a Divorce Law, which was against the teachings of the Bible, that was no reason why they should try and keep another law in force which was also opposed to the language of the Bible. The present law upon this subject was, in his opinion, a disgrace to a civilized country, and ought to be abolished. He seconded the Motion of the hon. Member for Stoke.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That, in view of the painful and unnecessary hardships inflicted upon large numbers of people in this Country by the Law prohibiting Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister, it is the opinion of this House that a measure of relief is urgently called for."—(Mr. Broadhurst.)

COLONEL MAKINS

in rising to move, as an Amendment— That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the Laws relating to Marriages within the prohibited degrees, said, he did not think that any apology was needed for bringing this subject before the House. The question had exercised the public mind ever since the passing of the Lyndhurst Act half a century ago; and he quite admitted that any hon. Member was at liberty to take it up. The hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst) had stated that a large number of Petitions had been presented in favour of the Bill. That was perfectly true; but he would remind the House that a very large number had been presented against the Bill, and it should be remembered that it was always easier for those who were attacking an existing law to get up Petitions than those who were supporting it. It was not correct to say that there was a general feeling in favour of the measure. No resolution had been passed by any meeting of representative clergy or by any well-known sect in this country in favour of legalizing marriage with the deceased wife's sister. He was sorry the hon. Member for Stoke had stated that Liberal Associations approved of the Motion; because hitherto the question, of the Marriage Laws had not been regarded as a Party question. It was a mistake for the hon. Member to drag in those Associations in support of the measure. The hon. Member claimed to speak on behalf of working men, but showed that upon this subject he had no right whatever to represent those working men who belonged to the Church of England. He was prepared to state that most of the working men who were members of the Church of England were utterly opposed to the measure. The hon. Member had further claimed to speak not only in the name of the working man, but of the Pope. He did not know what authority he had to speak for the Pope; but this he did know—that a very large number of Roman Catholics were utterly opposed to the measure. Then the hon. Member for Stoke claimed that the measure for legalizing marriage with a deceased wife's sister was a measure of justice to the people as a whole; but he forgot that gross injustice would be done to those who did not desire it if it passed into law. If they altered the law, the sister of the deceased wife would not have that protection which she now enjoyed, and the opposite to that which the supporters of the Motion desired would be effected. The hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Heneage) was fully persuaded that the Divine Law was in favour of the Bill. Seeing, however, that all Christian Bodies ever since the institution of Christianity and other bodies before the institution of Christianity maintained the present law upon the subject, he failed to see how the hon. Member came to the conclusion that the Divine Law was in his favour. The Roman law was against such marriages. They were not known in the days of the early fathers. St. Basil said—"Such marriages are not known among us." It was said that it was not intended to extend the proposal. But the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. Thomasson) desired to extend it by inserting the words "and with a deceased husband's brother;" and the hon. Member for Kirkealdy (Sir George Campbell) desired to extend it to "the relations" of the deceased husband or wife, thus opening the door as wide as he possibly could. Hitherto the matter had been in the hands of private Members, and he did not see much prospect of their being relieved of it; but the question was of so much importance that if legislation was undertaken at all it ought to be undertaken in connection with the whole Marriage Law and by a responsible Government, whom he did not see just now on the Bench opposite. Both the Proposer and Seconder of the Motion had ignored the canons altogether. If they were to remove the prohibition against those marriages they would place the clergy in a most awkward position. Taking the 99th and the 26th canons together, no clergyman would be allowed to marry those persons or to admit them to the Holy Communion. The table of prohibitive degrees as it stood was perfectly logical, simple, and intelligible. It dealt with 20 cases of affinity and 10 of relationship by birth; and if they took one of the degrees of affinity what was to become of the others? The principal persons in favour of the proposal were the paid officials of the Society, those who had contracted those unions or who hoped to contract them, and the junior Member for Northampton (Mr. Brad-laugh) and the school to which he belonged. In that hon. Member's hands the Motion would have found a more congenial home. The hon. Member had referred to the Colonies. But it should be recollected that in the Colonies there was no State Church, there was no Canon Law, and they were not under the same difficulties in dealing with the question as we were. The members of the Liberation Society were also supporters of the proposal, for they saw in it a great weapon against the Church. On the other hand, the religious communities were opposed to it—the synods and conferences of the Church and the diocesan conferences. The Scotch Assembly had passed very strong resolutions against it, and the Scotch Episcopal Church had issued a pastoral letter condemning it in the strongest manner. The hon. Member for Stoke said he represented the working men; but he did not say much, about the working women or the women at all.

MR. BROADHURST

said, he had distinctly stated in his opening remarks that a requisition asking him to take charge of the matter had been signed by 10,000 women over 18 years of age in his own constituency.

COLONEL MAKINS

said, he was speaking of women generally, and he had no hesitation in saying that the proposal was utterly repugnant to their views. He had received letters from women of all classes, especially those of the lower middle class, telling him that the effect of the passing of the measure would be to drive them from the homes in which they now lived very much to the benefit of the children of their late sister. What did the proposal come to? To the selfish gratification of a few against the interests of the many; but they would never be able to transform legal concubinage into holy matrimony. Then there was another very serious question involved, and that was the condonation of the past breaking of the law. What the hon. Gentleman, proposed was the secularization of marriage. He would legalize that union, but he could not convert it into holy matrimony. He should be sorry to see the state of things existing in the United States of America introduced into this country. He supported the present law, because it maintained domestic happiness and domestic purity. Whatever Forms of the House were at his disposal he would use to delay and defeat the Bill. He did not enter into the Scriptural argument, for that had been already fully stated, and it was not so well suited to that House. This, after all, was in some sense a legal question; and all the Lord Chancellors in recent times—Lords Hatherley, St. Leonards, Cairns, and Selborne, together with the present Lord Chief Justice of England, were opposed to this Bill. He ought, perhaps, to make an exception in favour of that great ecclesiastical lawyer, Lord Westbury, and Lord Bramwell was also in favour of the Bill. The Bishops and clergy of the Church of England and all diocesan synods and conferences had condemned this Bill, and this showed that opinion was not all on one side. This was a matter of great social importance, and one which, if dealt with at all, ought to be dealt with by the Government, and not by a private Member. The Government required evidence on the subject, and therefore it was that he proposed that a Royal Commission should be appointed. He concluded by moving his Amendment.

COLONEL MILNE-HOME

, in seconding the Amendment, said, the subject brought forward by the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst) was one fraught with the deepest possible interest to those whose position and circumstances it chiefly concerned; but it went further, because any alteration in the Marriage Law affected family life, and what affected family life affected the whole community. He at once admitted, so far as his own individual opinion was concerned, that nowhere, either in the Levitical or the Biblical law, were they told that this prohibition was to hold good. At the same time, if they were to follow out the very letter of the Scriptural law, almost anyone might be a Mormonite except a Bishop or a Presbyter. The law of the Bible was certainly made for the nations of the day; but the principle of the Bible was handed down for us to act up to according to the lights of our generation, and according to the progress of civilization and Christianity. He thought we were following out that principle as laid down in the Bible, and more particularly the New Testament, by restricting ourselves in the way the law restricted us now. A very large majority of the Church of England considered that marriage with a deceased wife's sister was religiously wrong. The Roman Catholics, he understood, were divided in opinion. The Presbyterians in Scotland and elsewhere were chiefly in favour of retaining this prohibition. But whether the majority of all classes of religious seets were in favour or not, this was a Christian country; and we were bound in common charity to respect the opinions of our religious brethren. We should, therefore, err, if we erred at all, on the right side, by keeping the law as it was—unless there was tremendous reason shown for the change. He submitted that they had had no such reason put before them tonight. Having conceded the theological point, he would take his stand only upon the social ground. He considered that for all classes in the community it was better to keep the law as it now was; and in this view he was supported by not a few of the clergy, though there were clergymen of the Church of England who did not take the extreme view of this question which was laid down by his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Makins). They must take into consideration in this question the wage-earning as well as the wage-paying classes; and when he saw the name of the hon. Member for Stoke down as the champion of this movement he felt considerable qualms of conscience as to what course he was to take. He had invariably voted against any change in this direction; and the only thing that would induce him to alter his views was the persuasion that such a change in the law would be really a benefit to the working class. It seemed to him that those who were in a different position to them were bound to give up something for their benefit. Widowers in all classes were to be pitied, but chiefly those among the working classes, because when the wife was taken the housekeeper was taken also, and that meant terrible inconvenience in the home. That was more noticeable, perhaps, in the community in which he lived than in any other, as married soldiers had no end of privileges and allowances; but when the wife died all those allowances and privileges went. The soldier, who was a widower, had immediately to become a member of his company's mess; and, in addition, to pay someone to look after his children. But the question arose, would the Resolution, or a Bill like it, if carried, be a remedy for all this? He thought that the sisters-in-law of men in the position of working men were generally either married themselves or were in service or otherwise employed, and were not at liberty to come and take charge of a household. One great argument against the hon. Member for Stoke was that the sisters-in-law were not available. The real remedy was to take steps to improve the dwellings of these people. ["Question !"] That was the question; the reason of all these discomforts of the working classes was that they were so badly housed; and it was an insult to the pure-minded among them to come to the House and ask for a Bill which they themselves did not want. He had endeavoured to find a Return of the number of these illicit marriages; and the only one he could find showed that in a cycle of 12 years the number of what he might call rich marriages was 1,608, against 40 poor ones. That seemed to show either that the poorer classes preferred to remain as they were, or that they were not in a position to break the law. It also showed the sad fact that the richer classes did not scruple to break the law. The recent alteration in the law in Canada had been mentioned, and some hon. Members had seemed to consider it a very great argument; but it seemed to him no argument to say that because her children go wrong the mother country should do likewise. It had been said that it would be very awkward for persons so married coming home to this country from Canada, in that they would have no status as married persons. But Lord Cairns had said in the other House that the domicile of Canada legalized the marriage all over the world. If, however, people domiciled in Great Britain crossed to Canada, and took advantage of the law there, they must not be surprised if the law of their domicile took effect when they returned. As to foreign countries, these unions were permitted in France, Germany, and Russia, but only by a dispensation from the Church. That seemed to imply that the parties had done something wrong, as a dispensation was simply a pardon for an offence which was considered morally wrong. It was well known that in those countries divorce was rifer than it was in England. Whether that fact arose from the different conditions of the marriage law it was not for him to say; but it was for hon. Gentlemen who came and asked for the removal of the restriction to prove that family life in those countries, in America, and in the Colonies, was purer, and holier, and happier than it was in England. He believed that in America there was a growing dislike to such marriages. He thought that in what he had said he had shown that there was no desire on the part of the working classes for any change in the law. The hon. Member for Stoke would, in his opinion, defeat his own object if a law were passed founded on this Resolution. At present the sister-in-law could enter the widower's household, and help him in its management, and she was undoubtedly the right person to do so. If a Bill were passed founded upon this Resolution, the sister-in-law would, in the pithy words of the Archbishop of Canterbury, have to "pack up her traps and begone." Then the children ought to be considered. If the marriages in question were allowed new families would spring up, and the children by the first marriage might be left out in the cold. He was amazed at the support which the proposal had received in certain quarters. If the people who were in favour of it would only compare the state of society in foreign countries where the prohibition was not acted upon—in the United States and in our Colonies—with the state of society at home they would soon change their views. Many persons forgot that if the restriction on marriage with a deceased wife's sister were done away with, it would be impossible to stop there. What would there be to prevent a man from claiming to marry his mother-in-law, his brother's widow, or his step daughter? The restriction, according to so learned an authority as Lord Cairns, dated from the earliest times of Christianity. Surely he could rely upon the Conservatives lining the Benches on his side of the House to vote for its retention. This was a moribund Parliament. Large numbers of people were soon to be admitted to the franchise for the first time. Would it not be well to wait and see what the new electorate would say on this subject? Some day, perhaps, we should have female suffrage. By all means let the House wait for that day before attempting to alter the present law, for he felt certain that the women would vote for the retention of the marriage law of England in its present integrity.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the Laws relating to Marriages within the prohibited degrees,"—(Colonel Makins,) —instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

MR. EDWARD CLARKE

Sir, I suppose it is not expected that we should discuss in detail the Amendment which my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Makins) has proposed. It is an evasive and dilatory Amendment, asking the House to decline to pass an opinion on the main subject of discussion, and an Amendment which I think my hon. and gallant Friend would be the very last man to put forward as a substantive Motion for its acceptance. I do not think there is anyone in the House who would be more reluctant than he to throw open the whole question of the prohibited degrees in the Marriage Law. I turn at once from that large subject to the single question contained in the Resolution; and, with the indulgence of the House, I will give a few reasons why I intend to vote in support of this Resolution. It has been practically conceded that, so far as the maintenance of that restriction finds its authority in an appeal to Scriptural rules, there is no ground for the restriction. ["No, no!"] It is of no use to contradict me by "No, no !" It is practically conceded by the Mover of the Amendment, and it is conceded in terms by the hon. and gallant Member for Berwick (Colonel Milne-Home). I think there is no more remarkable evidence of the slavery into which the intellect is sometimes brought by the will and the sentiment than the fact that there are people to be found in this country, honest and intelligent people, who contend that these marriages are forbidden by Holy Scripture. There is no difficulty with regard to the argument. The prohibition is generally supposed to be found in a single verse of Leviticus. As to that verse, there is no material discrepancy or dispute respecting translation, and there is no ambiguity in its phrases. If it be interpreted by those rules which all men, with one accord, would apply to the construction of any other authority in any other verse, it clearly gives, not a prohibition, but a permission to these marriages. It is one of the universal canons of interpretation that a particular prohibition implies a general permission. Therefore, as the verse in. question says that a marriage is not to be contracted during the lifetime of the sister, it follows that such a marriage is permissible when that life is at an end. ["Hear, hear!"] But my hon. Friends around me rather rely upon the interpretation of another text to be found in the Old Testament, and to be found twice in the Now Testament—a text in metaphorical language, which speaks of the twain being one flesh. It is scarcely possible, with due reverence and propriety, to discuss and point out the consequences of such a construction as is put upon that text; and I will content myself with this answer—which I confess appears to me overwhelming—that to say that that text was meant to convey a prohibition of a marriage of this kind is to be guilty of the grossest disrespect and irreverence to the writer of the Sacred Book in which it was found; it is to contend that a prohibition is intended to be conveyed to the world by the text, but that the inspired writer so ill set down the command it was his duty to give to the world that for 2,000 years the people to whom that command was supposed to be addressed unanimously misunderstood it, and disobeyed it. It is impossible to find in the Old or New Testament any further authority than these. But we have been told that if we cannot appeal to Scripture to support this prohibition we shall find it in the social condition of life, and in the mischiefs that would follow from the permitting of these marriages. It is, I think, a little too much forgotten that the existence of this prohibition is the cause of very serious social mischiefs. If my hon. and gallant Friend behind me quotes a Return stating that 1,600 marriages of this class have occurred within a certain time among wealthy persons, while only 40 marriages of the same kind have taken place among the poorer class, I want to know what is the explanation of that discrepancy? Is it to be supposed that in this class, where the reasons for such a union are far stronger than they are in the class to which hon. Members of the House belong—is it to be supposed that there, where circumstances press more strongly in support of such a marriage, the alliance is not made? The explanation is, I fear, a different one. The wealthy man can take the second wife away and marry her abroad. He brings her back to this country, as one knows in the circle of one's own acquaintances, with undiminished respect and acceptance. [Cheers, and "No, no !"] I do not believe there is a Member of this House who does not know within the circle of his own acquaintances at least two or three instances in which such marriages have taken place. At all events, the rich man can do that, and the poor man cannot go abroad and solemnize the marriage; and I believe the result is too often not that the union does not take place, but that the union takes place unhallowed by any ceremony of marriage whatever. There are these mischiefs now; but it is said that there will be serious social mischiefs if this alteration in the law be made. It seems to me, I confess, that my hon. and gallant Friends who are putting this argument forward are giving a most strange and grotesque representation of the social and domestic life of the English people. The ideal state of things seems to be this—that the wife throughout the married life is anxious and suspicious in regard to anyone who comes into the circle of the home life, in the fear, not that the affection of the husband may presently go out and result in unfaithfulness, but that, at some future time, when the wife herself has gone, he may contract a second marriage with that person. The idea seems to be that the English wife is so keenly jealous and suspicious, and has so little confidence in her husband's love, that she cannot reconcile herself to the presence of her own sister in the home, but for the consolation she finds in the fact that in 1835, almost by an accident, this prohibition was put upon the Statute Book. I say, almost by an accident, for in Committee of the House in 1835 the only Division that took place on the subject was a Division in which the majority was against the prohibition of these marriages; but those who were putting forward the Act of Parliament of 1835 pleaded that it might be allowed to pass in that year, and suggested that an amending Act permitting these marriages should be brought in in the following year. It seems to me that the view which has been taken is an entire misapprehension, of the condition of the domestic life among us. We should be in pitiful case indeed if that condition of anxiety, jealousy, and suspicion which has been pictured was the real condition of the English home— In love, if love be love, if love be ours, Faith and unfaith can ne'er be equal powers; Unfaith in aught is want of faith in all. I do not believe that the wife, at the time when her health and capacity exist for managing her children, and when she is able to render all the satisfaction to her husband as when he took her for his wife—I do not believe there is this constant suspicion and anxiety on her part that in some future time, after she is dead, he will marry another. But there is a time when feeling becomes deeper. There comes to many women a time when they know of their sentence to go from the husband they love and the family they have taken care of, and when there is an interval between the season of active joyous interests in life, and the time when the final parting is made; and I do not believe that the tone of feeling of women at that time is jealousy or suspicion of the sister who may take her place. Women are not so selfish as men are. I do not believe that a woman could do the cruel and wicked act that men are every day committing, when they, by the terms of their wills, endeavour to prevent the wife from ever being happy again in married life. I believe that to the woman it would be a consolation, and not a vexation and a sorrow, to think that the children whom she loves, and is leaving behind her, should find their most proper protector, and the husband should find his best companion and helpmate in her own sister, who would bring back to them the memory of her who had gone. With regard to this matter, I would like to say a few words on the reference that has been made to the canons of the Church, and on the observations made by my hon. and gallant Friend as to the retrospective effect of the Bill to be introduced. Assuming that Parliament passes an Act to abolish this prohibition, it will be on this ground only—that the prohibition ought never to have existed; and if we make a declaration that the prohibition ought never to have existed and ought to be removed, it would be a monstrous thing to leave the stain of illegitimacy upon hundreds of thousands of persons with regard to; the marriage of whose parents we admit that that marriage is not forbidden by the law of God, and ought not to be for bidden by the law of man. It is said; that such marriages are forbidden by the canons of the Church; and, no doubt, one of the canons ecclesiastical does contain a prohibition in a very peculiar form. It declares that these marriages are forbidden by the Word of God; and it declares that, as I believe, without the smallest foundation. The canons are a series of orders issued by the authority of the Crown, with the concurrence and advice of the Convocations of Canterbury and York, and they are not binding by law upon the laity of England at all. They are constantly and habitually disregarded by the Bishops and clergy themselves. The 99th canon, which has been referred to, comes in the middle of a number of others which are simply concerned with the procedure of the Ecclesiastical Courts; and the only reason why those canons has been allowed till this day to exist, and remain in what I suppose I must call the Rule of the Church of England, is that the clergy have habitually disobeyed the Royal Order which was made when those canons were promulgated—namely, that each clergyman should read them once a-year at the afternoon service, one-half of them on one day, and the other half on the next. If the clergy obeyed that Royal Order I undertake to say that those canons ecclesiastical would not remain in existence for 12 months. There is only one other point on which I will ask the House to allow me to say a word or two, and it is that which touches the part of the question which is the most serious and the most important. Sitting here, and seeing the Prime Minister in his place, I have been reminded of the remarkable letter the right hon. Gentleman wrote in the year 1863 to the late Bishop Wilberforce, and which was printed in one volume of the life of that Bishop lately published, in which the right hon. Gentleman spoke at some length to that illustrious Prelate of the position which the Church of England ought to take with reference to matters which affect Nonconformists in this country, and I have always thought that in that letter the right hon. Gentleman gave counsel so wise to members of the Church of England that the letter, if it stood alone, would justify the confidence which has been habitually and consistently placed in him by very large bodies of Churchmen. Sir, I am very anxious indeed with regard to the relation of this Motion to the position and character of the Church of England. I am a Churchman—a Churchman bound to the Church by ties of allegiance a great deal deeper and a great deal stronger than those which attach me to any political Party. The Church is a great institution—one of the greatest institutions we have in this country. It is higher in authority than Parliaments or Thrones; it will survive them all; and I think with great anxiety of the future of the Church and its relations to the State. I believe that disestablishment would be a national disaster, and that disendowment would be a national crime; but there is one event possible which would be far worse for the nation and for the Church than disestablishment, however complete, and disendowment, however rapacious—and that is that the Church should be degraded into a Department of the State, and placed under the control of the House of Commons and under the supervision of an Erastian Home Secretary. But I confess that I think that is the direction in which those who are now professing to lead Churchmen in this matter are unknowingly but most steadily going when they assert a claim to make the law of the Church—because they call it the law of the Church—the law of the land, and when they claim that those who do not belong to the Church itself shall yield obedience to that law simply because it is the law of the Church, and because in theory every man in the nation is a member of the Church. They forget that the natural and necessary corollary and consequence of that claim on their part is that the people over whose reluctant conscience they are attempting to place that yoke are entitled to turn round, and will turn round, and say—"You insist on the theory that we are members of the Church; and, because you insist that we are bound by its law, we in our own Parliament will regulate the rules, the ritual, and the doctrine of the Church itself;" and thus, in attempting to stretch the authority of its own rules over the people at large, the Church will have succeeded in reducing itself to a position which I think will be most disastrous to it and to the State as well. Now, I have not made these observa- tions upon this matter without a feeling of very strong personal responsibility. There has been no personal interest or personal influence pressing me in the direction in which I am going. On the other hand, I have been warned by those I whom I count among my best friends, and who are perfectly capable, if they choose, of giving effect to that warning, that the penalty of the course I am taking may be a penalty very serious to my political future. ["Oh, oh!"] Well, I can only say I that that is the warning which has been given to me, and hon. Gentlemen opposite may not be so well able to judge as those who sit on the Opposition, side of the House as to what the force of that warning may be; but a matter of that kind is a matter with which I have nothing whatever to do. Whatever may happen as to that, I have striven to study this question, and to come to a clear and conscientious conviction and result upon it; and I have come to a definite and clear determination that I must give my vote in support of the Motion. I shall give that vote most clearly and confidently, believing that I am doing nothing that will, in the least degree, derogate from the authority of any Divine law, or from the reverence due to it; that I shall be assisting the social purity and domestic happiness of the people; and, still more, that I shall be rendering true and loyal service to the Church which I desire most faithfully to serve, and whose work and whose influence are, in my belief, the most precious of our national possessions.

MR. THOMASSON

was understood to support the Resolution, and to argue in favour of a Motion which he had put upon the Paper, and which, by the Rules of the House, he was precluded from moving, to the effect that in the opinion of the House a marriage with a deceased husband's brother should be rendered legal.

MR. C. PHIPPS

said, he sincerely trusted that before this debate came to an end some hon. Member of his own profession would get up and answer the arguments which had been put to the House by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Plymouth (Mr. E. Clarke). For himself, it would be impossible for him to look at this question as one of merely legal argument. He could not help thinking that it was far more a social question than a legal one, and that it was a matter affecting the welfare of the whole community. In common with many—in fact, in common with every Member of the House—he had listened with very great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst). He had listened with interest to that speech, because he willingly admitted that the hon. Member of all others was the exponent of the wants and wishes of the working classes; but on this question the House had to consider not only the interests and the desires of those who laboured by their hands, but also of those who laboured by their brains. The hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst) asked for justice on behalf of those who worked from dark in the morning until after sunset; but he (Mr. C. Phipps) would ask the House to take into consideration not only those, but also that very numerous class, who, although perhaps they did not leave their houses at quite such an early period in the morning, were still practically removed from their children the whole of the day. The hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Heneage), so far as he could make out, supported the view he took by the opinions of Professors of Greek and Hebrew; but the question had been before so many learned men, not only Professors of Greek and Hebrew, but also Professors of the English language, that it was quite unnecessary for him (Mr. C. Phipps) to say a word about the archaeological view. Again, as to the Scriptural view, he could very well leave that to the care of the theologians. It appeared to him that the question before them was rather what was to become of their sisters-in-law; or, if hon. Members did not like that way of expressing it, he would put it in this way—the question was what was to become of the women with whom, for many years, they had probably been accustomed to live on the same terms of intimacy as they had with their sisters? The hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Heneage) said that, in many cases, the relations between the husband and sister-in-law were of a most strained description, and that, in many cases, the husband was absolutely ignorant of his sister-in-law. Well, he quite admitted that that occasionally might be the case; but, so far as England was concerned, he submitted with all due deference to the House that the contrary was generally the rule. It appeared to him that when death might have removed the wife, no one was so likely to take proper care of her children, and to have a knowledge of them and affection for them, than the sister; and if this Resolution were carried, and if on the top of the Resolution a Bill embracing its principle were passed, they would practically remove the very woman who would be most likely to take proper care of the children. For one case where such a Bill would bring any relief, it appeared to him that there would be 99 in which it would inflict a positive hardship; because he could not imagine that there were any number of men who would willingly submit their sisters-in-law to the taunts and inuendoes and whispered asides which would take place through their living in the house after the death of their wives. They had been told that this change in the law had been asked for by the people at large, and that he entirely denied. There was another question which agitated a great number of people, and that was the question of Sunday Closing. For a good many years he (Mr. C. Phipps) had followed the fortunes of Sunday Closing; and he should just like, in order to show that a measure legalizing marriage with a deceased wife's sister was not asked for by the public generally, to compare the Petitions received in favour of that proposal with those received in support of the Bill for Sunday Closing. He would take the last Report on Petitions. In that he found that those against any change in the law as to marriage with a deceased wife's sister numbered 179, containing the total number of 11,641 signatures; the number of Petitions in favour of the Bill being five, containing signatures of those connected with the movement in favour of the proposed change in the law. When, however, he came to look at the number of Petitions in favour of Sunday Closing, he found that no less than 5,084 had been presented, containing a total number of 429,177 signatures. That, to his mind, effectually disposed of the question as to whether any change in the law was earnestly required. He was bound to say himself that the sig- natures upon Petitions he viewed with a great deal of distrust; but he certainly believed that the number of Petitions was something of a criterion, and he had often heard it stated, both in the House and elsewhere, that the proper gauge of public feeling was the agitation in the way of Petitions, and the signatures which were attached to them. It had been said that one reason why they should alter the law was in consequence of the number of irregular marriages—or he would not call them irregular marriages, but irregular unions—which wore constantly taking place in their midst. He very much regretted that, through an accident, he was unable to give some very interesting figures which he had recently come across; but he remembered this with regard to them, that the number of people who had married their deceased wife's sister was extremely small as compared with those living with other people outside the pale of the law. Well, there was another point which struck him very forcibly. If these marriages were very much desired by the people at large, certainly they would have seen and heard a great deal more about the question in the House of Commons than they had. The question, he believed, was first brought before the House in the year 1841, in which year the introduction of a Bill was refused. In the Parliament of 1847 a Bill on the subject was twice read a second time; in the Parliament of 1853 it was once read a second time; and on the next occasion it was brought forward it was rejected on the second reading. In the Parliament of 1857 it was twice read a second time; in the Parliament of 1859 it was twice rejected; in the Parliament of 1866 it was rejected once; and in the Parliament of 1868 the second reading was carried four times. There was, however, one remarkable fact about the Parliament of 1868, and that was that the majority commenced with 100 and dwindled down to 35. In the Parliament of 1874 the subject was negatived on the second reading; and here they were in the year 1884 of the Parliament of 1880, and this was the first time the matter had been brought before the House. Something had been said about America. America had been brought into the question, and allusion had been made to the Law of Divorce, and the estimable manner people lived together in that country. There was one thing that he did not think they had properly taken into consideration, and that was the very extreme facility with which the people living in America were able to obtain divorces. Directly the parties became tired of each other, or directly one person got tired of the other, there was no occasion to wait, as they had to do in England, for freedom by death, but a divorce was obtained. If they made the alteration in the law which they were to-night asked to make—an alteration on behalf of the deceased wife's sister—he wanted to know where on earth they were going to stop? It appeared to him that there was no halfway house in this matter. If an alteration were made they must pass on ad infinitum. He could not help believing that the people who supported this proposal had really not thoroughly thought the thing out; they had not placed themselves in the position of the widower, or in the position of the wife or the wife's sister. A good deal had been said about the male population; but very little attention had been paid to the female population in this controversy. As to the agricultural population, he in common, no doubt, with many other Members of the House, mixed a great deal amongst people connected with agriculture. He regretted that he was not in a position to speak with authority with regard to the females in the big towns; but this he could say, without the slightest hesitation, that the proposed change was not asked for in respect of the female agricultural population. Ever since he had had the honour of a seat in this House, he had always endeavoured to discuss the questions of the day—that was to say, not only agricultural questions, but all kinds of social questions—with his constituents and other people. He had brought this question on over and over again; but he never heard on one single occasion any call for the change. He opposed the Motion of the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst) because he believed it would be attended with untold misery to the helpless wives, and untold sorrow probably to their sisters. He opposed it because it was an agitation promoted in the interest of the few. If it were an agitation brought before them by what they could believe the majority, he granted that, to a certain extent, the ground would be out from, under the feet of those who opposed the alteration in the law; but the agitators were in a minority, although, unfortunately, that minority was a wealthy one. The agitation was a paid one; and he had no hesitation in saying that the people—he had almost said sinners, but those people to whom the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. E. Clarke) referred as bidding defiance to the law—were, in the great majority of cases, wealthy persons. Why did these people bid defiance to the law? Why, because the were wealthy and able to do it. He opposed the present proposal, because, as he had said, it had not been properly thought out, and because he believed that the more it was studied the more it would be repudiated by the nation as a whole.

EARL PERCY

said, that hon. Members who opposed this Motion had been met with the taunt that they had no theological argument to bring forward in support of their opinions. Well, to bring forward theological arguments on the floor of the House in favour of their view was a disagreeable task; but sooner than it should be said that there was no theological argument in favour of the view he and his Friends entertained, he was prepared, with the permission of the House, to say a few words on that point. He was met at the outset by a very great difficulty—namely, that the views on theology entertained by hon. Gentlemen opposite were of such a peculiar nature. The hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Heneage) had taken occasion, in the course of his argument, to declare that the proper interpreters of the Old Testament were the Jews and Mahommedans, for the reason that upon the Old Testament those people founded their systems of religious belief. But he (Earl Percy) would have thought that the Christian religion was, at least, equally based on the Old Testament as the religion of the Jews or the Mahommedans. He would state this—and he regretted anyone should be found in the House, calling himself a Christian, who could seek to controvert it—that to the Christians was given a light by which to interpret Holy Scripture—both the New and the Old Testaments—which had not been given either to the Jews or the Mahommedans; and he believed it a very bad sign when hon. Gentlemen got up and declared——

MR. HENEAGE

said, the noble Earl (Earl Percy) had not quoted him correctly. What he had said was, that the Professors who had given their opinions were backed up by practices of the Jews and Mahommedans, who based their religion on the Old Testament.

EARL PERCY

said, if that was the hon. Member's statement, he had, he thought, also said that he believed the Jews and Mahommedans were the best judges of what the Old Testament meant, because their religions were based upon that. He (Earl Percy) disputed that altogether, and maintained that Christians were the best judges. Then the hon. Gentleman had said that Roman Catholics were not against these marriages. He (Earl Percy) was prepared to say this, that the Roman Catholics had always declared such marriages to be invalid and to be illegal by the law of the Church; and if they would ask Cardinal Manning, they would find he would make a similar statement. It was perfectly true that dispensations had been given to enable a man to marry his deceased wife's sister; but dispensations had also been given for men to marry their nieces; and would hon. Gentlemen say that marriage with a niece was right in ordinary cases? The truth of the matter, so far as his point was concerned, was that Roman Catholics held that the Pope had power to dispense in certain cases with that which was the ordinary rule and law of the Church, and that it was the ordinary rule and law of the Church that these marriages should not take place. He did think, therefore, that those Gentlemen who taunted the opponents of the proposed change in the law for not bringing theology in support of their view should have informed themselves upon these very elementary points before they made the charge. The hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Heneage), in. his speech, continually spoke of Protestants and Nonconformists, as though drawing a distinction between them, and probably his Nonconformist Friends would hardly thank him for thinking there was any difference between the two—for thinking that Nonconformists were not members of the Protestant religion. That, however, was simply a question of a phrase, and he (Earl Percy) now came to another part of the argu- ment. The hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. E. Clarke), in his very eloquent speech, had referred to a text, and had chosen to interpret that in a particular sense. He had told them that they were not to use words except in their precise and literal meaning; and because the prohibition was not mentioned in the text they were to suppose that no prohibition existed—that, in fact, they were not to argue by analogy in this case, but were to hold what was not expressly allowed as forbidden. The hon. Gentleman quoted from other texts in the New Testament, which he objected to being taken in their literal meaning, saying that they could not mean what they said, that man and wife were one flesh, but that they must be taken in their general sense. Well, whether that was a fair mode of dealing with Bible criticism, he (Earl Percy) would not stop to inquire; but he would say that Biblical criticism was not based on any texts. He was well aware that they could prove anything from a text, and his view was that the theological argument was not based on any text of Scripture, but upon the general principle that ran through the whole of Holy Writ from the first chapter of Genesis to the last chapter of Revelation. That principle was that man and wife were one flesh, that the relations of the husband were the relations of the wife, and that the relations of the wife were the relations of the husband—that the relations of the husband were near of kin of the wife, and the relations of the wife were near of kin of the husband. Throughout the whole of Scripture this class of union was the type and figure of the higher and more sacred union, and a breach of this union, whether it were by the ordinary course of immorality, or whether by these illicit and forbidden communications, were symbolic find typical of greater crime. That was the principle that ran through the whole of the Bible, and that he held to be by far the strongest argument which could be offered against the Resolution—far stronger than any social argument could be—that so far from saying that they dare not support their view by theological arguments, he declared that, in his opinion, those were the only arguments that were worth discussing at all. The view which he entertained was the view not entertained by many hon. Gen- tlemen opposite, and he was afraid was not shared by some of those who were as willing and as ready as any of his Friends could be to take for their own personal guidance the law of the Church. They thought that in legislating for a great country, where many individuals were not of the same faith as those who sat on the Opposition side of the House, they should not subject them to laws that they felt binding on their own conscience. He should like to read to the House a passage from the speech of one for whose opinion the House had the greatest respect, and of whom it could not be said at any time, as had been said by the hon. Member for Stoke of many hon. Members who were opposed to him were remarkable for—namely, that he was wanting in common sense. The speaker to whom he referred said— But are we, who have realized the results of Christianity, to go hack from Christianity to conscience? This, which is sometimes called the light of conscience, sometimes the light of nature, and which in no two countries or ages has ever been alike, has been of gradual growth and training from the infancy of mankind until it has reached the highest level on which Christianity is placed; and if we are to go back from that level, I ask where are we to stop? And I say that while I have a superior I should not be content to adopt an inferior standard. The law of the land, not in an arbitrary manner, but on principles based on Divine revelation, has adopted our present prohibitions in marriage; and I oppose the present measure because I see that it is part of a system which I do not say is intended to be so, but which in its working is certain to be, most pernicious to those results which the Christian religion has wrought out for mankind.

MR. BROADHURST

said, the noble Earl (Earl Percy) was mistaken in declaring that he had charged hon. Members who differed from him that they were wanting in common sense.

EARL PERCY

apologized if he had misrepresented the hon. Member (Mr. Broadhurst) on that matter; but, however that was, the words he had read were the words of the present Prime Minister. He would make no apology to the House for quoting one more passage from the right hon. Gentleman. He had said— The best social result of Christianity is the perfect equality of man and woman as to the facility of contracting marriage. This Bill meddles for the first time with that equality. The hon. Member proposes to authorize the marriage of a man with a deceased wife's sister, and, therefore, with his wife's niece; he legislates for the man, but he does not propose, on the other hand, that the aunt may marry her husband's nephew. Is this a small change? When was woman first elevated to an equality with her stronger companion? Never till the Gospel came into the world. It was the slow hut certain, and, I thank God, hitherto unshaken, result of Christianity, not considered as a system of dogmas, but as one of social influence, to establish a perfect equality between man and woman, as far as the marriage tie is concerned. The hon. Member now proposes to change this fundamental law and principle, and I have a right to ask him how far he intends to proceed, and whether he intends to have one marriage code for men and another for women? The right hon. Gentleman further said— When we are told that it is a matter of doubt, it appears to me to be so only in the sense that everything is a matter of doubt to those who may have an interest in disputing it, or who may desire to do so. Any man has a right to say, 'It is a matter of doubt because I doubt, and as I doubt it I am entitled to call it doubtful matter.' Even the great principles of Christianity embodied in the Common Law are principles which may be called in question by the licentiousness of individual minds. Private opinion may question the authority of the universal voice of Christendom on this matter; but it questions it exactly on the same grounds that it may question the whole results that Christianity has brought to mankind—that everything that Christianity has elevated out of the region of private opinion, and made part of the common property and intelligence of mankind. It was not usual to quote at such length in this House; but he thought that when they found a passage so forcible and eloquently expressed, tending to support the view which they entertained—a passage from the speech of the Prime Minister—when they thought, alas! of a new light which in these latter days had dazzled the right hon. Gentleman's eyes, those who supported the right hon. Gentleman would excuse him (Earl Percy) for having brought an extract forward.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, the Motion asked them to record their disapproval of the existing law. One hon. Member had told them that that law had been on the Statute Book for centuries, and another had told them that it had been in force for the last 50 years. Therefore, he thought it worth the while of the House for a moment or two to consider not only when the existing Act was passed, but the circumstances under which it was passed, and why it was passed. With all deference to the hon. Members opposite who expressed an opposite opinion, prior to 1835 marriages of the kind they had been discussing were only voidable in this country after a suit was instituted in the lifetime of both of the parties; and if no proceeding was taken during the lifetime of both the husband and wife they were perfectly valid, and the children were legitimate. In 1835, however, a certain noble House in this country, to which he would not further allude, found their succession to the Peerage very seriously compromised by the existence of the law as it then stood, and Lord Lyndhurst brought in a Bill solely—when it was brought in—for the purpose of dealing with the question of these marriages so far as proceedings in the Ecclesiastical Court were concerned. He brought in a Bill to provide simply that any proceeding for invalidating these marriages should be instituted within two years after the marriage of the parties, or six months after the passing of the Act. There was no attempt in the Bill, as brought in, to deal with the marriages in the future; but two very distinguished Prelates of the English Church—the then Bishop of London and the then Bishop of Exeter—in Committee of the House of Lords raised the question as to the prohibition of future marriages; and if he were allowed to use such an expression in connection with those distinguished individuals, and that branch of the Legislature, practically a bargain was struck between Lord Lyndhurst and the Episcopal Bench, they sanctioning and condoning such marriages in the past, and he being prepared, at their instance, to insert a clause, making such marriages null and void in the future. That was a singular contract, so far as the Ecclesiastical Law was concerned, because, if these marriages were incestuous, it was beyond the power of the Legislature to make them valid. When the Bill came down to the House of Commons, the then Member for Bridport proposed that the clause prohibiting these marriages in the future should be struck out, and accordingly, by a majority of 12 in Committee, the clause was struck out. Therefore, at that stage of the proceedings in the House of Commons, the House declined to declare these marriages null and void in the future. Sir William Follett, who had charge of the Bill, on Report moved the reinsertion of the clause; and he (Mr. H. H, Fowler) had it from those who were Members at the time, that a strong appeal was made to hon. Members by those interested in these marriages, on the ground that it was necessary to avoid prejudicing the other portions of the Bill in the House of Lords. They were appealed to, to allow the Bill to pass in a form in which it would secure the assent of the House of Lords, a distinct pledge being given to them that, in another year, a fresh Bill would be introduced to deal with future marriages. Under these circumstances, the House of Commons, by a majority of 58 votes, restored the clause. He thought that when the history of that legislation was told, it did not appear very creditable to those who had to do with it. It did not stand on very high moral grounds, and did not seem to him at all calculated to enhance the purity and sanctity of marriage. But a succession to a Peerage was secured, a noble Duke was made legitimate, and, as a compensation for that, an injury was inflicted upon a large section of the people of the country. As far as that Act ratified the past it was a distinct violation of the Canon Law, if the Legislature of that day thought the Canon Law binding. Then, the next stage of the history of this controversy—and he was going to allude to it because an hon. Member opposite had endeavoured to impress upon them that this question had never been thought out, and that it was inexperienced men who, in 1884, had discovered that these marriages were regular and proper—was the Royal Commission of 1847. There having been a good deal of dissatisfaction, and some of the clergy then in charge of parishes in large towns having themselves discovered the evil results of the Act to which the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth had alluded, and having called the attention of those in power to the evil that this legislation was producing, a Royal Commission was appointed to inquire into the Law of Marriage. And he should like to call the attention of the House to the names of the Commissioners, for he believed that when he had stated them hon. Members would agree that such men were perfectly capable of thinking out the question, if anyone was. They had had allusion to-night to the present Bishop of Lichfield; but it was another Bishop of Lichfleld who was appointed on this Commission—the Bishop of 30 or 40 years ago, who was not only one of the ripest scholars, but one of the ablest and most impartial men who ever adorned the Episcopal Bench. He referred to Dr. Lonsdale, who was at the head of the Commission. Associated with this Prelate was a distinguished Member of the Conservative Party, a man know as a lawyer and a statesman—Mr. James Stuart-Wortley; Dr. Lushington, the eminent ecclesiastical lawyer; Mr. Justice Vaughan Williams; and the Lord Advocate. The Report which these distinguished men, after receiving an immense amount of evidence, presented, was a conclusive proof that the question had been fully thought out in 1847. One of the first questions to which the Commissioners addressed themselves was the point the noble Earl opposite (Earl Percy) had dealt with with so much force, and which he rebuked the supporters of the Resolution with being ignorant upon—namely, the law of the Roman Catholic Church. The Commissioners found that in the Roman Catholic Church these marriages were prohibited as a matter of discipline; but the prohibition might be, and was, dispensed with by the Pope. The noble Earl would admit that Cardinal Wiseman was acquainted, at all events, with the elementary principles of the law of the Roman Catholic Church. He (Mr. H. H. Fowler) would give two or three questions and answers from the evidence of Cardinal Wiseman. He was asked— Q.—Taking the question first with reference to the Scripture, is such a marriage held by your Church as prohibited? A.—Certainly not; it is considered a matter of ecclesiastical regulation. Q.—When you say that such a marriage is 'unlawful,' do you mean unlawful by the law of the Church? A.—Yes. Q.—And when you think proper to dispense with such unlawfulness, you think proper to dispense with the regulations of the Church, and not with a portion of Scripture? A,—Certainly. Q.—With respect to marriages of this description, do you find amongst Catholics that those persons who have contracted such marriages are received with the same kindness and good feeling as persons who have contracted other marriages? A.—With a dispensation, certainly; as it is not thought disgraceful the moment the Church has given a dispensation. ["Hear, hear!"] The noble Earl (Earl Percy) said "Hear, hear!" but this statement of Cardinal Wiseman's was not the impression the noble Earl wished to convey to the House. The argument the noble Earl had conveyed to the House, and which he had rebuked the supporters of the Resolution for not accepting, was that the Roman Catholic Church disapproved of these marriages, because they did not rest on Scripture. They had heard it said to-night that there was hardly any other country where these marriages were allowed; but the Commissioners, on the other hand, said that in all Protestant States, with the exception of some of the Cantons of Switzerland, these marriages were permitted; and, as to America, they quoted from one of the most eminent Judges in America, Mr. Justice Storey—one of the most eminent Judges that either America or this country had over produced—to the effect that in most of the American States marriages of this kind were not only lawful, but were deemed in a moral and religious and Christian sense exceedingly praiseworthy, although in some few States the English prohibition was in force. The Commissioners, after finding that these marriages were approved of among the Jews and the great body of Protestant Dissenters, and that there was great difference of opinion on the subject amongst the clergy of the Established Church, came to this practical conclusion— Some persons contend that these marriages are forbidden, expressly or inferentially, by Scripture. If this be admitted, cadit questio". And the Commissioners added— We consider that the feeling against these marriages is in a great measure founded rather on a vague and uninformed assumption that they are prohibited by God's Word, than on a mature examination either of the Scripture or the law of the Church. The Commissioners unanimously—Bishops and Judges—were Constrained to express our belief that the Statue has failed to attain its object, but also to express our doubt whether any measure of a prohibitive character would be effectual. That being so, they were met to-night by two classes of argument, which were mutually contradictory. The first speaker on the other side of the House (Colonel Makins) did not lay much stress upon the Divine Law, but had rested a great deal of his argument on the Canonical Law. The second speaker put the whole question entirely on social considerations, and gave up altogether the re- ligious argument which the noble Earl had galvanized into life again. What he (Mr. H. H. Fowler) contended was, that the House of Commons was not a competent Body to expound texts of Scripture. He was not going to presume to express an opinion upon them; but, at all events, so far as the meaning of Scripture on this subject was involved, there had been the greatest difference of opinion between the most eminent men in all ages on the question. He maintained that the allegation of a Divine Law, the existence of which was disputed by one half of Christendom, was too slender a basis on which to rest a restriction which imposed on the nation the special opinions of one section of the community. In the Church of Rome there was evidently a difference of opinion; for, whilst Cardinal Manning was against these marriages, Cardinal Newman, whose opinion was entitled to great weight, and whose mind was singularly free from any bias in favour of advanced or free legislation in Church matters, had stated distinctly in the passage quoted by the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Heneage) that if he looked on this question as it affected the poorer classes, he was in favour of a relaxation of the law, but as it affected the richer classes, he was in favour of the law as it existed. One hon. Member had referred to the opinion of the Church, of Scotland. Dr. Chalmers was in favour of these marriages. Dr. Norman Macleod was of the same opinion. Taking everything into consideration, he (Mr. H. H. Fowler) was of opinion that it was the duty of the Legislature to leave the matter to individual conscience. A man might think these marriages wrong, but he was not bound to contract them; and, under any circumstances, he had no right to impose his opinions on other people who did not share them. In "another place," Lord Houghton had quoted the opinion of the Bishop of Exeter, Dr. Philpotts, who, shortly before his death, said that if the law did not interfere with the Church of England he had no concern with it, and if the law gave the right to contract such marriages with Dissenters he had not a word to say against it. That was the opinion of the Bishop who, of all others, they might say was responsible for the law; and, that being so, they must, he thought, regard this question solely from a social point of view. That point of view was a ground upon which it was very difficult to found prohibitory legislation. What a number of gentlemen or the Legislature might think of social considerations was apart from moral considerations. If these marriages were morally wrong, nothing could set them right; but if they were not morally wrong—and there were a large class of individuals who thought them right—it was very thin ice to tread on to say that, because they themselves might not think them right, therefore they were to be forbidden. No stronger argument had been used against the Motion than that, which had been fairly put, that the residence of the sister-in-law would be interfered with if these marriages were allowed. But the law could not prevent affection springing up between these parties. It did not—experience showed that it did not. The legal prohibition was powerless. If they said that, because these people could not marry, they should never entertain an affection for each other, their argument would be strong—he did not say it would be unanswerable; but the mere fact of their passing an Act of Parliament saying that they should not marry, did not, and would not, prevent them from entertaining that very affection, the very existence of which, it was said, the law should prevent. All that the law could do was to give a conventional sanction to what was the true position of the parties. The position of any lady residing in a widower's house was a difficult and delicate one; and the argument used on this head as to the sister-in-law would apply in the same way to cousins, and even to strangers. If they allowed the parties to be placed in circumstances that permitted affection to arise, they had no right to crush that affection, but the converse. If the affection did not arise—and in the majority of cases it did not, for he was willing to admit that the class he was talking about was a minority, even where the circumstances would permit of these marriages—where was the difficulty? Someone talked about slander and insinuations cast at people—about the mean whisperings of the envious tongues of neighbours; but that was not a ground for passing legislation. They must not interfere with the rights of persons because some people might, under certain circumstances, make of- fensive references to them. They could not put a man and his sister-in-law on the same footing as a man and his sister. Human nature was stronger than the canons of any Church, stronger than any Act of Parliament. They could not upset the conviction which prevailed amongst a large number of the people that the best step-mother for motherless children was the sister of the mother who had gone. The main strain of the argument to-night was in reference to the poor, and they had been told that the proper remedy was some gigantic scheme for housing the poor—that by providing the poor with additional accommodation in their dwellings they could grapple with the difficulty. Well, those acquainted with the matter—and no one better than the hon. Member for Stoke—knew that with the poor this was a question of the gravest character. In the homes of the working classes there were not arrangements which enabled the relationship of a widower with the sister-in-law to be defined and guarded as it could be in other classes of life above them; and, no doubt, where the deceased wife's sister went to reside with the working man, and he wished to marry her and she wished to marry him, it was in the interest of morality as well as in the interest of the children and of the man that that marriage should take place. But there was another consideration. He had been dealing with the religious and social questions; but there was the question of the anomaly in the law as between the Mother Country and the Colonies. There could not be two codes of morality, one for Melbourne and one for London. There could not be two laws for people under the same Sovereign. Her Majesty reigned ever 9,000,000 square miles, and yet it was only in 120,000 of them that these marriages were forbidden. If the Crown had given consent to these marriages in the Colonies, there could be no argument based on moral considerations why the Crown should not give consent to them in this country. Assertions had been made—and some hon. Members had spoken incorrectly and unfairly—as to the morality of America and our Colonies. Vague assertions were made which were incapable of proof. In reply to them, he ventured to say that the relations between husband and wife, and between man and woman, were as pure and as high in the Colonies as they were in Great Britain itself. Endorsing every word of that section of the speech of the noble Earl (Earl Percy) containing the extract from the speech of the Prime Minister, showing what Christianity had done for woman, he (Mr. H. H. Fowler) believed that no Christian people had ever recognized the ideal of womanly purity and conjugal sanctity as had the Anglo-Saxon race, and wherever that race prevailed these marriages took place; and there was not a tittle of evidence from either Legislature, Judge, or Representative in any Colony or in any State in America, to show that these marriages had produced immoral results. Under these circumstances, he submitted that the Motion was a just and a wise one. He was glad that the debate had been conducted, so far as those who had opposed the Motion were concerned, with a moderation in tone and language very different from what they had been accustomed to out-of-doors, and very different from that which they found in the various leaflets by which ton. Members had been annoyed and disgusted. The question was a very difficult and a very grave one, on which feelings were very strongly excited on one side or the other; but those who, on conscientious grounds, maintained the restriction of the present law, had no right to apply to those who differed from them language imputing one of the foulest crimes that human nature was capable of. He saw the word "incest" used in connection with the proposal to legalize these marriages. The Bill was called the "Sisters' Marriage Bill" and the "Incestuous Marriage Bill." ["Hear, hear!"] The hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) cheered that term. Let him tell the hon. and learned Member that the word implied the deepest moral degradation—[Mr. WARTON: Hear, hear!]—and that there were men, and women too, who were in favour of the relaxation of the law, and who had themselves, contracted these marriages, who were as incapable of this moral degradation as the hon. and learned Member himself, or as any Member of the House. The hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. E. Clarke) asked them, to-night, whether they knew in their own individual circles cases which would be affected by a Bill to legalize these marriages? While the hon. Member was speaking, he (Mr. H. H. Fowler) had thought of one case, that of a friend of his own, who was now dead, and as all the other parties concerned were also dead, he might be allowed to allude to the case. His friend was a man of eminent attainments and of eminent public service; and if he were to mention his name—which he should not—many hon. Members would join in testimony to his virtues and great public service. This gentlemen, shortly after his marriage, was confronted with the calamity that his hon. Friend alluded to—he saw the mother of his young children destined to an early death from pulmonary consumption. On her death-bed she asked him, almost in articulo mortis, after they had received their last Communion together, to promise her, if ever he took another wife, he would endeavour to secure her sister to be the mother of her children. He gave the pledge, and many years after that, having waited in vain for the necessary alteration in the law, he was compelled to expatriate himself at the zenith of his position, to seek another domicile, not in a foreign country—startling irony of the situation—but still to remain a subject of the Queen in one of our Colonies, where he fulfilled his pledge to his dying wife. When he (Mr. H. H. Fowler) recalled to his memory this friend, and men like him, his indignation deepened to disgust at the prurient insinuations with which this controversy had been defiled. The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) had told them again and again, during the present Session, that the true protector of the rights of minorities was the House of Lords; but in that House a majority of the temporal Peers, ranging from Princes of the Blood to the last addition and greatest ornament of the House, had been outvoted, and might be outvoted again, by a clerical caste. But the noblest tradition of the House of Commons was the readiness with which it used its vast, and, when it was in earnest, its resistless power to prevent oppression and redress injustice, no matter how few or insignificant were the oppressed. He knew it was a minority for whom he was pleading. If it were a majority, all the arguments of the other side, theological, canonical, clerical, ecclesiastical, and social would have been long since scattered to the winds. It was a minority who asked for this relief—he came to-night to appeal to the House on behalf of a minority of pure men and pure women. [A laugh.] The hon. and learned Member for Bridport might laugh; but let him get up openly and say that these people were not pure. He repeated, he came to the House to appeal on behalf of a minority of pure men and pure women who were smarting under these restrictions. He appealed not only on their behalf, but on behalf of innocent children whom a merciless sacerdotalism branded with the stigma of illegitimacy; and he trusted that the House, on the first occasion of its dealing with the question, would, notwithstanding the inarticulate objections of hon. Gentlemen opposite, record by a large majority its conviction of the impolicy, the injustice, and the cruelty of this prohibition.

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

It was with sincere regret that I heard the latter part of the speech of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler). Much as I differ from his arguments, I thoroughly appreciate and admire his logic. I accepted what he said as to the moderation with which the debate had been conducted by those opposed to the proposed alteration of the law, and I was prepared to pay him a similar tribute; but in the latter part of his speech he used words which stir up some of the most bitter feelings of ecclesiastical hatred. He spoke of a sacerdotal caste, and he used such phrases as "intolerable" and "merciless sacerdotalism." I believe the hon. Member belongs to a denomination of Christians which is not mine. I believe that we have broad differences between us. Those differences might hereafter come up in salient antagonism; but I should be ashamed of myself if I were ever to use towards that form of Christianity which is dear to him phrases of contemptuous hostility analogous to those which he has just thrown upon my Church. So much for that part of the hon. Member's speech, of which I am glad not to think any more. The hon. Gentleman told us, with very thrilling pathos, an anecdote of a dying wife who invited her husband to make her sister the future guardian and nurse of her children. The story, as he told it, was very effectively rendered; but it was a story which must be judged, one way or the other, by facts and not by diction. Such an alliance as that was either right in the eyes of God and expedient in the eyes of man, or it was not. If it was right, it did not require a power of narrative like that of the hon. Member's to recommend it to the House; but if it was wrong, all his gifts of thrilling narration could not make it tolerable. The hon. Member dwelt on the history of Lord Lyndhurst's Act; and, while striving to make the House believe that the present law was not the ancient law of England previous to the year 1835, the hon. Gentleman gave copious anecdotes of the genesis of that Act. I cannot follow him in seeing much importance in the minutiae of its Parliamentary history. The important matter is, what was the Act which received the Royal Assent? On this head I want to bring before the House very distinctly that, whatever may have been the Amendments in Committee to the Bill, one thing is certain, and that is that Lord Lyndhurst's Act, in its ultimate form, is now the law of the land. Another thing is equally certain—namely, that Lord Lyndhurst's Act, in that ultimate form, simply re-enacts and carries out the ancient law of England, with this difference, that marriages which were once voidable are now void. So the controversy is narrowed up to the question, What is the difference between marriages voidable and void? I will give the answer in the words of a lawyer to whom, I think, even the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) will bow—I mean the late Lord Chancellor (Lord Cairns); and I could call even upon the hon. Member to confess that the description of Lord Lyndhurst's Act which he gave is quite the description of it that an impartial critic would give after hearing the words I am about to quote. Lord Cairns, speaking in the House of Lords on the 11th of June, 1883, said— My Lords, is that a true description of this measure "—namely, the proposed Bill for legalising marriage with a wife's sister—" that it puts things exactly in the position they were in before Lord Lyndhurst's Act passed? I speak with some knowledge of the law, I hope, and I assert that nothing more inaccurate could be said. I say it is perfectly inaccurate so to represent this matter. I say that before Lord Lyndhurst's Act passed these marriages were illegal and void. This has been so decided by your Lordship's House as the highest tribunal in the realm. They were technically spoken of as voidable, no doubt. That is to say, the sentence of the Court was needed to declare that they were void. But, as Lord Brougham said, they were voidable because they were void. I appeal to Lord Brougham, who was no reactionary Tory, no opponent of Reform, and whose name I should have thought was venerated by hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Benches opposite—I am satisfied with Lord Brougham's view of the state of the law. Then the hon. Member dwelt a good deal upon the Report of the Royal Commission. I was in the House of Commons at the time when that Address was carried, asking for the Royal Commission, and I acquiesced in its appointment. But I do not pretend to say that I think the decision to which the House came to was quite the wisest that might have been arrived at; and I am glad to think that my countrymen have virtually come to my conclusion. If ever a document was proved to be a dead letter it was the Report of that Royal Commission, in spite of the eminent men who sat upon it. The inquiry, however, brought out one or two interesting facts, one of which was that, while the Commissioners professed to have found traces of 1,608 alliances of the kind, they balanced the statement with the pregnant fact that it was discovered that only 40 of these unions had been formed among the poorer classes. Lord Hatherley afterwards took very great interest in this question, and he made an inquiry in Westminster. He found that in the two parishes of Westminster there were 60,000 inhabitants, of whom 40,000 were poor people. Only one marriage of this sort could be found amongst this large population. Of course, the audacious lawyer was called to account, and the friends of the wife's sister found out the stupendous fact that Lord Hatherley's estimate ought to have been doubled, for not one, but two such marriages could be found amongst the 60,000 inhabitants of Westminster. My hon. Friend and Successor the Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst) took care not to tell us how many of that large body of themselves—-Memorialists in Stoke—have contracted this alliance, or how many are persons who employ themselves in the very common amusement of talking about and interfering with their neighbours' business. In the course of my connection with Stoke I heard of two marriages of this kind, and I came directly across a third. The gentleman who had contracted an alliance with his deceased wife's sister was so pleased at my not shirking my convictions on this question during my first candidature, that when I went a second time to the borough, to return triumphant, I found him one of my most active supporters. Such is my experience of Stoke. In fact, what I have never found, and what no one has ever found, is anything like a consistent growing feeling in the country in favour of the proposed alteration of the law. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Plymouth (Mr. E. Clarke) certainly astonished me by some of his arguments. He began by asserting that the only theological argument against permitting marriage with a deceased wife's sister was a certain verse in Leviticus, of which there was only one interpretation. However, there happen to be two quite different interpretations of it; there is the marginal interpretation, and there is one of the text, and I invite the hon. and learned Gentleman to read the margin as well as the text. Then his "only one interpretation" totally and absolutely ignores the verses that precede the 18th verse of Leviticus 18—those from the 6th to the 17th verses of that chapter—which lay down the table of prohibited degrees, not by specifying every degree, but by specifying one or other of all the analogous degrees in the person of one sex or of the other—prohibiting marriage with the daughter in the name of the mother, or with the wife's sister in the name of the brother's widow. So understood, the prohibitions are identically the prohibitions in our authoritative Table, and that is the ground on which we say these marriages have the law of Scriptural prohibition. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) talks of the great purity of private life in America. That is not a question on which I wish to enter; but I only point out that in the year 1860 there was one divorce amongst 59 marriages in Massachusetts. In 1878, in the same State, there was one divorce in 21 marriages. In Vermont there was one divorce in 14 marriages; in Rhode Island, one divorce in 12; and in Connecticut, one divorce in 11 marriages. Deducting the Roman Catholics, who do not admit divorce, there was in Massa- chusetts, amongst Protestant marriages, one divorce in 14 marriages, and in Connecticut one divorce in eight marriages. That is the state of things in the country we are called upon to take as our example. We know that in America, and in Germany, and in Holland, and in Denmark, and in all countries where the wife's sister can be taken to wife, the brother's widow can be taken to wife, that an own niece can be taken to wife, and that an own aunt can be taken to wife. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may think it very amusing, but I see nothing amusing in a statement so very appalling to all sound common sense and elementary morality. In France, by the Code Napoleon, alliance with near relations, either by affinity or consanguinity, was prohibited; but in 1832, in the early reign of Louis Philippe, an Act of the French Legislature was passed, allowing all these marriages with sister-in-law, niece, or aunt, subject to dispensation, not from the Church, but from the Head of the State; a thing which, I believe, is a mere formality. I ask the House solemnly to pause and to consider well whether it will or will not, by a Resolution which, though barren in itself, still has a certain dynamic effect in the country, take a first step towards a state of things from which I am persuaded the majority even of the hon. Gentlemen who support this Resolution must recoil with horror. I have but one thing more to say. The hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Heneage) wanted to make out that all the Professors of Theology in the various Universities were of one way of thinking, and that his own, upon this question. He strove to base his assertion on some misleading statements of a pamphlet which has appeared under the Earl of Dalhousie's name, and as to which I advise examination before it is relied on. Let me tell the House that I directed letters of inquiry to the 41 British Revisers of the Old and New Testaments, and that I hold replies from 29 of them. Of these 29 Revisers, 20 are opposed to those marriages, while only seven are favourable to them, and two are ostensibly neutral. But I gather that one, at least, of these two is really opposed. I will not keep the House from a Division; but I trust that, whatever the result, it may not be the first step to national demoralization.

SIR PATRICK O'BRIEN

said, it was not his intention to detain the House more than a few minutes. Before giving the reason for, he might say with truth, the only political recantation he had ever made during the long period he had had the honour of a seat in the House of Commons, he had, in the first instance, to regret that upon a question which, of all others, ought to be taken out of the dermain of religion and theology, the right hon. Gentleman the senior Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope) had followed the example of his Dissenting Brother (Mr. H. H. Fowler) by drawing upon the floor of the House a false scent upon this subject. Grand and eloquent as were the sentiments expressed in the earlier part of the hon. Member's (Mr. H. H. Fowler's) speech, the hon. Member, in his observations, betrayed something which approached very nearly religious bigotry and intolerance. He (Sir Patrick O'Brien) was aware that the most liberal men in England were necessarily Dissenters. On one subject, however, it was not true that Dissenters were the most liberal of men, and that was the subject of religion. Upon that subject Dissenters were the most intolerant people he had ever met. Upon the present occasion, however, he did not mean to dwell upon theological questions. The religion to which he had the honour to belong allowed a dispensation in the case of a marriage with a deceased wife's sister, and, therefore, as an obedient servant of the Roman Catholic Church, he assumed there was no innate immorality in such a marriage. The Church of England, which was represented by the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope), had forgotten to tell them that, when the particular form of worship now known in the country as the Doctrine of the Church of England was first instituted, the reason that a row was made about these particular marriages was that Cranmer and others did not want to acknowledge the Papal supremacy. They denied to the Pope of Rome the power of dispensation, and they made a difficulty as to Henry the Eighth's marriage with his brother's wife, Catharine of Arragon; and they had continued the row they had with the Church of Rome to the present day. Many years ago he heard a great coun- tryman of his—Richard Sheil—speaking of a man who was lately the Lord Chief Justice of England—Cockburn—say, after hearing a speech of the noble Lord, "his Christianity is unattached." However right Sheil might have been in reference to Cockburn at that period, he was right in stating that Christianity, or any form of religion, ought not, upon questions of this kind, to enter into their consideration. He agreed with every word which had been said by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Berwick (Colonel Milne-Home). He agreed with his hon. and gallant Friend in what he said as to the effect of such marriages as were contemplated upon social institutions; there was no man in the House who viewed with greater abhorrence the idea of such marriages being contracted; but this was an age of opportunism. It was not sufficient to say that a few men of high position and of high social connections objected to marriage with a deceased wife's sister as likely to break up their arrangements. Hon. Members ought to picture to themselves the case of a man in one of the large manufacturing districts of Lancashire and Yorkshire, who, perhaps, had but a very small lodging, and who might be left wifeless with three or four children to take care of. When his wife was removed, the person a man looked to to nurse his children was necessarily the person who was best known to them, and dearest to them, and that was the wife's sister. Owing to the crowded state of the dwelling, it was very possible that, in some cases, immoral consequences might ensue upon the deceased wife's sister being in the house unless marriage with her was allowed the man. [A laugh.] It might be a matter of laughter to hon. Gentlemen, but it was no laughing matter to the unfortunate artizan who found his wife removed from him. It was for the House to say whether, for social sentimental reasons, and to please a few in high stations, it would sacrifice the interests of the masses of the people. He maintained that, if the House laid claim to represent the nation, it ought not to regard the sentiments of a class, but ought only to look to the interests of the masses of the people. He disliked the whole question; but, for the reasons he had assigned, he intended to vote for the Motion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst).

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 238; Noes 127: Majority 111.—(Div. List, No. 86.)

Main Question put. Resolved, That, in view of the painful and unnecessary hardships inflicted upon large numbers of people of this Country by the Law prohibiting Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister, it is the opinion of this House that a measure of relief is urgently called for.