Lords Sitting of 25 July 1850

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—Sat first. His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge after the death of his Father.
1a Manchester Bonding (Amendment of Act); Canterbury Settlement Lands; Highway Rates; Turnpike Acts Continuance, &c.; Borough Gaols.
2a Militia Pay.
Reported.—Stock in Trade; Court of Exchequer (Ireland).
3a Vestries and Vestry Clerks; Registration of Deeds (Ireland).

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE—LIVERPOOL CORPORATION WATERWORKS BILL.
LORD BEAUMONTrose to present the petition of Joseph Byrne, Joseph Hinde, and Duncan M'Arthur, prisoners in Newgate, stating their deep regret for having committed a Breach of Privilege by writing false signatures to a petition addressed to this House; also stating that they are poor men depending upon daily wages for their subsistence, and praying the merciful clemency of the House in regard to their offence. They had been examined that day before the Select Committee appointed to inquire into the circumstances of their employment in procuring signatures to the petition in question, and had given their evidence in a very clear and satisfactory manner. Under these circumstances, he now asked their Lordships to take their petition into consideration to-morrow.
Presented, and read.
Then the said petition was ordered to lie on the table; and to be taken into consideration To-morrow.
"Ordered—That the Keeper of the Prison of Newgate, or his deputy, do bring Joseph Byrne, Joseph Hinde, and Duncan M'Arthur in his Custody to the Bar of this House, To-morrow, at Five o'clock in the afternoon."

MARRIAGES BILL.
The EARL of ST. GERMANS The EARL of ST. GERMANS moved, that the Order of the Day for the second reading of the Bill be read, in order to its being discharged. His Lordship said, that, ready as he was at all times to defer to the wishes of their Lordships, he should have consented at the close of the conversation which took place on Monday last to withdraw this Bill for the present Session, in consequence of the request of their Lordships, had he not thought himself called upon by a sense of public duty to consult previously with those by whom the Bill had been intrusted to his hands. He was now in a situation to inform their Lordships that, with the concurrence of those parties, he now withdrew the Bill, but for the present Session only. He could not, however, take that step without expressing a hope that, in the recess, their Lordships would consider calmly and dispassionately the measure, and that they would not allow their minds to be led away by the vague and extravagant denunciations which had during the last year been hurled against it. He begged their Lordships to recollect that more than 100,000 persons had petitioned that it might pass into law. 1,200 clergymen of the Church of Eng-

209
land, a large majority of the clergy of other denominations of Christians, and many other excellent persons, both lay and clerical, had declared their belief that the marriages which this Bill contemplated were neither against the law of nature nor against the law of God; that the prohibition of them by Parliament had led to great moral and social evils; and that the prohibition ought no longer to be continued. He reminded their Lordships that a Com mission, composed of the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield, Sir S. Lushington, the head of one of the ecclesiastical courts, the Lord Advocate of Scotland, Mr. Justice Williams, the late right hon. Sir Anthony Blake, a sincere and pious Roman Catholic, and Mr. Stuart Wortley, who introduced this Bill into the other House, had examined into the whole bearings of this subject, and had in the report which they submitted to Her Majesty, declared that it had been proved before them that the existing law required redress, and that it had failed in its purpose. They showed that in every other Christian country in Europe marriages of this kind were permitted; and that in the United States Mr. Justice Story, the great American lawyer, had testified that they were considered as the very best sort of marriage which a widower could make. It was not correct that there had been continually decreasing majorities in favour of this Bill in the House of Commons during the present Session; hut on the contrary, they had been gradually increasing. In the year 1849 the second reading of this Bill was carried by a majority of thirty-four only. In the year 1850 it was carried by a majority of fifty-four. It was true that, on the third reading, the majority was only ten; but that was owing to the larger attendance of the Scotch Members, who had been specially summoned to oppose it. They had heard something that evening of the feeling of Scotland against this Bill. He admitted that a vast majority of the clergy and laity of that country were adverse to it; but since the Bill had undergone discussion in Parliament, there had sprung up a strong current of opinion the other way. If it could he satisfactorily shown to him that the majority of the opinions of Scotland were adverse to the measure, he thought that it would be worthy of consideration whether Scotland should not be exempted from its operation. For himself, he rejoiced sincerely at the postponement of the further consideration
210
of the Bill till the next Session. He trusted that at that time his noble Friend (the Earl of Ellesmere), who had been prevented from taking charge of it this Session, would be restored to health, and would then submit a similar, if not the same, Bill to their Lordships' consideration.
The BISHOP of SALISBURYfelt, that it was not quite regular to get up a discussion on the Motion to withdraw a Bill; but he felt bound to make an observation on what had fallen from the noble Earl. His object in rising was to correct a mistake in point of fact, into which the noble Earl had fallen. The noble Earl had referred to the report of the Commissioners, as if that was in favour of the present measure; and, further, he connected the name of a right rev. Friend of his who was a member of the Commission (the Bishop of Lichfield), with the subject in such a manner as might lead the House to infer that ho was in favour of the Bill. He did not know whether the noble Earl had any authority to draw such an inference, nor did he (the Bishop of Salisbury) distinctly know what the feeling of his right rev. Friend was on the subject; but if he was to adopt an inference, he should say his right rev. Friend was decidedly opposed to it.
The EARL of ST. GERMANShad not said that the report recommended this specific measure, but that it pointed out the defects in the existing law relative to this description of marriages. They also said that the existing law had failed to fulfil the purpose in view, and recommended that some alteration should be made in it.
The BISHOP of OXFORDsaid, he believed that a distinct majority of all the Members of the other House had voted at different times against the Bill. It was merely owing to the accident of Members not attending that the Bill had been allowed to struggle through the other House. There was one suggestion of the noble Earl in which ho fully concurred. The noble Earl asked their Lordships to consider this measure during the coming recess. He (the Bishop of Oxford) hoped they would do so; for, in the first instance, he was himself inclined to regard the measuse favourably, but subsequent consideration had induced him to change that opinion, and he had no doubt that noble Lords, if they adopted the suggestion thrown out, would come to the conclusion to which he had come—namely, to oppose this contemplated change in our marriage law.
After a few words from Lord BROUGHAM,
Order of the Day for the second reading of the Bill read and discharged.
House adjourned till To-morrow.