Lords Sitting of 23 July 1858

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Clerk of Petty Sessions (Ireland).
2a Reformatory Schools (Ireland); Railway Cheap Trains, &c.; Herring Fisheries (Scotland).
3a Government of India; Titles to Land (Scotland); Sale and Transfer of Land (Ireland).
ROYAL ASSENT.—Funded Debt; Hainault Forest (Allotment of Commons); Durham County Palatine Jurisdiction; New General Post Office (Edinburgh); Navigation Advances (Ireland); Prescription (Ireland); Municipal Franchise; Universities and College Estates; Militia Ballots Suspension; Churches, &c. (Ireland); Confirmation of Executors, &c.; Ecclesiastical Corporations Leasing; Nisi Prius Court, &c. (Ireland); Stanhope and Wolsingham Rectories; Law of False Pretences Amendment; Jews; Oaths; Marriages (Moscow, Tahiti, and Ningpo); Joint Stock Companies Act Amendment; Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Continuance; Charitable Trusts Acts Continuance; Copyhold and Inclosure Commissions, &c.; Indemnity; Army Service.

ATLANTIC TELEGRAPH COMPANY'S BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
  THE EARL OF DERBY THE EARL OF DERBY moved two Amendments in Clause 4. The first was to give the Company greater powers of raising money on mortgages and bonds; and the second was to place the British Government on the same footing with the
  1968
  United States Government in regard to the time guaranteed to the Company. In 1856 the United States Government passed an Act in Congress, guaranteeing to the Company the term of fifty years. In the present Bill the term proposed was twenty-five years; he wished to amend the Bill by extending the terms to fifty years, so as to equalize the term granted by both Governments.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, he did not think that the British Government ought to be influenced in this matter by the Act of the United States Government. It should be recollected that the process of laying down the cable commenced in this country, and it was to end in Newfoundland. In reference to another point, he begged leave to call attention to the second clause, in which the usual provision in all similar Bills was omitted—namely, that in cases of emergency the Crown might take possession of the telegraph. He thought such a provision should be inserted. It was his duty in all Private Bills to watch carefully over the interests of the Crown as well as those of the public. Having stated his objections he would leave the matter now in the hands of the House.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYthought it very questionable policy to allow the monopoly which this Bill gave, and to extend the term from twenty-five to fifty years. He was of opinion that the noble Earl at the head of the Government should have given the House notice of his Amendments.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, it was no part of his business to defend the agreement which had been entered into with the American Government, for it had been made under the sanction of the late Government; but the question was how far they were bound in fairness to this Company to sanction the agreement between them and the United States. In 1856 an Act of Congress was passed by which the American Government guaranteed the payment of 70,000 dollars a year for fifty years, and it was not until six months after that the Bill was introduced into Parliament which contained the clause giving the Crown the power of claiming the property at the end of twenty-five years. If the Amendment were not assented to it would be of most serious consequence to the Company. However, he had no objection to the postponement of the third reading until Monday for the purpose of re-examining the matter.
  After a few words from Lord STANLEY Of ALDERLEY and Lord REDESDALE,
  First Amendment agreed to; on second Amendment further Amendment adjourned to Monday next.

MARRIAGE LAW AMENDMENT BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  VISCOUNT GAGE, on rising to move the second reading of this Bill, said, that he found himself unexpectedly placed in a position which he had not thought of occupying; but a variety of unfortunate circumstances having prevented other noble Peers from proposing the second reading, he, as a supporter of the Bill, had thought it to be his bounden duty to undertake the conduct of it rather than that it should fall through for want of a proposer. He had had no hand in the preparation of the Bill, and there were, he thought, omissions in it which it would have been well to remedy; but certainly everything had been done to render it as little distasteful as possible to its opponents. As their Lordships were aware it was a measure intended to redress a great grievance, which was complained of by a considerable number of persons, and although, from the nature of the case, that number could not be great in proportion to the population of the country, yet the sufferers did indeed constitute a very numerous class. He believed that their Lordships would gladly redress the grievance even of an individual, provided there were no reason why they should not do so; much more then would they listen to the complaints of the numbers who had petitioned upon this subject; and if their grievances remained un-redressed it could only be because their Lordships considered that there were good and sufficient reasons for refusing to relieve them. The first objection which was usually adduced against the proposition of this measure, to legalize marriage with the sister of a deceased wife was, that there existed a religious and spiritual prohibition; but when it was asked where that prohibition was to be found no one was able to refer that objection to any higher authority than a canon of the Church, and, with all the sincere respect which he professed and felt for the Church, he could not believe that a mere canon, unsupported by Scripture or reason, was a sufficient excuse for refusing relief to a great number of persons
  1970
  against a proved evil. This canon was supposed to be grounded upon the 18th chapter of Leviticus. The only verse in that chapter in which any mention was made of a wife's sister was the 18th; there the prohibition clearly was, not against a man's marrying the sisters of his deceased wife, but against his marrying the sister in rivalry of the living wife. Indeed it seemed to him to amount to a permission to marry the sister after the wife's death. Another argument against such a marriage was founded upon an inference which was drawn from that very obscure and unfortunate phrase of which every one had heard so much; and the 6th verse of the 18th chapter was now selected as implying a prohibition, that prohibition being dependent wholly and solely upon the one peculiar phrase to which he referred; and which it was very doubtful whether it applied to marriage at all. He denied first, that the phrase in question bore the interpretation which was sought to be placed upon it; and, secondly, that the prohibition contained therein—whatever it might be—extended to the deceased wife's sister. In all the other cases the degree of relationship was minutely specified, and it extended only to blood relations: whereas in this case it was all left open to doubt. The great mass of their Lordships probably were under the impression—as he had once been—that this was a translation of some Hebrew phrase corresponding with the Eastern phrase of unveiling the bride, loosening the zone, or some phrase of that kind. But it was nothing of the sort, for he assured their Lordships that it was neither more nor less than an awkard expression in old English, the word "nakedness" there having no other meaning than that in which it was used by Joseph, who asked his brethren if they had come into Egypt "to spy the nakedness of the land." There was no personal sense whatever—the phrase had no existence as we used it. If he were asked for his authority for this reading he should refer to the Septuagint and the Vulgate translations. He might be told that the Septuagint was considered to be very faulty, and that it could not be relied on; but those who said that would not venture to include the first six books of the Old Testament in that condemnation, for there could be no doubt that it had been made by the most learned and capable men of the day at the time when Hebrew and Greek were living languages, and when a large proportion of persons

  1971
  were in the familiar habit of using both. The passage was there rendered, "You shall not reveal, uncover, or expose, the foibles, &c." He was altogether at a loss to discover how this phrase could be tortured into an application to marriage. Still further, he had inquired into the practice of the Jews themselves, who might be supposed to know their own law, and he found a strong argument against any prohibition being intended by those passages on the fact that the Jews themselves never regarded them in that light, and that they rather facilitated than opposed these marriages. Again, if their Lordships really thought that there was anything in Scripture prohibitory of these marriages, and if they regarded them as utterly subversive of the morality of social life, it was difficult to conceive how they could have sanctioned such a compromise of the matter as they had done in 1835. He could only say that there was no evidence whatever of such direful consequences as some persons appeared to dread having followed the relaxation in those countries in which it had taken place—and those countries included, he believed, all Protestant Europe and America, the Catholics being able everywhere to buy dispensations. They were frequently told that this was a woman's question, and that all the women were against the Bill. That all or anything like all of them were so he denied; but as for the mass of unthinking women who in the world, that knew anything about them, would ever have expected anything else? It would be just the same if at this moment the question had been whether they should relax some ancient prohibition against the husband making a second marriage at all; for the idea of being superseded where one had loved was not very pleasant, and it required sonic philosophy to combat it. It was objected also that the deceased's wife's sister, if she had children of her own, would be much more likely than any other woman to make a bad stepmother. The odds, he thought, were the other way—the wife's sister would be more likely than any other second wife to resist the temptation, if even she felt it, to treat the children of a former marriage unkindly. No doubt there were many weak women and many bad women in the world, but they were not more numerous among wives' sisters than any other class; and the special opportunities which a widower had had of associating with his wife's sister
  1972
  must have made him better acquainted with her character than with that of women in general. Such fanciful objections as these ought not to be allowed to stand in the way of this Bill passing into law. The canon of the Church on which this prohibition rested was made in an age in which every species of absurd asceticism was practised and praised, and when marriage itself was treated by the compilers of the Liturgy as a mere compromise with uneradicable incontinence. This Bill was sent up from the other House, backed by an increasing majority. The question was rapidly gaining ground in the country as the argument in favour of a change became known, and their Lordships would not long be able to resist the popular voice. A recent legal decision had extended the pressure of the prohibition beyond the bounds of this country, and it had thus placed in a stronger light than ever the injustice and hardship of the present law. The noble Lord concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, the noble Viscount had treated this question on two grounds, the religious ground and the social ground. As regarded the religious view of the subject, it was impossible to deny that the texts most referred to were open to various interpretations. But when difficulties arose, they should be guided by a consideration of the consequences which would naturally flow from a lax interpretation, and refer to other parts of the Scriptures for guidance; and in this view he thought no doubt whatever existed. The real question in this case was, "What is marriage—what is the relationship thereby established?" They were distinctly told in Scripture that the man and wife became "one flesh," and that being the case, the relations of the one necessarily became the relations of the other. Unless that simple principle were admitted and acted upon, society inevitably got involved in difficulties from which there was no escape, and would be driven to consequences from which every one would shrink with horror. It was argued that the prohibition referred only to blood relations; but the very same phrase was used in the clause which forbade the brother to marry his brother's wife. Whatever a man was forbidden to do in respect to his brother's wife he would also be forbidden to do in respect to his wife's sister; but there was no blood relationship in either case—merely

  1973
  affinity. The noble Viscount had asked, who could expect anything but objections to the Bill from women? In that view he entirely concurred. This was purely a man's Bill. The man did not come forward and propose that the woman should have the right to marry her husband's brother, but he came forward with his own lustful purposes and said, "Let me marry my wife's sister,"—the two standing in precisely the same position as regarded affinity. If this Bill passed, why should they not go further? Why should not a man be allowed to marry his step-daughter? There was no blood relationship in that case. Or why should not a step-son marry his step-mother—his father's widow? From such things as these the minds of all men naturally shrunk; and yet they might be justified on the same principle on which this Bill was justified if you once got rid of the deductions arising from the fact of man and wife being one flesh. What was a man to call his wife's sister if this Bill passed? Was he still to call her sister, or was he to call her cousin? If she were his sister during his wife's life, she was also his sister after her death—the relationship created by the marriage bond could not be got rid of. The canon which prohibited these marriages was almost as old as the Church itself, and was by no means, as it had been represented to be, an innovation of the time of the Reformation. As to the Bill of 1835, that Bill did not alter the law on the subject any further than this, that whereas before the marriage was voidable if anybody chose to object to it it was then made void from the beginning. As regarded the social grounds which formed arguments in respect to this measure, it appeared to him that the greatest possible injury would be done in families if the near and close relationship which existed between persons connected by marriage were interfered with, as it necessarily would be by this Bill. It was said that there had always been a great number of persons who had evaded the restriction, and that this was a reason for altering the law. If they were merely to consider how many persons gratified their sensual appetites without the sanction of the law, there were a number of other things to which this argument would apply. He feared that if they went amongst the narrow confined dwellings in which the lower orders were forced to herd, they would find in many quarters connections existing which no one would think of sanctioning by law.
  1974
  No one was ignorant of what the law had been for the last twenty-three years; yet now their Lordships were asked to sanction marriages which were positively prohibited by law, and to declare the issue legitimate. In all the attempts which had been made to alter the law difficulties had arisen from the nature of the connection between a man and his wife's sister. In the first Bill which was introduced for that purpose after the passing of the Bill of 1835, there was a clause providing that the marriage should not be allowed if there had been any adulterous connection between the parties during the lifetime of the deceased. Thus a deceased wife's sister was placed on a different footing from other women. In the present Bill, the second clause provided that a past marriage should not be valid if either of the parties to it had contracted a subsequent marriage with another person; so that if a man had by his own wicked act repudiated a marriage into which he had led his deceased wife's sister, she was not to be restored to her position by this Bill; the children of the woman who had supplanted her were to be legitimate, and her children were to be illegitimate. That was a clause which would give rise to great difficulty. The Bill confined the right to any dignity, title, or honour, to those to whom it was vested before the passing of the Act. A very curious question might arise out of that clause taken in connection with the 5th. By the latter, Ireland and Scotland were excluded from the operation of the Bill, not only as regarded dignities, titles, and honours, but also as regarded property; and as there were many Members of that House who held titles in the three kingdoms, the result might be that one set of children would be legitimate as regarded one set of titles, and another set of children as regarded another set of titles. The measure appeared to him to be both imperfect in itself and highly objectionable in principle; he believed that social evils of the gravest character would arise from the passing of it; he believed it to be contrary to the law of God; and, entertaining these views, he felt bound to move that it be read a second time that day six months.
  Amendment moved, to leave out ("now"), and insert "this day Three Months."
  LORD LYNDHURST: My Lords, I do not rise to address your Lordships upon the general subject under discussion, but, as my noble Friend has alluded to the Bill which passes under my name I am desirous

  1975
  of giving a history, in a very few words, of that measure. I believe it is now upwards of twenty years since that Bill was introduced. Several of your Lordships who are now Members of the House were not Members of it at that period, and, after so long an interval, probably what passed is not very fresh in your Lordships' recollection. My attention was called by a circumstance, to which I shall presently refer, to the state of the law with respect to voidable marriages. Marriages which were voidable might be annulled at any time during the joint lives of the two parties. The consequence of this was that the children of those marriages, as to their status, stood in an uncertain condition for a great number of years—possibly for ten, twenty, thirty, or even fifty years. A person might be brought up as heir to his parents, as a legitimate child expecting to succeed in the ordinary way to family estates under a settlement, and all at once, after he had married, after he had become the father of children, proceedings might be instituted for the purpose of annulling the marriage of his parents; he would be bastardized, and the whole property would pass in a different direction. I considered that a very inconvenient and cruel state of the law, and my object in bringing in the Bill was to correct it. The Bill which I brought in had nothing to do with annulling marriages. It was merely to protect the legitimacy of children. My proposition was this,—that if the marriages were not annulled within a certain period, as far as related to the children, their legitimacy should not be questioned; and when I brought in the Bill I proposed that, unless they marriages were annulled within a period of two years, the legitimacy of the children should never be questioned—I said nothing whatever as to annulling the marriages, or as to what should take place with respect to the parents. My proposition and my Bill were confined solely to the children. I happen to have a copy of the Bill as originally laid upon your Lordships' table, and I will read what is the nature of the Bill and its provisions. The title of the Bill runs thus:—
  "An Act to limit the time for commencing suits in the Ecclesiastical Courts, so far as they may affect the children of parents married within prohibited degrees."
  The Bill related only to the children—not to the parents. It is endorsed, "Presented by Lord Lyndhurst, and ordered to
  1976
  be printed the 1st of June, 1835." There was but one enacting clause, which was in these terms:—
  "Whereas the children of parents married within prohibited degrees are by law legitimate unless such marriages be declared void by sentence of the Ecclesiastical Courts during the lifetime of the parents, and it being unreasonable and unjust that the state and condition of the children born under such circumstances should remain unsettled for so long a period, be it therefore enacted that the children of parents, married as aforesaid, shall be and continue legitimate unless a suit be duly instituted for annulling the marriage of their parents within two years."
  Such was the provision of that Bill. The circumstance to which I alluded which led me to introduce this Bill was the marriage of a noble Lord of high rank in this House. My attention was drawn to the position of the children, to the succession of the eldest son to a seat in this House, and the result was, as happens in many other cases, that a particular instance of hardship led to a general alleviation in the state of the law. The Bill was read a first time without opposition; it was generally approved by your Lordships; but between the first and second readings of the Bill a right rev. Prelate, for whose memory I entertain the greatest possible respect, who possessed great authority, great influence, and great weight in your Lordships' House from his position, his talents, and his masterly eloquence, consulted me and a noble and learned Friend of mine who was interested in the question, and said, "I disapprove of the Bill. I agree with you entirely as to the mischief of voidable marriages. Parties knowing they are breaking the law break it with their eyes open, imagining they can do so with impunity. I think that voidable marriages ought to be declared void, that the parties may see at once the consequence of their act, and if they commit the offence with their eyes open they must take the consequence." The consequence was, that in Committee the whole character of the Bill was entirely changed. I have got the Bill as it passed through Committee. The history of the measure is quite curious. I listened with great respect to the arguments of the right rev. Prelate. I knew his influence in this House. By whom the Amendments were moved I do not recollect; but the Bill was entirely changed, and took this shape. First, with respect to the title, the new title of the Bill was, "An Act to render certain marriages valid, and to alter the law with respect to certain voidable

  1977
  marriages." The preamble was retained. Then, it went on thus:—
  "And it is fitting that all marriages which may hereafter be celebrated between persons within such prohibited degrees shall be de facto void and not voidable."
  And with respect to past marriages, it was declared that, unless proceedings were instituted for the purpose of annulling such marriages before the passing of the Bill, no proceedings should afterwards be instituted. It does not in point of fact declare those marriages valid, but, as to suits to annul them, instead of during the lives of the parties the period is curtailed within which they must be instituted. That is the history of the Bill. Your Lordships are aware of its original form. I have told your Lordships of the consultation which led to the change—consultation with the right rev. Prelate of great talents, extraordinary influence, great eloquence—and whether the Amendments were moved by the right rev. Prelate or by myself I do not recollect, and I have no means of ascertaining. I said in rising that it was not my intention to enter into the general discussion, and I mean to abstain from doing so. My Lords, I am acquainted with a circumstance that has some bearing on this question, and I will state it. I am intimately acquainted with the state of society in a district in New England. I refer to the state of Massachusetts, of which Boston is the capital. I have several very near connections there, and I will undertake to say that in no civilized part of the world is there to be found a more moral and intelligent people, especially in regard to the intercourse of the sexes, than are the people of that State; and yet, my Lords, in that State the marriages which my noble Friend condemns are consistent with the law. They are not only legal, but they are of constant occurrence. I do not mean to say that a law which has no ill effects in one State of society may not produce a contrary result in another state of society in which different habits and manners prevail; but I state as a witness the facts to which I have referred, and leave it to noble Lords who may take part in this debate to draw an inference from that which I have stated. I hope your Lordships will think I have not done amiss in directing your attention to the circumstances attending the passing of this Bill, which, considering the material part taken in it by the right rev. Prelate, who was, in fact, the author of the Bill, ought to have great weight with
  1978
  your Lordships in the discussion of this measure.
  EARL NELSONsaid, he could not allow the arguments of the noble Viscount (Viscount Gage) to pass without observation. He thought it was impossible for any one, who had studied the 18th chapter of the Book of Leviticus, not to see that the whole of our prohibited degrees were defined by the rules there laid down and the analogies to be derived from them. Besides, it was clear that the rules there laid down pertained to the moral and not to the Levitical law, because it was said that these were the views of the Egyptians and Canaanites, who had made the land to stink in the sight of God. If their Lordships looked into the matter, they would see that, if they were not prepared to read Scripture by reference to analogy, they would err in its construction and fall into great absurdities. For instance, there was no law against a father marrying his own daughter, although there was a law against a son marrying his mother. Again, if they did not read Scripture by analogy, the Tenth Commandment, which said a man should not covet his neighbour's wife, would not prevent a woman coveting her neighbour's husband. The question in this case depended, in a great measure, upon whether our Bible was a correct translation of the original in Hebrew; and they knew Hebrew scholars differed very much as to the true construction of the original. With regard to the Roman Catholics, it suited many of that body in this country to throw over the opinions of the early Church, and to say that these marriages were not contrary to God's law. Protestant Germany had gone much further than the Roman Catholics, and having once departed from the only true standing ground, had made many other relaxations. But what their Lordships had to consider was, how far the Old Testament was to be interpreted by the New, without any reference to what the Jews might say. As to the social ground, he agreed with the promoters of the Bill, that so far there could not be a better person to look after a deceased wife's children than her sister. But at what time would she be most required and be most useful? Why, during the first few months after the death of her sister—the very period when her assistance would be forbidden by the new law. As to the moral ground, it only came to this—that there were many persons living a life of wickedness, and it was desirable that the law

  1979
  should be altered that they might be purged of that wickedness. He did not believe this Bill was what it was represented to be—a poor man's question, but one more applicable to the middle classes; and this was borne out by statements which he had received from persons of great experience. It was a Bill in fact, to legitimatize children that were now illegitimate; and the lower classes having very little property, cared very little about the matter. He would not be a party to increase the severity of the laws of the Church, but he would ask whether it was not worth while to consider this fact—that if they neglected the only standard of truth which they had, they would be left to the individual opinions of those persons who would be anxious to satisfy them that their own views of marriage were best, and were based upon Scripture; and the Mormons and other sects might say that upon social, moral, and religious grounds they ought to have the benefit of every relaxation, and that every style of living which they pleased to adopt was founded upon Scripture. It was a serious question to consider whether sufficient grounds had been shown for altering the present law. An agitation had been got up by a clique—a few people who had spent much money to carry out this object. Of the religious bodies, the Baptists were the only persuasion who petitioned in any numbers in favour of the Bill; the Presbyterians of Scotland and of Ireland, and the Roman Catholics of the latter country, were so opposed to it, that they were exempted from its operation. He hoped their Lordships would reject the measure.
  VISCOUNT DUNGANNONsaid, he could not give a silent vote on this occasion, for he believed that the effect of passing this Bill would be to destroy the peace of families, by sowing distrust where confidence and affection now prevailed. At the present moment the sister of a deceased wife frequently lived in the house of her widowed brother-in-law and took the charge of the children till he might again marry. This she could now do with every regard to her reputation; but if the class of marriages dealt with in this Bill were legalized that would be no longer possible. He ought to mention to their Lordships that he had had the honour of presenting two petitions against the Bill, signed chiefly by females, who knew that if the present Act were repealed it would cause great misery and heartburning in England. Surely the female sex was more especially interested in such a matter.
  1980
  He was not prepared to say that marriages of this description were directly prohibited in Scripture; he took it up in a social point of view, and he repeated his belief that if such marriages were legalized the peace of many a happy home in England would be destroyed. He hoped, therefore, their Lordships would reject the Bill. He hoped they would hear something from the right rev. Bench on this very important subject. It ill behoved the Bishops of England to record a silent vote upon such a question, one which so deeply affected our social interests. He could not believe that the right rev. Prelate who presided over the diocese of Oxford, and who had so ably opposed this measure in a former year, would not raise his powerful voice against it on the present occasion. That right rev. Prelate, he well remembered, had called upon their Lordships to reject this measure in the name of God; he had called upon them to do so in the name of the unity of our Church; he had called upon them to do so in the name and for the sake of those ten thousand happy homes of England, the barriers to whose peace and domestic comfort would be annihilated by the passing of a measure like this. Would he now record a silent vote? Surely not. He called upon their Lordships to reject a measure which could not fail, if passed into a law, to prove detrimental to our best and dearest interests in social life.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I had only intended to give a silent vote upon a subject on which I have frequently declared my opinion, but after the appeal of the noble Viscount who has just sat down (Viscount Dungannon) I feel it necessary to trouble your Lordships with a very few words. I must adhere to the opinion which I have formerly expressed in this House that the marriage which it is the purpose of this Bill to legalize is forbidden in Scripture. The noble Viscount who opened the debate (Viscount Gage) made no allusion to the passage which is clear upon that point. The brother is there prohibited from approaching his brother's widow. She is his sister in law. It must surely follow that the sister cannot marry her sister's widower. He is her brother in law. In the long list of prohibitions, which, it should be remembered, is the only rule of divine authority on the subject of marriage, one sex is almost uniformly specified, while the other is included. My Lords, it appears to me that this prohibition bears evidence in itself of

  1981
  the source from which it emanates. For, in connections of this kind, there would be an end to all confidence if parties were led to suppose that there could ever be any union between them closer and more tender than that of affinity. Thrown together as they necessarily are in social life, it is essential to all domestic comfort that they should regard each other as sisters and brothers. And, no doubt, it is from a feeling of this kind that we uniformly find the women of England most averse to the passing of this Bill. Their sentiments have been underrated by the noble Viscount; but they are sensitive upon matters which so greatly affect the interests of their own sex, and if their suffrages could be generally taken I believe that they would be found unanimous in the opinion that the comfort of the married life, as well as the consolation of the widower whose married life had been unhappily interrupted, mainly depends upon the maintenance of the existing law. This has been strongly represented to me in a letter which I have received from a Dissenting minister of much respectability, and long known to me, who begins by expressing his regret that this "should be made by some a Dissenting question." He believes "that there are many Dissenters who think with himself that the restriction is one of social importance." And he adduces his own case:—"In very early life I was left," he says, "a widower with three young children, the youngest not a fortnight old. My deceased wife had single sisters who were amiable and kind, and who came to my relief in turn as they could. Now, had not the law placed them in the position of sisters—and I regarded them as my own sisters—how could I have asked them or they have consented to live in my house? The protection of the law afforded me their invaluable consolation and care of my babes without suspicion. I therefore plead for the widower and his children in wishing the law to stand." My Lords, I trust that this protection of the law will be continued to the people of this land, and on the double ground of what I believe to be the purport of Scripture and what I believe to be desirable for the social welfare of the community I must adhere to the vote which I have formerly given, and I trust the proposition will receive no better support than on former occasions in your Lordships' House.
  LORD CRANWORTHwished to state very briefly, and at the same time very temperately, the grounds on which he had
  1982
  arrived at the conclusion that this measure, if adopted, would be mischievous in its effects. On the religious branch of the subject he had not sufficient confidence in his own judgment to express any opinion; he would, therefore, regard the question as if it were one on which Scripture was wholly silent, and which must be determined by considerations of social convenience alone. Looking to the class of society to which their Lordships belonged, surely there was nothing in married life which ought to be more carefully cultivated than the freest intercourse between the wife's relations and her husband's domestic circle. The husband was necessarily often withdrawn from home, and it was of the utmost importance to the social and domestic happiness of the wife that her sisters should be her most familiar companions. But if the suspicion were allowed to cross her mind that she was encouraging those who in the event of her death might supply her place in her husband's affections, it would be impossible for her, disguise it as she might, to receive them with the same cordiality and freedom as heretofore. It had been said that no one would make so good a stepmother to the children as the sister of the deceased wife. He might doubt that, but if this Bill passed how was the sister to take charge of the children without creating suspicion and giving occasion to remark? Whether he looked to the interests of society before or after the wife's death, he thought this measure would tend to impair those interests. But it was said that what might be a desirable state of the law for the higher ranks of society might be very unsuited to the comfort of the lower. If that were really so, it would be their Lordships' duty to strike as fair a balance as they could, and then decide impartially according to the preponderance of good or evil incident to either side of the question; and in making such an estimate they ought to be specially on their guard that they did not legislate for that class of society to which they themselves belonged. To his judgment, however, it was very difficult to discover any sufficient ground for believing that the interests and feelings of the lower classes on this subject differed in any material degree from those above them in the social scale. The fact that Scotland and Ireland were excepted from this Bill disproved the existence, even among the humbler classes, of any general, not to say universal, sentiment in its favour. It was notorious also that in the rural dis-

  1983
  tricts of England such a measure was not desired; and though, indeed, it was alleged that it was demanded by persons in the populous towns and manufacturing districts it would be found that in those localities, where the poor had contracted relationships to which it was now proposed to give legislative sanction, bigamy itself was almost of daily occurrence, and it would be hard to show that the arguments used for legalizing marriage with a deceased wife's sister would not equally apply to the legalization of bigamy. He had no doubt that his noble and learned Friend had truly described the state of morals in Massachussets; but whatever might be the state of society on the other side of the Atlantic, where a law like that now under discussion was in operation, there was little doubt that in passing this measure their Lordships would do violence to the feelings of the great mass of the English community. For these reasons he must oppose the second reading of the Bill.
  LORD WODEHOUSEsaid, that some of the speakers who had taken part in the debate had based their argument on social grounds, and others on religious grounds. The noble and learned Lord who spoke last had rested his opposition solely on the social part of the question. He (Lord Wodehouse) confessed he had no confidence in his own interpretation of the obscure passages in Scripture upon which the opponents to the Bill originally based their principal opposition; but he might be allowed to remark that the passage in the text of Leviticus was not the ground upon which they now chiefly relied—he meant the passage prohibiting a man from taking his wife's sister in her lifetime to vex her. The most rev. Prelate opposite (the Archbishop of Canterbury) had, however, taken another ground. He said that there was a prohibition of two brothers marrying the same woman, and that, therefore, by analogy, it might be inferred that two sisters ought not to marry the same man. The plausibility of that argument he was not disposed to deny; but it could be met thus—if it were true that the marriage of a woman with the brother of her deceased husband was prohibited by the Levitical law in such a manner as to render it incestuous, how was it that in certain cases a man was strictly enjoined by that law to marry the widow of his deceased brother? It was monstrous to suppose that the Divine Lawgiver could give a positive order to do that in special cases which in general
  1984
  cases would make a marriage incestuous. With regard to the social ground on which this Bill was on the one side opposed and on the other supported, he admitted that every man had a right to his own opinion. Some persons might think these marriages undesirable; but he agreed with the noble Lord (Viscount Gage) that, looking to all the facts, it was better the law should be relaxed. What were the facts connected with the question in this and in other countries? These marriages, as their Lordships had already heard, were frequent in Boston, and yet they were not attended with any of those horrible consequences to which a noble Lord had referred. In most of the countries of Europe they were permitted, either directly or indirectly—as in Catholic countries through dispensation—and they were contracted by the Protestant communities of Germany. Now, a great deal of stress had been laid on the argument that to relax the law here would lead in many cases to domestic unhappiness; he could only say that if the Utopian felicity which had been described really existed, it would be a strong argument in favour of not interfering. It did not, however, exist; and it was impossible to deny that the law, as it now stood, affected injuriously very many persons who had already contracted marriages of the kind, or who, as amongst the lower classes, did what was worse, by living without marriage with their deceased wife's sister. Upon all the grounds he had stated, he would therefore support the proposed alteration in the state of the law.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORD: My Lords, having already been most indulgently listened to by your Lordships on a former occasion, when I ventured at considerable length to argue what I considered was the true view of this question, I had no thought of troubling your Lordships with any remarks of mine to-night, further than such as I might make in endeavouring to answer any new objections that might be urged by any noble Lord, to what I believe to be the true view of this subject. One or two remarks of the noble Lord who has just sat down seem to me to come under that category, and I think I should be doing wrong if I did not answer them. But I will not enter again into the whole width of this subject, having already done so. Adhering entirely to the opinions I then ventured to express, and to the arguments I then ventured to use, I will not weary your Lordships by going into the

  1985
  whole matter again; but there are one or two points which, if left unanswered, out of doors at least, if not in this House, great injury would, in my opinion, be done to the cause of truth on this subject. The noble Lord who has just sat down has drawn an argument in favour of this Bill from a particular injunction under certain given circumstances to a brother to marry the widow of his deceased brother. Now, in the first place that argument is really worth nothing—but if it be worth anything, it seems to me to prove too much—too much for this reason. No one urges that it could be consistent with the purity of Christian life, that a man should marry the widow of his own brother. That is not advanced by any one—that is not asked for—it is admitted that the common moral sense of Christendom would regard such a marriage as intolerable. That argument, therefore, proves too much. To give a clear answer to the noble Lord would take us upon delicate ground upon which I had rather not enter; but I think it is necessary to answer the noble Lord's argument. The noble Lord said, that marriage with a deceased wife's sister could not be incestuous, else you would make the Great Author of mankind Himself, under certain circumstances, prescribe incest. Incest itself, my Lords, you must remember, is not a sin against nature, but is a sin against a positive enactment. By the Divine appointment itself, the origin of the human race was the fruit of a marriage which we should now regard with horror as the worst form of incest—the marriage of brother and sister. Therefore you must see that incest is not a thing like a sin against nature, which is written broad as evil by the hand of God upon the nature of the thing itself; but that it is a prohibition of His wisdom and of His love to the race of man, in order to draw through this prohibition blessings upon the race at large, which except for this prohibition would not be drawn. Well, then, if that is the real view which we ought to form of incest, this at once follows from it—that it is in the power of the Supreme Lawgiver for any sufficient advantage, at any particular time, to enact that which is contrary to His ordinary loving enactment for the race, in order to produce at that particular time some particular result which he sees to be for the good of the race. The noble Lord made a slight but important error in speaking of this being an enactment of the Book of Leviticus. It is an enactment of the
  1986
  Book of Deuteronomy, and at the closing part of that book, to make a special provision for the special transmission of the property and name of a race which was essential for the Divine purposes—for the very object for which the Jewish race was separated from all others—the keeping clear the pedigree from which the Messiah was to be born. And, so far from this special enactment admitting the principle that a man might ordinarily marry the widow of his deceased brother—so far from its being the national law which was laid down by that special enactment—it provided that the brother who, in this way, contracted what was called a prescribed inviolate marriage should represent, as it were, his deceased brother, and should upon his marriage with the widow succeed, not to his own inheritance, but to the inheritance of his deceased brother. It was a special enactment to raise up seed to the dead brother. Therefore this special enactment was a supercession by the Supreme Lawgiver, for certain manifest purposes, of the general law which He was pleased to lay down for the general welfare of His creatures. The noble Lord further stated that it seemed to be a very general opinion among the opponents of this Bill that the religious argument was very uncertain. I am bound to say, so far as I am concerned—and I believe I may say the same on behalf of my right rev. Friends on this bench—that there is no uncertainty whatever. We do heartily and ex animo take the declaration of our Church that such marriages as these are contrary to God's law, incestuous, and therefore void from the beginning; and we ground this not only upon that chapter of the Book of Leviticus which has been so often referred to, but we ground it also upon the New Testament legislation on this subject. My noble Friend said, that the opponents of this measure mainly relied upon the 18th verse of the 18th chapter of Leviticus; but so far as I remember the debates in this House, that verse has always been used by the advocates for a change in the law, as being a text which shook the rest of the Scriptural argument. The main Scriptural argument, so far as the Old Testament was concerned, was always made by the opponents of the Bill to rest exclusively upon the early part of that chapter—from the 6th to the 17th verses. The noble Viscount who moved the second reading attempted to answer that argument by stating that it was very doubtful whether

  1987
  there was any allusion in all those verses to marriage or the mixture of the sexes at all. He thought that it referred to vexing or disturbing the temper of the wife, and he grounded that view upon the interpretation of one word in the Vulgate and the Septuagint. Now, I appeal to your Lordships whether the best way of ascertaining the meaning of this passage in the Vulgate is not to ask the interpretation which those commentators of the Church who drew up the Vulgate placed upon it? There is not one of them who puts upon it the sense that the noble Viscount does. Universally the interpretation put upon it by them was, that this was a prohibition of marriage, and of intercourse between those who were closely connected by the ties of blood and affinity. The Septuagint version also uses a word which has always been taken in the Eastern Church to mean the mixture of those who either by blood or marriage were connected in close relationship. But we may go from the Septuagint and the Vulgate up to a higher authority—the Hebrew text; and there is not the slightest shadow of a doubt as to the word there used, the English translation being the most direct and literal and positive that could by possibility be given of it—"Thou shalt not draw near to the nakedness of those of kin; God bath said it." This being so, the argument remains as it was urged by the noble Earl (Earl Nelson), that whether related by blood or by parallel degrees of affinity these marriages were distinctly forbidden to the Jews by the Old Testament. But it seems to me, that we argue the matter on far too narrow a basis when we thus wrangle over particular texts in which the law was laid down for the people of God of old. Can any reasonable man doubt that the whole course of God's legislation on this subject has been to introduce new measures of strictness instead of new relaxations in dealing with the married life? Just so far as He has intended to raise a people in the scale of civilization and morality, just so far as He has increased to them His religious gifts and assistance, just so far as He strengthened the law in those things which have reference to the intercourse between the sexes. Every one can see a reasonable ground for this—it is in order that there may be increased and multiplied such a state of society as He desires shall exist in His Christian Church—that men and women may meet together with a degree
  1988
  of freedom and safety, and mutual affection, which could only be secured by the strengthening of those laws which restrain direct sexual intercourse. Every one of us sees that it must be so; but in Egypt of old, where the detestable doctrine of the worshippers of Isis prevailed, that brother and sister might, without any degradation or stain, contract these marriages, could any family, when the brother and sister reached the age of puberty, allow that free and social intercourse which is allowed in every family in every Christian land, because that most beneficial restraint of the law of God has substituted a higher family affection for that lower animal affection which is to bind together man and wife? But, when our Lord lays down the principle that man and wife become one flesh, He solves all those difficult questions as to whether this or that particular thing is prohibited; and taking that in conjunction with the general declaration of the old law, that the God of purity would not have those who were near akin to join in marriage, we have in our blessed Lord's interpretation, and in the application of it, a law which at once and for ever settles this question for those who receive His revelation. This is that which the whole of Christendom, down to this time, has adopted. This is that which the Church in the East and the Church in the West have ever held. And do not let me be told that the Roman Catholic Church allows dispensations for these marriages. What, I ask, does she not allow dispensations for? The noble Viscount spoke rather slightingly of the canons of the Church, and stated that they were the composition of Pharisaical minds. My Lords, on behalf of that Reformed Church of England to which it is my happiness and glory to belong, I must declare that such were not the notions of marriage which were held by the Reformers of the English Church. It is one of our great blessings that we were brought back by them from a system of dispensations and of casuistry to what had been held in primitive times as the undoubted word of the Lord our God. They rested that prohibition on the declaration that that was God's word, as it had been always understood in the primitive time. And who was the particular Roman Pontiff that introduced the change? Was there that virtue, was there that wisdom, was there that authority in things sacred about him that—though he was a Pope—we should be disposed to accept his

  1989
  dictates? It was the infamous Borgia—the man who, himself under vows of celibacy and sanctity, was more than suspected to have been living in the most shameless incest—who granted that dispensation under the most colourable pretext, claiming for the first time for the Roman See a power which it had never claimed before, of dispensing in this matter with the law of God. I think, therefore, that the argument of dispensation goes for nothing. We have, then, I say, the voice of the Western Church; we have the voice of the Eastern Church; we have the unbroken witness of the early Church, that this is the true interpretation of the word of God and that the word of God prohibits these mixtures. Therefore I must declare to your Lordships that it is with no hesitating voice that I, and those who think with me, assert the religious and scriptural argument that these marriages are incestuous, and contrary to the law of God. Much has been said as to the social question. I will not trouble your Lordships at length. The noble Viscount has admitted that the great body of educated women are opposed to this change, endeavouring to account for their feeling on the ground of what he called the "constitutional jealousy" of the female mind. As I rejected the imputation which he cast upon the English Reformers, I must reject also this imputation against English women. I deny that they are constitutionally jealous; and, so far from its being true that women have a horror of their husbands contracting second marriages, I believe that that is a rare feeling among Christian women in England, and that they desire, if their husband be left a widower, that he should provide himself with a suitable helpmate, and his offspring with a fitting protector. I believe that just where there is the strongest affection there is the strongest objection to this measure on the part of women. I hold in my hand a letter from a lady whose name would immediately command the respect and attention of your Lordships if I were to mention it to you, in which she says:—
  "A friend of mine in Parliament said to me that he thought the objection to such marriages did not exist where family affection was comparatively weak; that my sisters and I might abhor the idea, but that was because we are very closely bound together in love. Perhaps so; but what an admission: What a testimony to the value of the objection—to the title to consideration of the objectors!"
  Yes, my Lords; so far from its being any constitutional jealousy in English women,
  1990
  I believe that the real reason is this:—God has given to the two sexes different intellectual powers and qualities—to us, the sterner and harder power of arriving at the truth chiefly by argument, by induction, and the like; while to her He has given that which, after all, is a higher attribute—the power of intuition, of perceiving what is true, what is pure, and what is noble, and without the tardy process of a long considered logic, of coming by that power with which He has endowed her heart at the truest and the best conclusion. Therefore, so far from thinking that the general feeling of the women of England can be set aside, I consider it to be a great argument against any measure affecting social and married life when the advocates of it admit that the great mass of the educated women of England are unanimously opposed to it. I come next to the argument that this alteration is desired by the poorer classes. I deny that altogether. I once took the trouble to get all the clergymen in the three counties which form my diocese to make me a report of the number of cases in which these marriages had taken place among the poorer classes. There were but three cases in the whole of those three counties. Where the evil existed it was in the middle classes, where the argument of the poverty of the widower could not for a moment apply. I grieve to say that I believe if you lower down the standard of your marriage law to the requirements of those who have offended against God's law you must go much below this Bill. Keep, therefore, I beseech you, the purity of your English home. Make it well understood that you never will, on moral grounds, relax this prohibition. It has been said that the present law is cruel to those who desire to contract these marriages; but are there no others to whom such an alteration of the law as is now asked for would be cruel? Would it not be cruel to the sisters who, in many cases, are enabled to live with their married sisters solely by reason of the impossibility of these alliances? Would it not be cruel to the widower, whose sister-in-law can now come to his house at the moment of his bereavement to take charge of his motherless children, whose whole domestic happiness for the future depends on the impossibility of any such alliance as this being possible? Are we to sweep away from this man that which God's ordinance has made the alleviation of his grief, in order to gratify the lawless desires of those who wish to take

  1991
  to themselves this particular forbidden Woman? On the mere ground of humanity, therefore, I ask your Lordships to reject this Bill. If there be the slightest shadow of a doubt as to whether God's blessing will rest on these unions, is it not the part of wisdom and humanity, as well as of faith, for us as legislators to refuse to sanction them? Before sitting down, my Lords, I feel it right to admit the good feeling of those who have framed this Bill in such a shape as not to violate the principles of the Church of England. As the Bill stands, this marriage is not in any sense one which members of the Church of England can have recourse to. If it had been possible for me as a legislator to give my assent to making the law of the land and the law of God differ on this matter of incest I would gladly have met the promoters of this Bill half way. But God's law is positive, and those who take God's law for a guide can have no hesitation in saying to the advocates of these marriages, "We refuse you a fatal privilege, which may bring down God's curse upon you."
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I think the noble Lord behind me (Lord Wodehouse) may find a precedent in the speech of my noble and learned Friend (Lord Cranworth) for the line of argument he has taken, and which has been so severely commented upon by the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Oxford). As the right rev. Prelate has spoken strongly on this point, there is one thing I should like to know—whether, if it be true, as the right rev. Prelate says, that incest be a sin, not against nature, but against positive enactment, I should like him to explain how it was that the Canaanites were punished for doing that which was not a sin against nature, but condemned by the Book of Leviticus—a command which could not possibly be known to them? Or, if it be so clearly opposed to the law of God, I ask how your Lordships could consent, by a previous Act, to legalize all existing marriages of this description? I must take leave to doubt, too, that the right rev. Prelate speaks in this matter the united voice of the Episcopal Bench.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORD: What I said was, that I and my right rev. Brethren who agree with me on this question are unanimous in thinking that there was no doubt whatever on the Scriptural part of the argument.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I thought there
  1992
  must have been some mistake, because, having consulted the Bishop of my own diocese (the Bishop of Lichfield), he wrote to me a day or two ago, stating in the most distinct manner that he was quite convinced, as far as the Scriptural part of the argument went, that it all rested on one text, which, in his opinion, was more in favour of our view than the other. It has been said, and with great truth, that this House ought not to be guided in this matter by the feeling of the society in which we move, but that we ought to look to what was desired by the community at large. I do not think it necessary to enter into any minute details as to the feeling of the upper classes of society with respect to this change—there are many circumstances connected with the question which make it undesirable to do so—but I have no hesitation in admitting that the feeling of that particular class is against this Bill. With regard, however, to the middle and lower classes, I have no doubt whatever that public opinion is in favour of the change. I deny altogether, too, that the feeling of the women of this country is against the Bill. I have conversed myself with many who had a very strong feeling the other way. I believe that in the middle classes, even in religious society, there is no unwillingness shown to receive and mix with persons who have contracted these illegal marriages, and that of itself is a strong proof of the feeling of the middle classes on the matter. I received a letter the other day from a gentleman in Yorkshire, in which he mentions that the head of a girls' school in his neighbour—hood had married the widower of her sister, and that not a single scholar had been taken away from her school in consequence of that act. With regard to the poorer classes we know that in towns these marriages do take place among them. Mr. Denham, the rector of a parish in the Strand, stated that the cases were most numerous, that the marriages had an immense moral effect upon the poorer classes, and that he had never seen any disadvantage from connections of the sort. The question has been so often debated that I will not weary your Lordships by going over it again. It is sufficient to say that none of the difficulties which are anticipated from a change of the law obtained in the United States, where these marriages are permitted; that these marriages hold good in all the Protestant communities in Europe; and, as has been

  1993
  already said, that if the Roman Catholics are much stricter they possess a power of dispensation which relaxes the general principle. When the noble Lord (Lord Redesdale) refers to the ancient Apostolical canon he forgets that there is also a canon which forbids the marriage of priests altogether. It is clearly inapplicable to the state of the law of which we now complain, and which has only held good since the year 1835. In conclusion, I will only express my sincere and ardent wish that your Lordships will on this occasion gratify the conscientious desire of immense classes of the community by giving a second reading to this measure.
  THE BISHOP OF RIPONclaimed to say a few words, because he happened to differ from many, though he was happy to say, not from all, of his right rev. Brethren. In the first place he thought there was no direct Scriptural prohibition of the marriage of a man with his diseased wife's sister. If there were any direct Scriptural prohibition it was almost unnecessary for him to observe that no consideration should ever induce him to advocate an enactment which would have the effect of making such marriages legal. The arguments attempted to be drawn from Scripture by the opponents of the measure were arguments by inferences; and, considering the conflict of opinion among eminent divines of this and other Christian communities on this subject, and that at best arguments by inference were of a doubtful character, he thought they might well leave the resolution of the doubt to the conscience of each individual. But, believing as he did, that Scripture, so far from prohibiting, sanctioned these marriages, it was a grievance of which the people might justly complain that the law of the land was out of harmony with the revealed law of God. These were the considerations which influenced him, so far as the Scriptural argument was concerned. As regarded the social part of the question, he believed that great evils were connected with the existing state of the law; and when it was said that this measure would lead to the social evils which had been described, he asked why those evils had not been produced in those countries where marriage with a deceased wife's sister was the law of the land? It was said that the feeling of this country was against these marriages; but he believed facts did not bear out that state-
  1994
  ment. The petitions presented to the other House against the Bill were 300, signed by 10,000 persons, and the petitions in its favour were 1,047, having 125,539 signatures, and no one denied that marriages of this description were very numerous throughout the country. It had been found impossible to enforce the law as it at present stood, and believing that Scripture sanctioned these marriages he should cordially support the second reading.
  THE BISHOP OF EXETERsaid, the right rev. Prelate who had just sat down had almost overpowered him, and rendered it scarcely possible for him to address their Lordships. The right rev. Prelate said that Scripture expressly sanctioned these marriages. Up to the last few minutes he would not have believed it possible that a Bishop of the Church of England could have made such a declaration. Did their Lordships recollect that the Church which had the right rev. Prelate for one of its Bishops declared, in one of its most solemn canons, that a marriage of this kind was incestuous, that it was contrary to the law of God, that it should be dissolved from the first, that it should be utterly null and void? That was the law of the Church. The right rev. Prelate spurned the law of the Church. The right rev. Prelate said, "I care not for your Church of England, and what the Church of England declares to be forbidden by the law of God I declare to be sanctioned by the law of God." That was what they had heard to-night. He was amazed. If any clergyman in any place which was not privileged dared to say what the right rev. Prelate had said he would, if he were in the diocese of a faithful Bishop, be brought to account for his words. But it was said that the canon was drawn up in ancient and ascetic times. It was the time of James I., and if he were to look back to any age for a state of profligacy and anything but asceticism on the part of the clergy it would be to that very period. They were told that these canons were drawn up also in very early times, when they were all ignorant of these things. But that was the very reason that they were of force. The Church of England claimed it to be its law and doctrine, because it was the law of the early Church. If it were not so, the Church of England would not be what it was; it would not be a Catholic Church, and it would not have its own Bishops sitting there, except the

  1995
  right rev. Prelate who claimed to be a Bishop of the Church of England. The right rev. Prelate claimed to be a Bishop of the Catholic Church, purified from the corruptions of Rome, and yet declared that her canons were to be of none effect. The Bill to which the right rev. Prelate gave his very extraordinary support distinctly said, "provided that nothing herein contained shall invalidate, alter, or affect any canon or constitution ecclesiastical of the United Church of England and Ireland now in force." Did the right rev. Prelate mean then to say that the passing of this Bill would not affect the canons of the Church of England? And to show the absurdity and ludicrous inconsistency of the Bill it would come to this, that should the Bill pass—a supposition which he could not insult the common sense of their Lordships by suggesting as possible—the law of the land, in the same statute, would declare that a person might contract legally a marriage before a registrar, and yet might have that marriage declared contrary to God's law, and therefore null and void from the beginning, by the canon which was not to be affected by the Act. So far as the Bill was concerned a marriage of this kind would carry with it all the effect of a legal marriage; but, although these persons might marry under this Bill, they could never be admitted to the Holy Communion by a faithful minister, for he would be bound to tell them that they were living in a state of sin, that they were offending the congregation by living in a state of sin, and that he could not and would not violate his functions by administering to them that sacrament, which, as a faithful minister of Christ, he would at the same time be bound to tell them was necessary to salvation. All the blessings, all the promises, of that sacrament must be abandoned by those who, if this wretched Bill passed, should contract these marriages.
  LORD OVERSTONEsaid, he had heard what had fallen from the right rev. Prelate with the greatest dismay, for if every supporter of this measure was to be debarred from the sacrament of holy communion, he himself stood before their Lordships as a man who could not by a faithful minister of Christ be admitted to that solemn rite.
  THE BISHOP OF EXETERinterposed by saying that the noble Lord had misunderstood what he had said. He did not say that persons who supported this Bill
  1996
  would be excluded, but that it would be the duty of a faithful minister to exclude those who might contract marriages under it.
  LORD OVERSTONEsaid, he was glad he had misunderstood the right rev. Prelate, the tone of whose speech, however, still remained subject to just and very grave censure. He thought that if no right rev. Prelate essayed the task, it was the duty of some of the lay members of their Lordships' House to endeavour to do justice between the right rev. Prelates who had spoken, and to allay the somewhat unseemly asperity which has been displayed. He could not help thinking that the remarks of the right rev. Prelate who had last spoken were unreasonable and unjust. He had condemned another right. rev. Prelate in the strongest terms for stating that, in his opinion, Holy Scriptures did not condemn, but sanctioned, these marriages. But what had been the explanation offered to the House that night by the noble and learned Lord (Lord Lyndhurst)? That a right rev. Prelate of great authority, who was not now a Member of their Lordships' House, was responsible for the passing of an Act which put an end to the power of voiding these marriages. ["No!"] As he understood the Act, the power of making previous marriages void had ceased under this Bill, unless proceedings were taken before a certain time. An Act though indirectly countenancing those marriages could not have received the countenance of Prelates who hold those to be condemned by the express word of God. Their Lordships had been told that these marriages were directly incestuous and contrary to the law of God. Now, among the vast number of petitions which he had presented in favour of this Bill, there was one signed by 500 clergymen. He had also divided with right rev. Prelates in favour of a similar measure. He had presented petitions in favour of the Bill signed by the municipal authorities and by all classes in the City of London. On that evening he had presented a petition in favour of the measure signed by nineteen out of twenty-six Aldermen, by Directors of the East India Company and the Bank of England, by Bankers of the City of London, by merchants and solicitors. In the manufacturing districts the opinion in favour of this Bill was almost universal. A similar measure had been repeatedly sent up to their Lordships from the other House, which was

  1997
  supposed more especially to represent the feelings and the deliberate judgment of the people, and although the Members who had voted in favour of these Bills had been sent back to their constituents, they had been again returned, and had sent up subsequent Bills by increasing majorities. He had not given his support to this measure lightly and unadvisedly. The condemnation of these marriages, if intended by the will of God, would have been written with the finger of fire and not have been left as a doubtful and forced inference from such dark and ambiguous passages as had been quoted. He thought that any legislation was unwarrantable which interfered with man's free agency in a matter so important as that of marriage. He believed also that the present state of the law caused the most serious moral evils, and he feared that, if they rejected this Bill, their Lordships would inflict upon the community an act of injustice, and would greatly disturb the harmony and morality of society. He could not help regretting the violent and uncharitable language which had fallen from the episcopal bench, which was in his opinion, injudicious, unwise, and not sanctioned by the letter or spirit of that Holy Scripture to which they appealed.
  THE BISHOP OF LINCOLNsaid, he very much regretted that the noble and learned Lord who had so lucidly explained the history of his Marriage Bill to their Lordships had left the House; but what had fallen from that noble and learned Lord might, he thought, bear this interpretation. At the time when the House was asked to legislate on this subject, these marriages were not void, but voidable; the children were not illegitimate, but they might be made so. In this very inconvenient and unjust state of things the noble and learned Lord introduced a Bill enacting that, unless a suit were instituted in the Ecclesiastical Court within two years, the children should be legitimate. The right rev. Prelate, now no more (Bishop Blomfield) here interposed, and at his suggestion it was enacted that voidable marriages should be thenceforth void ab initio; and inasmuch as this would be obviously unjust to the children of existing marriages of this kind, their legitimacy was not to be questioned. He contended that it was impossible to draw from this the authority of the right rev. Prelate, now departed, in favour of this Bill. He (the Bishop of Lincoln) would say nothing whatever as to
  1998
  the religious aspect of this Bill. He must say he regretted to find a member of the episcopal bench saying that he believed these marriages were not only not forbidden, but were sanctioned by the law of God. The right rev. Prelate was alone in his opinion; but he was at least to be commended for his boldness in stating his opinion. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Overstone) had laid great stress on the fact that there had been a large number of petitions in favour of this Bill; but from his own experience, both of a large metropolitan parish and of the agricultural districts of England, he doubted whether the majority of the people were in its favour. The number of petitions presented on this subject showed the low state of public morality on this question; but it was not to be wondered at, if when the people saw a number of noblemen and gentlemen, year by year, advocating this measure, and bringing it forward in Parliament, they should think perhaps they were mistaken as to its character, and that there was no great harm in it after all. Suppose polygamy were advocated through the country by an active body of men, and discussed in pamphlets and in newspapers, and that a Bill were yearly introduced into either House by a gentleman or nobleman of influence for the purpose of legalising it, would not many be found to petition for a repeal of the law, and some be encouraged to infringe it? It would be the same in that case as it was in this. He denied that the opinions of the women of this country generally were in favour of this measure; on the contrary, their instinctive feelings, which were a far better guide on such a subject as this than the reasoning of men, made them dread the passing of this Bill. It was, therefore, in their behalf and in that of the peace and happiness of the countless homes in this country, and in the name of purity of their families, that he entreated their Lordships not to read this Bill a second time.
  On Question that ("now") stand part of the Motion? their Lordships divided:—Contents 22; Not-Contents 46:—Majority 24.

  CONTENTS.

  Cleveland, D.

  Saint Germans, E.

  Sommers, E.

  Albemarle, E.

  Essex, E.

  Torrington, V.

  Granville, E.

  Ripon, Bp.

  Leven and Melville, E.

  Minto, E.

  Belper, L.

  Portsmouth, E.

  Ebury, L.

  1999

  Farnham, L.

  Southampton, L.

  Foley, L. [Teller.]

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

  Woodehouse, L.

  Glenelg, L.

  Wrottesley, L.

  Overstone, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, Archbp.

  Dungannon, V.

  Hardinge, V.

  Chelmsford, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Melville, V.

  Strathallan, V.

  Bath, M. [Teller.]

  Salisbury, M.

  Exeter, Bp.

  Hereford, Bp.

  Amherst, E.

  Lincoln, Bp.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Oxford, Bp.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Rochester, Bp.

  De La Warr, E.

  Salisbury, Bp.

  Derby, E.

  Doncaster, E. (D. of Buccleuch & Queensberry.)

  Brodrick, L. (V. Middleton.)

  Colchester, L.

  Congleton, L.

  Effingham, E.

  Cranworth, L.

  Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

  Crofton, L.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Dinevor, L.

  Harrington, E.

  Dunsandle and Clanconal, L.

  Mansfield, E.

  Nelson, E.

  Ker, L. (M. Lothian.)

  Romney, E.

  Lovell and Holland, L. (E. Egmont.)

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Shrewsbury and Talbot, E.

  Melros, L. (E. Haddington.)

  Stradbroke, E.

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  Wilton, E.

  Redesdale, L. [Teller.]

  Sondes, L.

  Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty.)

  Wynford, L.

  Resolved in the Negative.
  Ordered that the said Bill be read a Second Time on this Day Three Months.

REFORMATORY SCHOOLS (IRELAND) BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the day for the Second Reading Read.
  LORD MONTEAGLE, in moving the second reading of this Bill, explained the object of the measure to be to extend to Ireland a principle which had frequently been brought before the attention of Parliament since the year 1854, and which in its practical application to England had been attended with the greatest advantage.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.
  THE EARL OF CLANCARTY: My Lords, considering the importance of the subject of the Bill to which my noble Friend has asked your Lordships to give a second reading, I am surprised that he should have made so meagre a statement of its object and provisions. I regret, my Lords, to feel it my duty to object to my noble Friend's Motion. It is not that I am opposed to the principle of reforma-
  2000
  tories for Ireland, far from it; I believe nothing would more tend to the moral improvement of the country, than to subject the juvenile offender to such discipline, training, and instruction in a reformatory school as might nip vice, as it were, in the bud, and enable him, when arrived at maturer years, to return to society endued with good moral principles of conduct; for it is well known that it is in youth more commonly than in manhood that the career of crime commences, and that if vicious habits are not formed in youth they are much less likely to be formed later in life. The important question, however, is, in what manner can the youthful offenders be best reclaimed? and how should the experiment be tried in Ireland with the best probability of success? My Lords, this is a question to which it is impossible Her Majesty's present Government could have as yet turned their attention. The measure before you is that of an individual member of the other House, animated, I have no doubt, with the best intentions, but unaided by any of those sources of knowledge at the command of a Government, and in no degree responsible for what he recommends to you; and your Lordships, upon whom the responsibility of passing the Bill is to be cast, certainly have not in the present Session sufficient time to make any inquiry whatever into the subject. The provisions of the Bill appear to be ill-suited for the circumstances of Ireland, to which they alone apply. Your Lordships are aware that it is the unhappy lot of the poor to be the most exposed to the temptation of crime. Juvenile offenders are commonly the children of the poor; they are ill-educated in general in the country schools; in the workhouse schools, where they are brought more under discipline and regulated instruction, they derive far greater benefit; but under the poor law regulations the parent cannot give his child the benefit of the workhouse school, without himself becoming an inmate of the workhouse. If, then, a far better and really effective education be provided in the reformatories—if food, lodging, clothing, and medical care, together with instruction, secular, and religious, and such discipline and training as may be most conducive to the eradication of vice, and the laying of a good foundation for moral conduct, are therein gratuitously provided for the child, upon the sole condition of his having committed some offence for which he may have incurred the penalty

  2001
  of a fortnight's imprisonment, the temptation will be very great for the poor parent to have his child somehow brought within the grasp of the criminal law, in order to obtain for him a really good education, and at the same time to rid himself of the expense of his support. Another reason for which the proposed plan of reformatory schools is unsuited to the circumstances of Ireland, is the disparity of numbers as between Protestants and Roman Catholics, especially in the west and south; it is variously estimated at from one-fourth to one-sixth; but in the statistics of crime given in the report of the Inspector General of Prisons the disparity is far greater. There the proportion is about one Protestant to ten Roman Catholics; it is therefore probable that as each reformatory school must be under the exclusive management of persons of the same religious persuasion as that of the parents or guardians of the children sent thereto, there will be no reformatories except for Roman Catholics, and an advantage will thus be given to the members of one communion over those of another. I am far from grudging to the Roman Catholic body any advantage that may legitimately accrue to them from their preponderance in numbers, but the endeavour of the Legislature should be to place the members of all religious denominations as far as possible upon a footing of perfect equality with respect to the advantages derivable from the expenditure of public money. The proposed plan would operate unequally. A much better plan would be to adhere in reformatory as in workhouse schools to the principle so much lauded for the last thirty years, of united education of Protestant and Romanist in the same schoolroom—a system which, though a total failure, and not acceptable to any denomination of Christians in the country schools, is not unsuited to public institutions, where children of different creeds are necessarily thrown together, and where, under the superintendence of paid and responsible officers, the rules of the National Board regarding united, secular, and separate religious instruction, can be enforced and carried out. If there is any truth in the vaunted excellence of the national system, the religious interests of the pupils would be well secured where its principles were sure of being strictly applied. I am persuaded, at all events, that reformatories, conducted under the superintendence of public and responsible officers, would be much more beneficial to
  2002
  their inmates, of every religious persuasion, than if subjected to the sole and exclusive control and management of persons of the same religious persuasion as that of the parents whose children were committed to them. The principle, moreover, of instituting schools of an exclusively denominational character, exclusive alike in the management and in the admission of pupils, is not alone inconsistent with the existing system, but altogether novel in Ireland, except in the College of Maynooth. The experiment in the case of reformatories was only recognized in England by the Act of the last Session; it is as yet untried. Such an experiment, surely, should not be applied to Ireland—a country to which such opposite principles of government have generally been applied—without the most careful consideration of the subject by a responsible Cabinet.
  I would further venture to observe that the present is a peculiarly inopportune season for applying it to the case of Irish reformatory schools. Your Lordships are aware that the words in the Bill which require a reformatory school to be under the exclusive management of persons of the same religious persuasion as that of the juvenile offenders to be committed to it, will, so far as they relate to Roman Catholics, practically subject those schools to a superintendence and management exclusively ecclesiastical. I would ask your Lordships, then, whether we should be justified at the present moment in confiding so great a trust as the moral reformation of nine-tenths of the juvenile offenders in Ireland to such hands, after the evidence recently taken before the Committee of the House of Commons on the alleged destitution in Gweedore, so directly inculpating the entire body of the priests in that district. I will not more particularly allude to that inquiry than to observe that, both in its lengthened progress and in the Report to which the Committee ultimately came upon it, it has been much before the public in Ireland, and has left an impression very far from favourable to the Roman Catholic priests as moral instructors of the Irish population. I should be sorry to infer from a single case, although it included, I believe, the whole of the clergy of the district, an opinion unfavourable to all the rest of the Roman Catholic clergy. Such an inference would be neither just nor, I am sure, correct; but it is not exactly at the moment when such a case has been brought under public notice, that without any inquiry re-

  2003
  formatories should be established upon a principle which would practically give to that body the sole and uncontrolled conduct of the education and training of any class whatever of Her Majesty's subjects. Before I sit down, my Lords, I would beg to call your attention to some of the provisions of the Bill. My noble Friend, in introducing this measure to your notice, stated that the reformatory school would be under public supervision and regular inspection. I do not find, my Lords, any provision for this, except that the Inspector General of Prisons is to report to the Lord Lieutenant upon the condition and regulations of schools proposed to be licensed as reformatories, and that upon his report such licence may be afterwards withdrawn; but I find no clause requiring such inspection. By the 3rd clause I find that the grand juries may present money in aid of reformatories, and by the 5th clause may appoint a Committee to enter into an agreement with the directors or managers of any reformatory school for the reception and keeping of offenders under sentence; but by the same clause it is provided, that the expenses hereby incurred shall be presented without any previous application to a presentment sessions. By this means the ratepayers are excluded from any control over, or any examination into, the charges they are required to defray. Although the managers of reformatories are thus secured against loss, your Lordships will find that the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury are, also, under the 13th clause of the Bill, to defray either the whole or such part of the cost of the care and maintenance of any juvenile of fender as the Chief Secretary may recommend. Now, my Lords, I wish to know whether the managers of these reformatories are to be paid both by grand jury and Treasury for the same object, and if not, to which quarter the expense is to be charged? Again, by the 15th clause the parents of the juvenile offenders may be required to pay respectively 5s. a week for each child—it may not be easy to obtain from poor parents so large a contribution, if any, indeed, could be exacted from them; but if it is paid, who is to reap the benefit? The grand jury, or the Treasury? Or is it to go to swell the funds of the reformatory? The Bill is silent upon the subject. I believe that practically nothing would be obtained under this clause, as it does not mention by whom the parents may be sued, or in whose behalf. But I would beg to
  2004
  call the attention of the noble Earl at the head of the Government to the 20th and 21st lines of the clause, which, if enacted as they at present stand, would alter the existing constitution of the Petty Sessions Court. The words are, "and it shall be lawful for any two justices of the peace, or any stipendiary magistrate sitting in petty sessions for the district," &c., to constitute the tribunal before which parents may be sued for the weekly payments for the support of their children in reformatory schools. It is thus, for the first time, either cunningly or accidentally proposed to establish a difference between the jurisdiction of the local and of the stipendiary magistracy. Hitherto they have been upon a precisely equal footing, and have worked harmoniously together; but, by the words I have quoted from the Bill, it would henceforth require the presence of two local magistrates to do at petty sessions what a single stipendiary magistrate might do. I trust my noble Friend opposite, in commending this Bill to the acceptance of the House, did not intend thus to degrade the order of the Irish magistracy to which he belongs. The next remark I would make upon the provisions of the Bill is, that by the 8th and 9th clauses it is made optional with the managers of reformatories to receive, or refuse to receive, such juvenile offenders as may be sent to them. What, my Lords, I would like to know, is to become of the child so rejected? He might be a very bad boy, one whom the managers did not like to undertake for; but because he may be a bad case, he is only, therefore, I conceive, the more in need of the reformatory treatment for which this Bill purports to make provision; but by these clauses it is placed in the power of the managers to frustrate the proper operation of the Act where most it was required. I will only trouble your Lordships by noticing one more clause, which is the 7th. It fixes the age of sixteen, as that up to which juvenile offenders may be ordered, after a certain term of imprisonment, to be sent to a reformatory school, and detained there for any period not exceeding five years; thus, a lad under sixteen may be forcibly detained and trained in religious principles up to the age of twenty-one years, from which his convictions may dissent. This is not consistent with religious liberty. The same clause gives an appear to a juvenile offender, or his parent or guardian, against any order of the justice's sentencing to detention in a reformatory

  2005
  school. What, my Lords, is to become of the offender pending such appeal? The Bill makes no provision for such a case; it appears to have been most loosely contrived from beginning to end—to be a specimen of most clumsy House of Commons legislation, unaided by the experience and unchecked by the responsibility of the Government. I would earnestly entreat my noble Friend at the head of the Government, who, I am sure, can have no object in view but the public good, not to give his sanction to this measure. It is one for which there exists no urgent necessity. Crime has much diminished, and especially in the class of juvenile offenders. This may be partly owing to education. I believe it is chiefly owing to the absence of distress, to the fuller employment of the poor, and to the beneficial effect of the summary jurisdiction entrusted to magistrates at petty sessions in dealing with juveniles. The intent of this Bill I believe to be good and creditable to the hon. Gentleman who introduced and carried it through the House of Commons. I do not ask your Lordships to reject it, but to defer its consideration to another Session—to dismiss it without prejudice. The important questions involved in it could then be deliberately examined into by the Government during the recess. My noble Friend, on assuming the reins of Government, and his colleague in the other House, held out the promise of a modification of the system of National education, by which the Bible, now for so many years banished from the general school-room, might in some cases be restored. I believe that nothing would more tend to the advancement of education, and to the proper moral training of youth, than such a measure; I regret that this promise has not received its fulfilment. With regret I have also observed, that most important Bills have, in the present Session, been allowed to pass at the sole recommendation of individual Members of Parliament—the Jew Bill and the Property Qualification Repeal Bill—measures affecting the constitution of the Legislature—ought not, I conceive, to have received the sanction of the Government without having been introduced with Ministerial responsibility. Let me hope, that while that which ought to have been done has been left undone, the passing of this Bill may not be added to the list of things done that ought not to have been done.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that it was
  2006
  quite true that this was not originally a Government Bill, having been introduced into the House of Commons by a private Member; but the Government had sanctioned its principle by adopting it, and had given to its details the most careful consideration. The whole of the arguments of the noble Earl against it were founded on the assumption that what had proved extremely beneficial to England would be no good to Ireland. Undoubtedly, the introduction of the system into England had been attended with the most beneficial consequences, and he was unable to understand what there was in the composition of the Irish character which should render it less useful in that country. For his part he thought it of very great importance to establish juvenile reformatories in Ireland. The noble Earl had said that if there were good workhouse schools, and good reformatory schools, the poor people would be tempted to induce their children to commit crime to be sent there in order to get an education which they could get nowhere else in Ireland. He denied that the education of the people in Ireland generally was badly cared for; on the contrary, they were in a far better position in that respect than was the mass of the population in England. As to Roman Catholic, having the management of the schools, he thought considering that nine-tenths of the juvenile criminals would also be Roman Catholics there was no great grievance in that. It was not true, however, that there would be no machinery of inspection and reporting, because the very first clause contained a provision for the visitation of Her Majesty's inspectors of prisons. One very pertinent question had been asked, and that was as to the power of appeal. That clause would have to be considered in Committee. At present it was proposed to give the child a power of appealing against being sent to a reformatory after spending fourteen days in prison; that appeal was to be within fifteen days, but if the Session was sitting or at hand it was to be to the next Session. It was a very serious question what was to be done with the juvenile offender between the expiration of the sentence and the hearing of the appeal. Without discussing, then, the clauses of the Bill, which would undergo a strict examination in Committee, he should only say that, as this was an attempt to extend to the sister country a plan for the moral reformation of juvenile offenders which had been found

  2007
  to answer well in England, he should give his support to the second reading of the Bill, hoping that it would receive such prompt and ample consideration as would enable it to become law in the course of the present Session.
  THE EARL OF CARLISLE, after the very satisfactory observations of the noble Earl opposite, would not detain their Lordships further than to inform the noble Earl (the Earl of Clancarty) that this measure had met with general support from the more moderate of both the Roman Catholic and Protestant communities in Ireland, though it had had to struggle against the detraction of the more violent of both communions. In his opinion it well deserved the attention of their Lordships. The noble Earl (the Earl of Clancarty) so well performed his duties as a magistrate in Ireland that any Amendment suggested by him would receive their most serious attention. He would add, that though in the matter of adult reformatories Ireland had very much the start of England, she was yet unfurnished with juvenile reformatories, and he hoped their Lordships would give a speedy passage to this Bill, which was intended to remedy that defect. He defended placing the schools under Roman Catholic management, and observed that though mixed education could be well and properly applied to the general bulk of the population, yet it was necessary that exclusively religious education should be given to the juvenile criminal to bring him back to the paths of honesty and virtue.
  VISCOUNT DUNGANNONexpressed his gratification that this Bill had been introduced, considering that juvenile reformatories were much wanted in Ireland. There were some matters of detail in the Bill to which he objected, but he should not think of throwing any impediment in the way of the second reading, and only regretted that it had been brought in at so late a period of the Session as not to admit of due consideration being given to its details.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read 2a accordingly.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  Bill read 3a (according to order), with the Amendments.
  LORD WROTTESLEY LORD WROTTESLEY moved the omission of the words, in page 4, line 17, which provide that the Councillors who are required to have served or resided for a cer-
  2008
  tain time in India shall not have last left India more than ten years next preceding the date of their appointment. The noble Lord said those words had been introduced as an Amendment, on the bringing up of the Report on the Bill, and in his opinion they would operate injuriously, by disqualifying for the office of Councillors men who might be peculiarly well fitted for the discharge of its duties. He objected, moreover, to all restrictions upon the freedom of election.
  THE EARL OF ALBEMARLEalso thought that those words ought to be omitted from the Bill.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, he should insist on the retention of those words. They would ensure the advantage of recent experience in the Council, and it should be remembered that they would only apply to nine out of the fifteen councillors. The remaining six members of that body could be selected without any reference to such a povision. He thought they might as well omit the clause altogether as adopt the Amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause 29.
  THE EARL OF DERBY THE EARL OF DERBY moved the omission of the words, "with the concurrence of a majority of the Council," in the clause relating to the appointment of the members of Council in India. The effect of that Amendment would be that the selection in that case would be left to the Secretary of State, uncontrolled by his Council.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, he believed that greater unity and vigour of Administration would be secured by leaving the appointment of the members of Council in India in the hands of the Governor General.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 55, enacting that, except for preventing or repelling actual invasion, the revenues of India shall not "without the consent of Parliament," be applicable to defray the expenses of any military operation carried on beyond the frontiers.
  LORD CRANWORTHwished to remind the noble Earl that "the consent of Parliament" meant an Act of Parliament; while the consent of "both Houses of Parliament" would be inferred by Addresses to the Crown.
  EARL GRANVILLEhad asked more than once what was meant by the words "consent of Parliament," but he never received an answer, He should like to

  2009
  hear from the noble Earl opposite what was meant by the term.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, the consent of Parliament might mean either an Act of Parliament or a Resolution passed by both Houses.
  EARL GRANVILLEthought it should be distinctly stated in the Bill what was meant by the words.
  THE EARL OF DERBYproposed a clause to follow the 62nd, the object of which was to enable any person provisionally appointed Governor General to exercise his powers before taking his seat in Council. It was to provide for the case of a person who at the time of his appointment might not be at Calcutta, and to render it unnecessary that he should proceed thither before proceeding to discharge his duties. The clause was as follows:—
  "In case the person who shall be entitled under any provisional appointment to succeed to the office of Governor General of India upon a vacancy therein, or who shall be appointed absolutely to assume that office, shall be in India upon or after the happening of the vacancy, or upon or after the receipt of such absolute appointment, as the case may require, but shall be absent from Fort William in Bengal, or from the place where the Council of the Governor General of India may then be, and it shall appear to him necessary to exercise the powers of Governor General before he shall have taken his seat in Council, it shall be lawful for him to make known by Proclamation his appointment, and his intention to assume the said office of Governor General, and after such Proclamation, and thenceforth until he shall repair to Fort William or the place where the Council may assemble, it shall be lawful for him to exercise alone all or any of the powers which might be exercised by the Governor General in Council, except the power of making Laws and Regulations; and all acts done in the exercise of the said powers, except as aforesaid, shall be of the same force and effect as if they had been done by the Governor General in Council: Provided that all acts done in the said Council after the date of (such Proclamation, but before the communication thereof to such Council, shall be valid, subject nevertheless to revocation or alteration by the person who shall have so assumed the said office of Governor General; and when the office of Governor General is assumed under the foregoing provision, if there be at any time before the Governor General takes his seat in Council no Vice-President of the Council authorized to preside at meetings for making Laws and Regulations (as provided by Section Twenty-two of the Act of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Years of Her Majesty), the senior ordinary Member of Council then present shall preside therein, with the same powers as if a Vice President had been appointed, and were absent."
  Motion agreed to. Clause added.
  THE EARL OF DERBYthen moved the insertion of the following clauses after Clause 67:—
  2010
  "After the commencement of this Act, such of the Directors as have been elected by the General Court of the said Company, or who shall from time to time be so elected, shall be the Directors of the said Company, and the major part of such Directors for the time being shall form a Court of Directors; and where the presence, signature, consent, or concurrence of Ten Directors is now requisite, the presence, signature, consent, or concurrence of the major part of the Directors for the time being shall be sufficient; and to the intent that the number of Directors may be reduced to Six, Two Directors only shall be elected by the General Court of the said Company at each biennial election to fill the vacancies occasioned by the expiration of the term of office of Directors; and so much of the said Act of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Years of Her Majesty as requires any of the Directors to be persons who have resided Ten Years in India shall be repealed, and in the oath to be taken by a Director of the said Company, under Section Thirteen of the said Act, the words 'in the administration of the Government of India in trust for the Crown' shall be omitted.
  "It shall no longer be obligatory on the Directors to summon Four General Quarterly Courts in every year as heretofore.
  "Except claims of mortgagees of the Security Fund hereinbefore mentioned, the said Company shall not, after the passing of this Act, be liable in respect of any claim, demand, or liability which has arisen, or may hereafter arise, out of any treaty, covenant, contract, grant, engagement, or fiduciary obligation made, incurred, or entered into by the said Company before the passing of this Act, whether the said Company would, but for this Act, have been bound to satisfy such claim, demand, or liability out of the revenues of India, or in any other manner whatsoever."
  Motion agreed to. Clauses added.
  Further Amendments made.
  On Motion, That the Bill do pass,
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, before this Bill leaves I wish to address a few words to your Lordships on a subject which, though not making any part of the Bill, is closely connected with the government of our Indian empire; but to which, nevertheless, very little allusion has been made in the course of the discussions—I mean the subject of religion, and the singular and responsible position which England holds as a Christian nation ruling over a nation of heathens. My Lords, I make no complaint that the Bill is silent on this important subject. It could not be otherwise. The purpose of the Bill is to frame a government, not to declare how that government is to be administered—to create a machinery which is to be worked elsewhere. I also agree in the principle that has been so often laid down, that India must be governed in India, and not not from England. Still, my Lords, the subject to which I allude is one on which

  2011
  strong and conscientious convictions are entertained by a very large portion of the community, who deeply feel the anomalous and responsible position in which we are placed as a Christian nation ruling over a vast population of idolaters. My Lords, we are as far as possible from desiring any open attempt on the part of Government either to overthrow the false religion with which, unhappily, we have to deal, or to establish that which we know to be true. So far are we from desiring any such interference that we should think nothing gained by the conversion of the whole peninsula, supposing that it could possibly be effected through bribery or compulsion. But, while we grant to the religion of the Natives complete toleration, it is not necessary to conceal or compromise our own, or to let it appear to be a matter of indifference to us whether the Natives become converts to truth or not. And undoubtedly there is in this country a strong opinion prevailing that the course which has hitherto been pursued may wisely and safely be modified. My Lords I venture to specify a few points which I trust will be hereafter observed in the administration of affairs in India. First, that no distinction of caste be any longer recognized. Secondly, that in all schools to which aid is given by the Government the Bible shall be read—not commented upon for its doctrines, but read for its facts. Thirdly, that all connection on the part of the Government with the rites and customs of an idolatrous religion be entirely abolished, even if the object of such connection be simply the preservation of order; that those lands which have hitherto been employed for idolatrous purposes, and of which I believe the Company have become trustees, should be made over entirely to the Natives themselves, so that this nation may be altogether released from any participation in things which are detestable in themselves, and scandalous to the reputation of a Christian country. Fourthly, that Native converts to Christianity should be admitted to all employments the duties of which they can adequately fulfil. In measures like these there is nothing that ought to excite the suspicion of the Natives, nothing contrary to the most perfect toleration, nothing savouring of proselytism—it is merely an acknowledgment of the religion we ourselves profess. And surely, my Lords, we ought to look forward to the time when, under the providence of God, India shall form no excep-
  2012
  tion to the multitude of countries in which truth has prevailed against falsehood, and the Gospel has triumphed over idolatry and superstition, so that in the end it may appear why a remote country like England should have been allowed to have dominion over the vast territory of India.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, after what has fallen from the most rev. Prelate, I may be permitted to observe, that while I think that due protection ought to be given to the professors of all religions in India, and nothing should be done to discourage the efforts of Christian missionaries in that country; on the other hand, I am quite certain that it is essential to the interests, the peace, and the well-being of India, if not also to the very existence of our empire in India, that the Government should carefully abstain from doing anything except to give indiscriminate and impartial protection to all sects and all creeds; and that nothing could be more inconvenient or more dangerous on the part of the State than any open and active assistance to any, or any attempt to convert the Native population from their own religions, however false and superstitious. My Lords, I hope I misunderstood the most rev. Prelate when he said that he should recommend the Government not in the slightest degree to recognize the distinction of caste. On that subject I will say, as far as the interest of the public service is concerned, it is not desirable that the same indulgence and punctilious deference for the caste of the Natives entering that service as was previously observed should be continued for the future; but to say that you will not recognize caste at all in India is to say that you will not recognize that which is intimately interwoven with all the cherished feelings, habits, associations, and most vital principles of the people. Therefore, my Lords, while in the public service I certainly would not allow prejudices of caste to interfere with the discharge of the duties which any person may voluntarily take upon himself, I say it is the bounden duty of the Government to pay that attention to caste which even in this country we pay, though not in the same degree, to the different ranks of society, and which any Government must, more or less, respect, if it would not be brought into constant collision with all classes of its subjects. There was one topic touched upon by the most rev. Prelate in his observations with which I entirely concur. Wherever pro-

  2013
  perty in land or in any other form has been assigned to religious purposes, however repugnant to our feelings, provided they do not violate every principle of morality and decency, I think that that property ought to continue to be scrupulously applied to the ends to which it was dedicated. But I agree with the most rev. Prelate that it is most desirable that the Government and its officials should, as far as possible, separate themselves from any active interference in the detailed management of the property devoted to the support of idolatrous ceremonies in India. When I had the honour to hold the seals of the Colonial Department I introduced this principle into Ceylon, and required the arrangements under which the Government officials in that island had previously acted in regard to the Native rites and ceremonies to be modified, while the management of the funds applicable to such purposes was handed over to those with whose opinions they better accorded. I think the Government did its duty with credit then, as it will do its duty with credit now, by withdrawing as much as possible from any active participation in the detailed management of property of this description, while it at the same time strictly maintains the existing application of the endowments.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I wish, my Lords, to explain that in speaking of caste I entirely referred to the public services.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: My Lords, I think it due to the feelings of the country, which though recently silent, has by no means been asleep on this subject, that some expression of opinion should be given by your Lordships before the Bill to regulate the future government of India leaves this House. To nothing which has just fallen from the noble Earl can any exception be reasonably taken. I am exceedingly gratified, and I believe the public will also be gratified, with the sentiments which he has enunciated. Those sentiments are very much in accordance with the petition which I had the honour to present to your Lordships signed by the representatives of all the bodies in this country engaged in the diffusion of Christian knowledge and in the encouragement of missionary operations. In that petition there is nothing violent, nothing fanatical. The demand of the petitioners is confined to what is strictly moderate and reasonable. What they require is the assertion
  2014
  of the most unbounded religious liberty in India; that the professors of all religions without distinction, should be put upon a footing of perfect equality. They say that in that country in the eye of the law the professors of all religions must be placed on a footing of equality; and they maintain that in the selection of candidates for the public service, there must be no rule but that of fitness for the public service. No man must be chosen or rejected simply because he is a Hindoo, a Parsee, a Mahommedan, or a Christian: all must have an equal claim to serve the State. I believe it would be prejudicial rather than otherwise if the Government were to come forward and give any direct assistance to the propagation of Christianity. What the petitioners ask is that the Government should neither promote that faith by active measures, nor in any way retard it—that it should neither be a favourer nor an opponent of Christianity. They expect that reasonable protection shall be given to all sects who conduct themselves with propriety. They hope the Government will not be ashamed to avow by its acts and in its official documents that it is a Christian Government; that it looks upon Christianity as the best form of religion and the best basis of all civilization; but that, neither directly nor indirectly—by force, bribery, or any other such inducement, great or small—will it endeavour to turn any Native from the religion to which he belongs. And this was the concluding prayer of the petitioners:—
  "That all existing lets and hindrances being removed, and no new ones being opposed, free scope and action be given to the diffusion of Christianity through Her Majesty's territories in the East Indies."
  My Lords, it is said that the neck of the rebellion is broken, and many of the guerrilla bands which disturb the peace of India are composed of persons who were not engaged in the original mutiny. I have seen letters from India from persons of the highest authority, expressing the opinion that something in the nature of an amnesty might now be proclaimed, so as to avoid the risk of driving large masses of men to desperation. There is another point to which I would call your Lordships' attention, and the attention of Her Majesty's Government. One of the brightest traits in the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Ellenborough's) administration of India was the invariable deference and respect he evinced for the feelings of the

  2015
  people, and the noble and generous manner in which he extended over them the shield of his protection. I regret to find from letters I have recently received that there has recently been growing up a strong antipathy between the Europeans and the Natives in India. The older civilians and military men, indeed, know their duty too well to give way to such a feeling; but the young officers who go to that country imbibe the worst prejudices, and I am told that the common language in which they speak of the Natives is, "vile and detestable niggers." I fear it will be long before the confidence which formerly prevailed between European and Native will be again restored; perhaps half a century may elapse before an Englishman will be able to settle down in security in the interior provinces of India. But I wish, my Lords, to read an extract from a letter just received from Benares, which shows that a state of things now exists in that country which demands the most vigorous interposition of the Government. It is as follows:—
  "Benares is very quiet, and, as usual, with few troops; but we are better without them. The other day the sons of the Rajah of—got a horsewhipping from some officers for not salaaming; and I expect we shall have many such scenes. There is a great dislike and contempt of the Natives among the newly arrived portion of the European forces. It will be well if it goes no further."
  The writer continues:—
  "I know the young men; they are very quiet and gentlemanlike, with a taste for drawing and mechanics, and could not have been guilty of intentional insolence. There is a very bad spirit growing up among the Europeans towards the Natives, the most faithful among whom must become utterly disgusted if we do not take care."
  My Lords, I believe that the Asiatics will submit to much—to rapine, violence, spoliation, and oppression—but submit to insult they will not; and I know of no one single tiling that is more likely to retard the civilization of that country and endanger the peace and security of our empire than the continuance of such a state of things. A great many preach the Gospel with their mouths and others preach it by their lives. I am glad to see the Gospel advanced by both these means; but I am quite sure that no one single thing will more tend to advance civilization, even more than the exertions of the missionaries themselves, than that the language and conduct of all persons should be in harmony with the Gospel. The noble Earl will excuse me for having brought forward
  2016
  this subject, but I felt that a continuance of the present state of things would produce such serious results that I could not help expressing a hope that he will direct his atttention to the subject.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH: My Lords, I perfectly agree with the noble Earl that in the present state of India one of the most alarming circumstances is the great and constantly increasing animosity between the Natives and the Europeans. I greatly regret that I am compelled to admit that that animosity is, in a very great measure, owing to the extreme severity of the punishment which has been inflicted upon the Natives. I do trust that the example set by Sir John Lawrence with respect to punishment will be followed throughout the entire country. Sir John Lawrence has with great propriety introduced a regulation by which it is required that no man's life shall be taken away (if that should be necessary) without the concurrence of three persons, and I hope the same course will be adopted generally as long as hostilities last. But the Government of India last year thought fit to pass a law to restrict the press of India. That law has been very naturally carried into effect for the protection of the Government from hostile comment and observation. I wish I could say that the protection of the Government had been extended to the people. It has not. Every one of those editors whose mouths have been closed against the Government has been permitted to use from day to day language most exasperating to the whole people of India. They are described as contaminated by every vice. From day to day the regiments which have been disarmed are threatened with extermination in a manner that is likely to produce the most terrible effects. If it is necessary to prevent the press from libelling the Government, a restriction should also be imposed upon the press to prevent it from libelling the people of India. I am satisfied that if the press of India be not thus restricted the results will be most dangerous. If we allow the press thus to libel the people it is idle to expect that young officers arriving in India will not have their minds poisoned by the stories which they read day by day in the newspapers. With regard to a most important matter—that of the future policy of the Government with respect to religion in India—I ask your Lordships to permit me to read a few sentences from the last authoritative exposition of their policy,

  2017
  dated only on the 13th of April last, in a letter from the Court of Directors to the Governor General, published for the information of your Lordships. In that letter are these words:—
  "The Government will adhere with good faith to its ancient policy of perfect neutrality in matters affecting the religion of the people of India; and we most earnestly caution all those in authority under it not to afford by their conduct the least colour to the suspicion that that policy has undergone or will undergo any change. It is perilous for men in authority to do as individuals that which they officially condemn. The real intention of the Government will be inferred from their acts, and they may unwittingly expose it to the greatest of all dangers, that of being regarded with general distrust by the people. We rely upon the honourable feelings which have ever distinguished our service for the furtherance of the views which we express. When the Government of India makes a promise to the people there must not be afforded to them grounds for a doubt as to its fidelity to its word."
  VISCOUNT MELVILLEthought, that as long as they employed a Native army it would not be easy to abstain from giving some countenance to the religious ceremonies of the Natives.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDON: Before your Lordships pass this Bill I hope I may be permitted to make one or two remarks. I understand that the point to which my most rev. Brother alluded was the practice that has existed for some years, of the Government taking into its own hands the management of the lands by which the heathen temples are supported. That practice has not as yet altogether ceased, and the result is, that these lands are kept in a far better state, and the heathen temples are, therefore, much better maintained than if the lands were under the control of those who would squander the proceeds and use them to their own advantage. The Government ought no longer to be responsible for the maintenance of that religion in any way. This is a matter of some importance, and we know that, notwithstanding what we have often heard, some change in this respect is desirable. The ancient traditional policy and management in India, as to religion, is not, indeed, likely to be altered; but there is a deep feeling in the hearts of religious people in this country that in that policy for many years back there has been some mistake. I do not mean to say that exaggerated statements were not from time to time made upon this subject during the pressure of the calamities of last year. But I think that when all allowance is made for exaggeration it will still be found that there is a deep-
  2018
  seated feeling in the hearts of Englishmen that we do require some change in some of these matters, and I think the speech of the noble Earl at the head of the Government shows that we really are disposed to look this matter fairly in the face. It would not, I think, satisfy the feeling of the English nation if this year were to pass over without our future administration of India bearing upon it the shadow of that great event which has so deeply afflicted the nation, and which we cannot but regard as being in some degree a visitation from God. No doubt, my Lords, we ought to exercise the utmost impartiality towards our heathen fellow-subjects. No doubt we ought to show the greatest forbearance to them. No doubt the Church of England and the Christian religion itself can never be advanced by a policy of mere force and power on the part of the Government. But we ought to show to the people of India that we wish to give them, not only Christian justice and Christian civilization, but, above all, ultimately the inheritance of Christian truth.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORD: I think, my Lords, that we can have very little doubt what the conduct of a Christian Government ought to be; but I confess that I heard with some misgivings the extract which was read by the noble Earl below me (the Earl of Shaftesbury), especially when accompanied with the emphasis which the noble Earl threw upon certain expressions which are well capable of being understood in two different ways. If by the "neutrality" which was referred to nothing more was meant than that there should be no attempt on the part of the Government as a Government, directly or indirectly to interfere with the religious belief of its heathen subjects, I for one cannot object to that word being taken in its fullest sense. But if by "neutrality" is secretly meant that there shall be stamped on the English Government and their representatives in India an aspect of entire indifference as to whether this religion or that is to prosper and abide—if by "neutrality" is meant that their characters are to exhibit that happy indifference as to Christianity which shall impress on the heathen mind the conviction that they care not whether they are Christians or heathens, then I believe that such neutrality would be fatal and false to the religion we profess, and that ultimately it would destroy the empire that has been entrusted to us. It seems to me that the distinction is plain and in-

  2019
  telligible between making the Indian people feel that we do not by force and fraud, by policy or by violence, interfere with their religious belief, because our own religion teaches us that such interference would be wrong, and impressing them with the conviction that we withhold our interference because we have ourselves no distinct preference for our own faith. One seems to me to be the line of Christian truth, and the other to be the line of a wicked neutrality; and I am only most anxious that nothing should go forth to mar the impression that we do not mean the English Government in India to be ashamed of its Christianity; but that we wish it to make due provision for the supply of the Christian necessities of its own troops and civil servants, because it believes Christianity to be true, and is not afraid in the face of its heathen subjects to show that it believes it to be true, and that it builds its own expectations of its continued prosperity upon the blessing of that God whom it professes to serve. I trust that that is the only sense in which neutrality as to the Christian religion is to be admitted into the future Government of India; and I think it the more important to declare this, because I cannot but feel that there have been in times past many instances in which neutrality was understood to mean carelessness about the truth of Christianity and a fear to avow in the face of heathendom that we were ourselves firm believers in the Christian revelation.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I think that the meaning of the words quoted by the noble Earl is very obvious—that the Government is not to interfere in any manner with the religion of its subjects in India; that it is not in its official capacity to use either force or corruption for the purposes of proselytism. I may say that it gave me great pleasure to hear the declaration which was made by the noble Earl at the head of the Government. I think that it was most useful and important—most useful with regard to the influence which it will produce upon the opinions of people in this country, and most important not only with respect to the temporal interests of the government in India, but as indicating the most advantageous system for the gradual spread of Christianity in that large kingdom. With regard to the policy of mercy which has been advocated this evening, I feel no distrust of Her Majesty's Government in that respect, and I am quite sure that there need be no fear of Lord Canning. It gives
  2020
  me great satisfaction to find the general concurrence which is now expressed by all in regard to that discrimination of punishment and to those principles of mercy for which the noble Lord made himself so very conspicuous last autumn, and then subjected himself to so much rebuke.
  On Question, Resolved, in the Affirmative.
  Bill passed accordingly and sent to the Commons.
  "Dissentient,—
  "1. Because the Bill establishes a Home Administration for India at once inefficient, unconstitutional, and expensive.
  "2. Because the Council it gives to the Secretary of State is too numerous for either deliberation or action, while the parties composing it consist mainly of the very individuals who were engaged in conducting that form of Government which the Bill itself condemns and supersedes.
  "3. Because the Measure provides that a moiety of the Council shall be chosen on the vicious and long-condemned principle of self-election.
  "4. Because the Members for Council are virtually appointed for life; and besides being endowed with large salaries and ample pensions, are moreover paid by a great patronage, for the dispensation of which they are wholly irresponsible.
  "5. Because the Government provided by this Bill, partaking largely of the character and composition of its condemned predecessor, holds out little hope that the misgovernment which has driven the people of India into rebellion will be abandoned.
  "6. Because the Members constituting the Council of India, while drawing large salaries and enjoying extensive patronage, are, contrary to Parliamentary precedent and sound principle, not prohibited from holding other offices of emolument, or engaging in commercial transactions; thus interfering with their efficiency as Public Servants, and exposing them to the suspicion of jobbing and corruption.
  "7. Because the Council constituted by the Bill, cumbrous, expensive, and inefficient, can have no other effect than either to thwart the Secretary of State, or to screen him from Parliamentary responsibility, while efficient and experienced Under Secretaries would have afforded more effectual and constitutional advice and assistance in the discharge of his duties.
  "ALBEMARLE."
  House adjourned at a quarter to Twelve o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.