Lords Sitting of 6 May 1879

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister (51), negatived.
Committee—Elementary Education Provisional Orders Confirmation (Brighton and Preston, &c.)*(48).
Committee—Report—Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation (London)* (47); Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Clonmel, &c.)* (49); Metropolis (Little Coram Street, Bloomsbury, Wells Street, Poplar, and Great Peter Street, Westminster) Improvement Provisional Orders Confirmation* (50).
Third Reading—Poor Law Amendment Act (1876) Amendment* (34), and passed.

SOUTH AFRICA—THE ZULU WAR— INSTRUCTIONS TO SIR BARTLE FRERE.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, some misunderstanding has been caused by the answers which have been given to Questions which were not quite similar in the two Houses of Parliament respecting the instructions to Sir Bartle Frere. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is reported to have said yesterday evening that Sir Bartle Frere had instructions, both negative as to what he was not to do in the policy of annexation and other things of that sort, and positive as to the object which he was to aim at in taking the steps he was to take to preserve the British Colonies from the danger by which they have been threatened by the overwhelming power of the Zulu Force. The noble Earl (Earl Cadogan) on Friday referred to the indications which are given in the despatch of March 20 of the opinion of the Government on these points; and he
  1782
  read an extract exactly in the same sense, but going no further, from a despatch of April 10. He observed that it was impossible for Her Majesty's Government to give more definite instructions till they had received the opinion of Sir Bartle Frere. The point which does not seem to have been cleared up in either House is this—whether Sir Bartle Frere is at liberty, in case the King of the Zulus makes any acceptable proposals, to take any steps at all, or is to refer the matter home, with a necessary delay of about two months. In the despatch of March 20, he is strictly desired to submit all demands and stipulations for the approval of Her Majesty's Government before peace is concluded; and, again, he is directed to avoid taking any decided step or committing himself to any positive conclusion respecting any of the questions until he has received instructions from Her Majesty's Government. My Question is, Whether any such further instructions have been sent to Sir Bartle Frere which enable him to act upon any proposals for peace without further reference to Her Majesty's Government.
  EARL CADOGAN: I have gathered from the ordinary sources of information that some misapprehension seems to exist, of the nature alluded to by the noble Earl, as to an apparent discrepancy between the answer given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the answer I had the honour of giving to the noble Earl. My Lords, I cannot acknowledge on my own part that any such discrepancy exists. The noble Earl asked me, a few nights ago, whether since the despatch, contained in the last Blue Book on the Table of your Lordships' House, any further instructions had been sent to Sir Bartle Frere with regard to the proposals of peace to be made to the King of Zululand. If the noble Earl had limited himself to asking that Question, my answer would have been a very simple one. I would have told him that no further instructions had been sent with regard to the articles of peace to be proposed; but that another despatch had been addressed to Sir Bartle Frere since the 20th of March—namely, on the 10th of April—giving general instructions to the High Commissioner, and expressing an earnest hope on the part of Her Majesty's Government that the military operations now being

  1783
  carried on would be directed to the bringing about of peace at the earliest possible opportunity. With regard to the instructions conveyed in the despatch of March 20, I can only repeat what I stated the other night—that in that dispatch the opinion of the Government was very clearly stated on at least two most important points contained in the Ultimatum presented by Sir Bartle Frere. It informed him that Her Majesty's Government would insist on the establishment of a British Resident in Zululand; and, further, that they were determined to insist on the disbandment of the Zulu Army—that is to say, the modification of the military system in Zululand. The noble Earl, formerly the Secretary of State for the Colonies (the Earl of Kimberley), stated that he considered that no instructions, or rather that only negative instructions, had been sent, and that Sir Bartle Frere had at this moment no means of knowing the terms on which he was to enter into the consideration of conditions of peace, should negotiations commence. My Lords, I believe the matter stands thus. If Sir Bartle Frere has an opportunity of commencing negotiations for peace with the King of the Zulus, he has ample instructions—ample knowledge of the views of Her Majesty's Government as to the main points upon which such negotiations should be framed. Further than that, no instructions have been sent to him. Although, as I understand, he certainly has full liberty to commence negotiations, he can take no decided step without previously obtaining the sanction of Her Majesty's Government—a limitation to which, after the proceedings in this House at an earlier part of the Session, the noble Earl and his Friends will probably not object.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, his recollection was rather at variance with the explanation now given. He understood the other evening that Her Majesty's Government were waiting for some further information from Sir Bartle Frere before they could be in a condition to give him instructions as to the terms of peace. He now understood that further instructions had been given which contained the principles on which Sir Bartle Frere might negotiate.
  EARL CADOGAN: I wish to be clearly understood. I do not mean to say that further instructions as to conditions of
  1784
  peace have been given to Sir Bartle Frere besides those contained in the despatch of March 20.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: The noble Earl says Her Majesty's Government are awaiting further information from Sir Bartle Frere. I beg to ask the noble Earl whether that is the position of the matter?
  EARL CADOGAN: In the despatch of the 20th of March, Her Majesty's Government have asked the opinion of Sir Bartle Frere as to certain matters, and I think your Lordships will be of opinion that it is natural that no further instructions should be sent to him until his replies have been received.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that nothing could be fairer than the statement of the noble Earl; but still this matter was not quite clear. He was still at a loss to know whether Sir Bartle Frere was in a position to come to a positive conclusion without receiving further instructions from Her Majesty's Government.
  THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD: I think, my Lords, it is unusual that a subject of this importance should be brought on without some notice. I may say that, in my opinion, Sir Bartle Frere is sufficiently acquainted now with the general views of the Government on what I consider the vital grounds upon which peace may be re-established to act for himself. It is unfortunate that the means of communication are so difficult—but, at all events, he is fully acquainted with the leading principles on which we expect peace to be established between Her Majesty and the King of the Zulus. There may be reserve as to details, and it is impossible but that such should be the case, as the means of communication with Sir Bartle Frere is not easy. No doubt, it will be necessary that Sir Bartle Frere should consult the Government further; but at present he may enter upon negotiations for peace with a thorough knowledge of the main principles of the policy of the Government.
  EARL GRANVILLE: Would there be any objection to producing the Papers which give Sir Bartle Frere the authority he possesses?
  THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD: I understand that further Papers will shortly be laid upon the Table, and from them, no doubt, the noble Earl will obtain the information he desires.

LETTERKENNY RAILWAY BILL.

  MOTION FOR RE-COMMITMENT.
  VISCOUNT LIFFORD, in moving that the Bill be re-committed, said, that it was one which vitally concerned a district as large as Oxfordshire, in a county in which he was the only resident Peer. He made no charge against the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees, who had said that this Motion was an insult, and had even announced that he would resign his high Office if it were carried. It was no insult to any man to say that he had made an error of judgment. The Company was incorporated 19 years ago. The promoters were not sufficiently aware that, in a county so thinly inhabited by the upper classes as Donegal, third-class passengers and the port and mart to which they had to take their produce were to be looked to; and the line was run towards Dublin rather than towards Londonderry. This was remedied by an Act of 1863, which enabled them to run direct to Derry by joining a railway called the Lough Swilly line. Up to 1865, £80,000 had been expended. From that time to the present five Acts had been obtained at the cost of private subscriptions for an extension of time, and the efforts of the directors to go on with the work had been unceasing. There were law, land, and engineering debts amounting to £20,000. Assuming that the directors could place two mortgages, amounting to £85,000, there was a third of the £15,000 of no value whatever; and it was in assuming that they could place this, and in forgetting their debts, that the error of the noble Earl consisted. With their £65,000 the directors could find a contractor and make their line, but only on the narrow gauge; and when the line was made they thought they would be able to place the third mortgage of £15,000. They had found it impossible to make a broad gauge line. Narrow gauge lines had been tried with success in Ireland, Scotland, and the Isle of Man; and many shareholders now regretted their lines were made before it was discovered that a 3 feet gauge was as convenient and practicable as the broad gauge; while it was far more easily made and far more cheaply worked. The promoters of the line into which the above would run, which had never paid any dividend, were ready to alter their gauge
  1786
  to the narrow gauge; the people of the district were unanimously in favour of the Bill, and ready to be taxed for a guarantee by a rate on each farm-holding. They thought it strange the noble Earl should think he knew their affairs better than they did themselves. The Standing Orders only gave the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees power, "if he thinks fit," to report to the House that any unopposed Bill should be proceeded with as an opposed Bill. There was an utter absence of any trace of a Resolution giving him the enormous power of rejecting Bills because they were unopposed. His only discretion seemed to be that of either passing a Bill or referring it to a Select Committee; and he asked their Lordships to act on the 95th Standing Order, and refer this Bill, if still opposed by the noble Chairman, to a Select Committee as an opposed Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be re-committed."—(The Viscount Lifford.)
  LORD WAVENEY, in support of the Motion, urged that for years the promoters of the Bill had been vainly endeavouring to raise the capital necessary for the construction of a broad-gauge line; they had tried every expedient, and they had utterly failed. Meanwhile, the advance of engineering skill had rendered more easy than before the construction and working of a narrow-gauge line, by which alone it was possible to develop the resources of this part of the country and provide a remunerative traffic for the existing lines. In cases of this kind, it was found desirable that Grand Juries of counties should give a guarantee, in order that lines on the narrow gauge might be made. He was quite aware that it was a breach of the law to make such a railway; but public policy had justified that breach of that law. But cases arose where even the powers of a guarantee failed, and in those instances where narrow gauge lines had been sanctioned they had developed a large part of the district. It should also be borne in mind that the narrow-gauge lines were merely supplemental lines to the broad-gauge railways, and could not be called competing lines. In the existing circumstances of Ireland, it would be utterly hopeless to do any thing to develop railway communication in this part of the country

  1787
  except in the manner proposed by this Bill.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES)said, that if their Lordships knew what the Private Business of the House was, they would see the necessity of supporting the authority vested in and exercised by the Chairman of Committees. Of the 64 Bills commenced in that House that Session, four, at least, contained provisions which ought not to be enacted by Private Bill legislation. One Bill promoted by a company, and giving them powers in relation to the control and management of their own business, sought to impose fines on offenders in a manner which could not be entertained except in public legislation. In other cases, too, promoters sought to do things by private legislation which were contrary to public policy. This Bill came before him as an unopposed Private Bill; it proposed to alter the line to a 3 feet gauge, instead of the national gauge, and the question for him to consider was whether this was a proper thing for him to sanction. He expressed a doubt about it, and the promoters asked that time should be allowed to enable them to produce more evidence, which he granted. He inquired into the case, and found that the company had been a very unfortunate one. It had been some 18 years in existence, and had done little, except under their first Act they had spent £80,000. Nearly all the land had been purchased, and all the works executed were for a national gauge line. The Resolution passed by their Lordships' House the other evening was that it was expedient to sanction the construction of narrow-gauge railways in districts where there were difficulties in the way, or that national gauge railways would be unremunerative. Now, in this particular case, there were no difficulties in the way of constructing a broad-gauge line; and with respect to its being unremunerative, the same company came to Parliament last year and asked for compulsory powers to purchase certain lands, and an extension of time to complete the line to 1881, but never said a word about requiring more capital or constructing it on a narrow gauge. Under these circumstances, he refused to sanction the scheme. The simple question was whether it was desirable to allow an existing company to lay down an arrow-gauge line. The
  1788
  invariable rule of the House was, when a Bill was reported against in any way, it was never re-committed, except with the consent of the Committee, considering that they had not the proper evidence before them. The whole question turned on this. Had they confidence in the Chairman of Committees? If not, he was no longer fit for the Office he held. He had been 29 years Chairman of Committees, and this was the first time anything of this kind had been brought against him. The jurisdiction he excercised was committed to him by the House for the advantage of the public. His discretion or authority might be questioned, and the judgment of the noble Viscount (Viscount Lifford) might be preferred to his; but if the House should so decide, he considered that his utility as Chairman of Committees was gone, and he was no longer fit to hold his Office. He must say he should pity the man who came after him.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he would not go into the merits of this case—the House invariably refused to re-commit a Bill if the Committee were of opinion there was no primâ facie case. The noble Earl in this House represented the Committee, and they had heard what he had stated. The practice was essential to the good working of the private legislation of the House, and he certainly should not be a party to question or weaken the authority of the Chairman of Committees. The noble Earl had been Chairman of Committees, as he had stated, for 29 years, and by the able manner in which he had discharged his arduous duties he had done more than any other individual in the House to maintain the high character of the House with regard to Private Business.
  After a few words from Viscount Liepord, which were inaudible,
  THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD: I remember in the other House of Parliament there was a Rule that Ministers should never vote on Private Bills or anything connected with them. I wish that was the Rule in the House where I have the honour to sit at present. Both my Colleagues and I would then feel free from much painful responsibility. The question is one of some complication, and there are points on which two opinions may be fairly formed; but I think the evils to the public and to

  1789
  the Private Business of the House would be so great if our Chairman of Committees were not supported that I cannot approve of the Motion.
  On Question? Resolved in the Negative.

MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.—(No. 51.)
(The Lord Houghton.)
MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.—(No. 51.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE PRINCE OF WALES: My Lords, I have to present to your Lordships a Petition, signed by 3,258 farmers of Norfolk, praying for the legalization of marriage with a deceased wife's sister. I present it, my Lords, on local as well as on general grounds. It is my firm conviction that if this Bill passed it would be of advantage to the community at large; and I shall, therefore, give my hearty support to the noble Lord who moves the second reading of the Bill to-night.
  THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELDalso presented a Petition in favour of the Bill to the same effect from 1,152 farmers of Buckinghamshire.
  Petitions were also presented from the Convention of the Royal Burghs of Scotland; from certain Aldermen and Common Councillors of London, and others.
  LORD HOUGHTON*, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said: My Lords, I bring this Bill forward as a measure of relief. I use the word advisedly, as one with which our Legislature is familiar. Such relief is given from restrictions imposed in other periods, and under other influences of thought and action, of which these are the survivals, but which are now neither politic nor desirable. Such was the great measure of relief commonly called Catholic Emancipation, such the relief from the Jewish Disabilities. I am most anxious to induce your Lordships to regard this measure in this aspect; for just as Catholic Emancipation was carried by the great Party that had made the Protestant Revolution, and as the advocates for the relief of the Jews in no way impugned the priceless worth of Christianity, so, in giving your assent to this Bill, I do not ask your Lordships for your individual approval or sanction, but only for your removal of a restric-
  1790
  tion in the case of others who hold a different opinion. You may believe that these marriages are inappropriate, unwise, and even inconvenient to certain classes of society, and yet believe that you have no right to prevent them. I would further ask your Lordships to consider this question, not only apart from all Party motives, but also from any associations of the Order to which you especially belong, and to regard it solely as connected with the habits and desires of a large mass of the British nation, comprising not only the workers in the field and city, but that large middle class whose habits are in some degree different from your own, but whose wishes, expressed decidedly as they have been, your Lordships would do wisely not to neglect.
  I am relieved from the necessity of going into a long historical narration by the circumstance that the question is not a new one to your Lordships. You know, as well as I do, how closely it has connected itself with some of the most important events in English history. The dispute of a marriage of affinity not only affected the succession of the English Crown for a century, but changed the religion of the English people. Forbidden by the Statute of Henry VIII.—which, in itself, implied their previous legality under the dispensation of the Church—these marriages were expressly sanctioned by the Act of the test of Philip and Mary, and the subsequent abolition either of that Act, or only of a portion of it, by Elizabeth, afforded ground for legal arguments and contradictory judicial decisions. But, at any rate, the legislation on these two Acts remained confined to the uncertain, and, so to say, semi-legal operation of the Ecclesiastical Courts, which practically made these marriages, not void ab initio, but only voidable by legal process so easily debarred and circumvented as to be very rarely put in action.
  This state of things continued down to the reign of William IV., when, in 1835, special attention was called to the subject by a Bill brought in by Lord Lyndhurst for the purpose of validating such marriages. Although this measure may have been set in motion to meet a special case, it was intended as a measure of general relief, and only in consequence of the urgency of that case,

  1791
  in which every day was deemed of importance by the parties immediately concerned, was the opposition, weak in itself, but fortified by private considerations, met by the insertion of a clause declaring all such marriages prior to the passing of the Bill valid, and all similar marriages in the future void. This clause was rejected by the House of Commons, and the Bill so amended came up again to this House, when the clause was re-inserted; and, as it was late in the Session—everyone knows what happens at the end of a Session—the Bill was allowed to pass with this obnoxious clause, but with an undertaking, between Lord Lyndhurst and other parties interested in the matter, that this limitation should be removed in the ensuing Session. And natural enough would have been this expectation, even without any private agreement. For what, my Lords, was the moral position to which the House and the country were committed by the passing of that Act? The Legislature declared that such marriages after a certain date were to be unlawful, and in the religious aspect sinful, and yet they were made obligatory on all who had contracted them up to that date. By one part of that Act Parliament placed a certain number of persons in a position in which, if they came to consider these marriages wrong and void, they could be enforced upon them by an action for the restitution of conjugal rights; by another clause Parliament declared them void ab initio, and by implication sinful. There neither was, nor is there, in fact, in the Statute Book of any country in the world an Act so inconsistent in its provisions, so repugnant to common sense, and so shocking to the first dictates of morality. When, then, notwithstanding the passing of Lord Lyndhurt's Act, virtuous men and women went on contracting these marriages just as they had done, it should never be forgotten what is the character of the legality they disregarded—what is the abnormal and distorted legislation they defied. I especially recommend this consideration to those of your Lordships who look on the retrospective clause of this Act as obnoxious and uncalled for. But law-abiding Englishmen chafed under the anomaly and injustice of this position, and before long two men, whose names are dear to this
  1792
  House—the first Lord Wharncliffe and the first Lord Ellesmere—brought the question in successive years before the House of Commons, the ultimate result being that a Royal Commission, on which sat eminent lawyers representing the three parts of the United Kingdom, presided over by a most estimable occupant of the right reverend Bench, Bishop Lonsdale, was appointed to consider the whole question anew. That Commission reported, in 1848, that they would give no opinion on the subject-matter; but they were convinced that these marriages were going on quite as much as heretofore—that they were contracted by persons of good social position and of the best moral character, and that they could not be affected by legislation one way or the other. The Commission, therefore, left the question to the wisdom of Parliament to solve as best they might, in no way impugning their right of action or prejudicing the justice of the case. Accordingly, attempts were again made to remedy the state of the law by the introduction of Bills in the House of Commons similar to that now before your Lordships. Seven times has the will of the people been expressed by various majorities, sometimes approaching 100, in support of these Bills, and seven times have they been rejected by the House of Lords. That, assuredly, is not a satisfactory position in which to leave the question, and in the meantime these marriages are multiplying every day. No less an average than 50 are annually contracted by British subjects in the small town of Neufchatel alone, notwithstanding that the marriages so celebrated on the Continent, and once assumed to be valid in this country, have now been decided to be illegal, on no special ground but on the general issue that the lex loci abroad cannot supersede an explicit English law.
  During this period our Colonies have not been silent, and to this fact I desire to draw your Lordships' serious attention. South Australia, Victoria, Tasmania, New South Wales, Queensland, and Western Australia, have passed Acts legalizing these marriages. A Bill of the same nature has passed the Lower House of New Zealand, and twice in the Legislature of Natal, which Colony has now, unfortunately, something else to think of. Such marriages are practically legal in the whole Canadian Domi-

  1793
  nion, the West Indies, and, it is believed, in tire Channel Islands. At home, the question has made great progress, especially in Scotland and Ireland. I remember the time when only three Representatives from Scotland could be counted in support of the Bill; but now you have the important Petitions from the Convention of Royal Burghs, representing 60 municipalities, which I present to-night, as well as many representative Petitions from other municipalities not included in the Convention. The magistrates and Town Council of Edinburgh recently agreed by a majority of 24 to 12 to Petition in support of the measure, and the United Presbyterian Church have, through their kirk sessions and presbyteries, arrived at the conclusion that marriages of the nature with which this Bill deals ought not to be a bar to Church membership. As to Ireland, I may state that the Corporation of Dublin have five times sent Petitions to this House, and that 40 other corporations in Ireland have petitioned in the same sense. I may also mention that the late respected Cardinal Cullen authorized me to say that he had no difficulty in acceding privately to the opinion expressed by Cardinal Wiseman, and other dignitaries of that Church, although he declined to sign any Petition because of the difference of views existing among his clergy. In England, the most important corporations, that of the City of London being at the head of them, have repeated their adhesions; and this evening the Petitions presented by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, and by the Prime Minister, as well as that by myself from three Bishops and upwards of 200 Roman Catholic clergy, including the Superiors of the chief religious Orders, confirm our opinion.
  The Petitions from the farmers of Norfolk and the County of Buckingham show that in those districts there is an especially large majority of persons who desire a change in the existing law. It is, perhaps, in the comparatively lonely and separate life of the English farmer that this restriction presses most habitually and cruelly; for, in the larger towns, there is a freer intercourse, and more opportunity for selection.
  With regard to the present position of the question, I should have wished to have dealt with it exclusively as a social
  1794
  one, and I need not assure your Lordships that I am deeply impressed with the gravity of this aspect of the subject. This is a point of view in which every man must judge for himself, but with this limitation—that he must remember that this Bill is not intended to operate to any largo extent in the rank of life to which your Lordships belong, but among the less favoured and more numerous classes of the nation. In my own belief, the passing of this measure will make no practical difference in the relations of the domestic life of any order of society, and will rather tend to diminish than increase the probability of scandal, and the obliquities of suspicion. The goodwill accorded to these marriages in Now England, where they are not only permitted but favoured by public opinion, confirms the probability of this issue.
  My Lords, I deeply regret that the rejection of the Bill is to be moved by my right rev. Friend (the Bishop of London), not only from the personal authority and individual gravity of that opposition, but from the inevitable consequence that the question is thus taken out of the sphere of ordinary debate, and transferred to the sphere of religious controversy. Surely, it would have been wiser and happier if the right rev. Bench had allowed this matter to be at least ostensibly decided by their lay Colleagues. It should not be forgotten that all the Nonconformist Bodies, without the exception of a single sect, are in favour of the Bill; and what is the immense proportion they bear in the Christian community of this country? The present law is, most unfortunately, maintained chiefly by the action of the Church of England; and I cannot think that the rigorous opposition of the right rev. Bench to this Bill in comparison with the interest they take in the discussions of the House, and the infrequency of their attendance at its deliberations, will contribute to the national goodwill to the Church. There can be no pretence of special grievance on the part of the Church of England necessarily resulting from this measure, because no minister who does not wish to celebrate such marriages would be compelled to do so. If it is thought worth while, a clause to that effect can be inserted in Committee; but, as in the case of the marriage

  1795
  of divorced persons, the opinion and feelings of every cleryman would be undoubtedly respected without any such provision.
  With regard to the oft-cited passage in the Book of Leviticus, it would be interesting if any member of the learned Body now engaged in the revision of the Old Testament would inform the House what opinion had been expressed as to the admissibility of the marginal reading so much relied upon by opponents of these marriages. On this point there has been so much learned and unlearned discussion in both Houses that I will content myself with citing a passage in a letter I lately received from the eminent Oriental scholar, Professor Max Muller, who says—
  "How any Hebrew scholar could so misinterpret Leviticus xviii. 18, as to make it a prohibition of marriage with a deceased wife's sister is a puzzle to me. I know of one analogous case only—the falsification of a verse in the ' Veda,' by which it was turned into a commandment for the burning of a widow on the death of her husband."
  But this episcopal attitude, no doubt, places the parochial clergy in a painful position. A considerable number, including the late excellent vicar of my own nearest town, make no secret of their habit of celebrating these marriages without questioning the parties beyond the liturgical form, in the plain interests of decency and morality; but others, no doubt, like a "Poor Parson," who wrote an affecting appeal that appeared in The Standard newspaper during the last winter, have scruples and anxieties which I call on your Lordships to relieve. This letter ended thus—
  "I sincerely hope that something will be done to remedy the painful position of thousands of deserving families during the coming Session of Parliament, for, if not, I am convinced that the question will be made very prominent in the next General Election; and I would not support any Member who would not pledge himself to vote for the removal of this oppressive law."
  It is in this sense, also, that the opinion of that great Divine of our Church, the late Dean Hook, is especially valuable. It has, indeed, been so often quoted that I should not now repeat it but for one unfortunate circumstance. In the interesting life of that good man, lately published, it is recorded that his opinion at one period was in accordance
  1796
  with that of the right rev. Bench; but it is strangely omitted that the practical experience of his administration of the great parish of Leeds altogether altered his views, and made him an earnest advocate of this measure. I trust this error, which I hope was unintentional, will be rectified in another edition. In the meantime, I will read to you an extract from this letter of Dr. Hook, and ask you to think how strong must have been the conviction which not only contradicted his former conviction, but placed him in open antagonism with the noble Lord who once occupied the Woolsack in this House, and with whom he was connected by a friendship that may find a place in any future English treatise, De Amicitâ. Dr. Hook wrote, in 1849—
  "If a Bill were brought into Parliament to compel me to solemnize such marriages, I should resist it as an act of tyranny. But Mr. Wortley does not propose to compel the Church to solemnize such marriages. Therefore, as a Churchman, I have no ground for complaint against his measure. … People in general do not consider such marriages improper. They cannot be proved to be improper by Scripture. The question is, therefore, one of expediency, and my experience as a parochial minister induces me to think the measure expedient."
  And he concludes—
  "On these grounds, if ever a Convocation be called, and I be elected one of the proctors, I shall move for an alteration, in this regard, in the table of kindred and affinity. Until this be the case, I shall be glad to see such marriages legalized by the civil rite."
  And now, my Lords, I pray you to give a second reading to this Bill. If you do so, you will relieve thousands of your fellow-citizens, honest men and honest women, from a deep sense of partial legislation and cruel injustice; if you reject this Bill, you will force on them the conviction that they might, like yourselves, enjoy the great happiness of family life with those they love best, without discomfort to themselves or dishonour to their offspring, were it not for the intolerance of the Church of England and the social prejudices of the House of Lords. The noble Lord concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Houghton.)
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONwas understood to express his regret that he felt

  1797
  himself obliged to oppose the noble Lord who had just sat down on a subject which that noble Lord had made his own by a perseverance which, he must say, he thought worthy of a better cause. He could not, however, admit that a Bishop of the Church of England should not take part in a discussion like the present. If they were to be excluded from expressing an opinion on a subject such as this, in what discussions were they to be permitted? The Bill before the House proposed to alter a law which was undoubtedly the law of the Christian Church—a law which was closely connected with the happiness, the peace, and the purity of family life; and if the Bishops of the Church of England were not to be allowed to stand forward and express their opinion on such a proposal, he hardly know of and question on which they were to exercise that right. The noble Lord (Lord Houghton) had advocated the Bill on the ground of popular feeling, and had appealed to the Petitions which had been presented in its favour, to the proceedings of the other House of Parliament, and to the large number of the cases in which these marriages had been contracted; but he scarcely glanced at the reasons which had always been urged in opposition to the measure, not only by the Bench of Bishops, but by a largo proportion of the clergy and laity of the Church, as well as by many Nonconformists. With respect to Petitions, their Lordships would know how to discount the value of them by the circumstances which had given rise to them. Ever since the passing of Lord Lyndhurst's Act, no doubt, many persons who had, unhappily, contracted such marriages—many of them estimable and charitable men, influenced by natural feelings—had agitated the question; and by the agency of canvassers all over the country, by advertisements in newspapers, and other means, persistent efforts had been made to obtain a great number of Petitions on behalf of that proposed change from all classes and various grades of society. The great body of the public, however, who desired no change, had, as usual, remained quiet; and they had meanwhile placed confidence in the wisdom of Parliament, and had presented few such Petitions, because they relied that it would not hastily sanction any such measure. The Petitions presented in
  1798
  favour of the change had emanated, it was to be observed, from men. Was the noble Lord opposite prepared to say that the women of England were on his side? [Lord HOUGHTON: Yes.] He entirely dissented from that statement. He believed that the immense majority of the women of England were against that measure. There had been eight Parliaments since the passing of Lord Lyndhurst's Act. Out of these eight, the second, third, fourth, and seventh declared themselves in favour of the Bill. The fifth Parliament rejected it altogether in one year; in the next year the second reading was carried, but the Bill failed in Committee. The first, sixth, and eighth Parliaments rejected it. Did that show that opinion had increased in its favour? The majorities for it were never large; they ranged from 7 to 99. The first time the Bill was carried in the House of Commons the majority was 52; the last time it was41:so that, so far as the test of Divisions in the other House went, opinion in favour of the Bill had not progressed since 1842. The measure had never passed a second reading in their Lordships' House, and he sincerely trusted it never might do so. The noble Lord (Lord Houghton) had referred to the legislation of the Colonies on that subject. Some of our Colonies had, doubtless, adopted this law. He did not question their competency to pass such a measure if they thought fit; but he thought their Lordships were hardly prepared to follow the Colonies in all their legislation. The noble Lord had briefly touched upon what he called the peculiar notions of the Church of England in reference to this subject; but the noble Lord appeared to forget that the Christian Church had held these peculiar notions for probably 1,800 years. The noble Lord had dwelt upon what might be termed the Scripture arguments in favour of this Bill. It was true that there was no direct prohibition of these marriages to be found in Scripture; but it must not be assumed that, therefore, it was intended to approve them. Because the Scriptures did not prohibit a man from marrying his own daughter, although a son was prohibited from marrying his mother, it would be absurd to contend that this authorized marriages between fathers and their daughters. The inference that the

  1799
  Church had from the earliest times drawn from the Scriptures was that these marriages were unlawful. It was true that the Church of Rome had occasionally granted dispensations permitting such marriages; but that Church had also granted dispensations permitting marriages where the relationship between the parties was much nearer, and was clearly within the prohibited degrees. The Jews were not united on the subject, one sect permitting, and the other prohibiting, these marriages. Much stress was laid upon the fact that in the 18th verse of the 18th chapter of Leviticus, a man was prohibited from marrying his wife's sister during the life of his wife; and here, again, the inference was drawn that this was an indirect authorization of the marriage after the wife's death. He, however, could not place that construction upon the language of the verse. Referring to the social aspect of the case, he felt that, if this Bill were to become law, great evil must necessarily result. He was astonished to hear the noble Lord state that a large proportion of these marriages took place among the middle classes. His own experience had naturally been mostly amongst the middle classes; and he could assure the noble Lord, from that experience, that the number of such marriages was very small. Under the existing law the relationship of a husband with that of his wife's sister was that of almost brother and sister, and it led to much comfort and happiness in households. This was not a state of things that should be touched without very great consideration. The position of the wife's sister in a household must become much changed if she might become the wife, and might be becoming already the rival, of her sister's husband; and although there might, of course, be well-balanced minds upon which the change in the law would produce but little effect, nevertheless there were many other persons of a jealous disposition who would find that such a change would tend to disunite their households. If it were true that the happiness of married life and the peace and purity of the family were maintained by the restriction which at present existed, as he held they were, their Lordships would not be justified in taking away that prohibition. It was said that the sister of a deceased wife was the true guardian of her orphan children.
  1800
  He entirely appreciated that argument—none were so fitted to take the place of the deceased mother in the care of her children than that mother's sister, and on that ground he trusted their Lordships would not deprive children so placed of that protection; for he believed that the effect of this measure, in the majority of cases, would be to deprive their children of their natural guardian. For his part, he believed from his experience of a large population—and such also was the experience of other clergymen with large parishes—that the proportion of widowers who desired to marry their deceased wife's sister was very small; and, to enable the few to marry their children's aunts, this measure would deprive the children of the many of an aunt's almost parental care. It was, no doubt, hard that those who had disregarded the law should find themselves in their present condition, and he could not but sympathize with them; but that was no sufficient reason for altering the law. This was not a time to interfere with the sanctity of domestic life. Very recently the painful case had been brought under his notice of a man who had married his deceased son's widow, and who defended the act on the very ground that marriage with a deceased wife's sister was defended—that he was the natural guardian of his son's children. An advertisement had recently appeared in a newspaper calling upon those who desired to marry their nieces not to trouble themselves to petition in support of Sir Thomas Chambers's Bill, because, as a necessary consequence of the passing of that Bill, a Bill to legalize such marriages would be sure to be introduced and carried. He regretted that this Bill had been brought in. These were questions which it was almost as mischievous to raise as to carry; and the mere possibility that this Bill might become law might cause hopes which ought never to be excited, and suggest fears which had better not be felt. And he hoped that their Lordships would not only reject it, but do so by such a majority as might settle the question for the present generation at least—that they would show by their vote on this occasion that they refused to alter a law which had, at least, some claim to be a law of God; and which was undoubtedly a law of the Church. It would show, too, that their Lordships

  1801
  were not disposed to legislate for the few to the detriment of the many, or to disturb the peace and happiness of families, and injure the purity of domestic life. He begged to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
  Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day six months.")—(The Lord Bishop of London.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that he was at the Colonial Office when the first Bill to legalize marriage with a deceased wife's sister was received in this country from South Australia. As their Lordships were aware, he had always been in favour of the present Bill; nevertheless, when the first Colonial Bill came before him, he hesitated to advise Her Majesty to assent to it, having regard to the extreme inconvenience of there being different marriage laws in different parts of the Empire. The Bill, accordingly, went back to the Colony. It was once more passed by the Legislature; and, in these circumstances, believing it to be unwise to maintain the conflict with Colonial opinion, he advised Her Majesty to assent to the Bill, which accordingly became law. The argument, however, offered by the noble Lord (Lord Houghton), that because these Colonial Acts were passed therefore a similar Act ought to be passed for this country, was one which he felt bound personally to repudiate. It might be perfectly legitimate for a Colony possessing self-government to alter its marriage laws if it thought fit; but it was altogether unreasonable that that Colony on its part should dictate to the Mother Country what policy it ought to pursue. Into the general question he did not wish to enter further than to say that he did not see why they should be bound by the Levitical law in this matter. What they had to consider was, whether in a case in which such strong feeling existed, it was wise to maintain a prohibition which was calculated to produce much social misery. He thought not, and should, therefore, as heretofore, vote in favour of the Bill.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, the right rev. Prelate had endeavoured to show that these marriages were prohibited in Scripture, by inference that the prohibitions in case of males
  1802
  applied also to females; but by thus defending the law, which was a shred and relic of canon law, he would be taxing the Catholic Church of Rome with having for a long period granted dispensations from the Divine Law, when it was well known that that Church never granted dispensations, except from its own regulations. The right rev. Prelate also referred to the Creek Church; but the prohibitions of that Church were very far fetched; for instance, it did not allow two brothers to marry two sisters, and it did not allow a woman to be married more than three times in her lifetime. The right rev. Prelate also referred to Mussulman law; but, with regard to that, he had been misinformed. Mussulman law forbade a man to marry two sisters at once; but it allowed a man to marry a deceased wife's sister, as there was no relationship between them. Clause 2 of the Bill showed that the present state of the law was an incentive to wrong and injustice, since a man might marry his deceased wife's sister abroad, and get rid of her by marrying another woman; and that was hardly a state of things which the right rev. Bench would wish to encourage.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOKsaid, he wished only to say a few words on the question. He had heard this question discussed in the other House again and again, and he regretted that the noble Lord opposite (Lord Houghton) had not taken the advice given him by Sir George Grey, 16 or 18yearsago, when the Bill was first introduced by him, that if he did not succeed at once in carrying it he should desist from, the further agitation of a question which caused so much distress in the country. The noble Lord said the arrangement of a wife's unmarried sister taking charge of her brother-in-law a house was an unusual one. That statement was made in a previous debate in the House of Commons; and a distinguished Member of that House, whose name he would not mention, but who was a distinguished Member of that House, rose in his place and gave a practical refutation to it by stating that he himself for many months had enjoyed the benefit of such an arrangement; and with much emotion, and with great effect upon his audience, deplored the disturbance of such relations by such a measure. Were the Bill to pass, the relationship which now existed between brothers and sisters-in-law,

  1803
  which was similar to that existing between actual brothers and sisters, would be destroyed; and for that reason he opposed the present Bill. That relationship was of a much higher order than that which was desired by the promoters of the Bill. At present a woman could take charge of her brother-in-law's children, with no thought of passion, with nothing but an unselfish desire to do her sisterly duty, with no idea which could bring a blush to her cheek; but if this Bill passed, there would be a danger that an entirely different state of things would be introduced. The noble Lord opposite(Lord Houghton) stated that the vicar of a certain parish shut his eyes to the existing' prohibition in regard to the marriage of brothers and sisters-in-law, and introduced persons into what was practically a state of concubinage; but it was hardly conceivable that a clergyman of the Church of England could so far forget his duty. Such marriages might be made lawful, but they could never, in his opinion, be made expedient. He entirely agreed with the right rev. Prelate who had addressed the House (the Bishop of London) that degrees of affinity were equally forbidden with degrees of consanguinity. He was not afraid to take his stand against the Bill, therefore, on the religious question. Looking at the matter from the social point of view, it would surely be admitted that a State had the right to lay down whatever laws it thought expedient. Now, this measure was one of those which, in common, he believed, with the mass of the people in this country, he regarded as in expedient. It was all very well to sanction only one degree of affinity in marriage; but could they stop there? The right rev. Prelate had given instances of marriages which appeared shocking to them at this moment; but these might perfectly well arise if the Bill were passed. He remembered, in the debate to which he had referred, Lord Russell saying that other decrees of affinity ought to be placed in the Bill, and that the same law should apply to brothers as to sisters. Thus, it appeared to the man of the great ability, the great reasoning power, and the great knowledge of human nature of Earl Russell, that a measure like the present would necessarily go much further than
  1804
  the noble Lord opposite supposed. The Bill would settle nothing. It would lead to renewed agitation; and they would before long be called upon to do for brothers what they were now asked to do with regard to sisters, and thus there would be no stop until they were urged to do things which were now shocking in their eyes. The noble Lord said he would do something in Committee, if the House wished it; but the Bill was out of the noble Lord's hands, and in possession of the House. It was retrospective in its character, and all those who had wilfully broken the law it proposed to place in the same position as those who had observed the law. Now, that result would be so injurious to the public interests that of itself it would be sufficient to condemn the Bill. In conclusion, he would only say that, in his opinion, it would ill become a Judicial House like that of their Lordships' to pass a Bill which contained so much that was contrary to the principles of morality and the common welfare.
  On Question, That ("now") stand part of the Motion? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 81: Not-Contents 101: Majority 20.

  CONTENTS.

  Wales, H.R.H. the Prince of

  Cardwell, V.

  Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

  Edinburgh, H.R.H. D.

  Hill, V.

  Bedford, D.

  Lifford, V.

  Devonshire, D.

  Powerscourt, V.

  Manchester, D.

  Abergavenny, M.

  Ripon, L. Bp.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Aberdare, L.

  Ripon, M.

  Ashford, L. (V. Bury.)

  Auckland, L.

  Airlie, E.

  Belper, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

  Derby, E.

  Ellesmere, E.

  Breadalbane, L. (E. Breadalbane.)

  Fortescue, E.

  Granville, E.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Harrington, E.

  Carrington, L.

  Ilchester, E.

  Charlemont, L. (E. Charlemont.)

  Jersey, E.

  Kimberley, E. [Teller.]

  Churchill, L.

  Minto, E

  Conyers, L.

  Morley, E.

  Cottesloe, L.

  Northbrook, E.

  de Ros, L.

  Spencer, E.

  Dorchester, L.

  Sydney, E.

  Dormer, L.

  Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

  Bangor, V.

  Bolingbroke and St. John, V.

  Gerard, L.

  Gormanston, L. (V. Gormanston.)

  Canterbury, V.

  1805

  Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

  Rivers, L.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Hampton, L.

  Sefton, L. (E. Sefton.)

  Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

  Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.)

  Hatherton, L.

  Houghton, L. [Teller.]

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Howard de Walden, L.

  Strafford, L. (V. Enfield.)

  Inchiquin, L.

  Keane, L.

  Suffield, L.

  Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)

  Thurlow, L.

  Tollemache, L.

  Kesteven, L.

  Truro, L.

  Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

  Vaux of Harrowden, L.

  Vernon L.

  Monson, L.

  Vivian, L.

  Mostyn, L.

  Waveney, L.

  Ponson by, L. (E. Bessborough.)

  Worlingham, L. (E. Gosford.)

  Ribblesdale, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Cairns, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Ely, L. Bp.

  Exeter, L. Bp.

  Gloucester and Bristol, L. Bp.

  Northumberland, D.

  Richmond, D.

  Hereford, L. Bp.

  Somerset, D.

  Lincoln, L. Bp.

  Llandaff, L. Bp.

  Bath, M.

  London, L. Bp.

  Bristol, M.

  Oxford, L. Bp.

  Salisbury, M.

  Salisbury, L. Bp.

  St. Albans, L. Bp.

  Amherst, E.

  St. David's, L. Bp.

  Annesley, E.

  Winchester, L. Bp.

  Beaconsfield, E.

  Beauchamp, E. [Teller.]

  Airey, L.

  Belmore, E.

  Bagot, L.

  Devon, E.

  Balfour of Burley, L.

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

  Blachford, L.

  Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

  Dundonald, E.

  Braybrooke, L.

  Effingham, E.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Eldon, E.

  Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

  Ferrers, E.

  Haddington, E.

  Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

  Harrowby, E.

  Mansfield, E.

  Clinton, L.

  Manvers, E.

  Colchester, L.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Coleridge, L.

  Mount Edgcumbe, E.

  Congleton, L.

  Nelson, E.

  Crewe, L.

  Powis, E.

  Denman, L.

  Redesdale, E.

  Dinevor, L.

  Rosse, E.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Saint Germans, E.

  Ettrick, L. (L. Napier.)

  Selkirk, E.

  Forbes, L.

  Shaftesbury, E. [Teller.]

  Forester, L.

  Stanhope, E.

  Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

  Strathmore and Kinghorn, E.

  Gordon of Drumearn, L.

  Waldegrave, E.

  Greville, L.

  Hammond, L.

  Bridport, V.

  Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)

  Cranbrook, V.

  Hardinge, V.

  Hatherley, L.

  Hawarden, V.

  Hawke, L.

  Strathallan, V.

  Heytesbury, L.

  Templetown, V.

  Kenlis, L. (M. Headfort.)

  Chester, L. Bp.

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

  Chichester, L. Bp.

  1806

  Massy, L.

  Selborne, L.

  Norton, L.

  Sherborne, L.

  O'Hagan, L.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Raglan, L.

  Rayleigh, L.

  Templemore, L.

  Romilly, L.

  Ventry, L.

  Ross, L. (E. Glasgow.)

  Windsor, L.

  Sackville, L.

  Winmarleigh, L.

  Saltoun, L,

  Wynford, L.

  Resolved in the Negative; and Bill to be read 2a on this day six months.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, to Thursday next, half-past Ten o'clock