Lords Sitting of 10 July 1896

MILITARY LANDS PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition thereto having been withdrawn; road and ordered to lie on the Table; The Orders made on the 25th and 29th of June last discharged; and Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Tuesday next.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  LONDONDERRY IMPROVEMENT BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
SHORT TITLES BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
LIVERPOOL COURT OF PASSAGE BILL.
Considered in Committee (according to Order); Amendments made; Standing Committee negatived; the Report of Amendments to be received on Tuesday next; and Bill to be printed as amended.—[No. 194.]

GLASGOW PARLIAMENTARY DIVISIONS BILL.
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR)said this Bill had come from the other House, through which it had passed without any Amendment and without any opposition. In 1885, when the redistribution of seats took place, the then new Parliamentary Divisions of Glasgow were made to fit
1194
exactly with the municipal wards of the city, and were described in the schedule to the Bill by the members of the wards. Since that time it had become necessary to extend the boundaries of the city of Glasgow; several boroughs had been absorbed in the city, and by an Act of Parliament passed in 1891 it was provided that the wards for municipal purposes should be re arranged and renumbered. Under the circumstances, the description of the Divisions for Parliamentary purposes by the number of the wards had ceased to be operative, and it had become necessary to redescribe them. Care had been taken to do now what should have been done ten years ago—to define the boundaries by marks and descriptions which would be always available. Under the circumstances, he hoped the House would have no hesitation in agreeing to the Second Reading of the Bill.
Read 2a (according to Order): and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Thursday next.

IRISH LAND COMMISSION.
THE EARL OF BELMOREsaid he rose to move the Motion which he had put on the Paper, and which he understood from his noble Friend who represented the Irish Office would be unopposed, provided he made a slight modification in the wording of it. The new form would give a little fuller information, and also bring the information down to a more convenient day. He begged to move for a—
"Return showing, according to provinces and counties, the results of applications for the re-hearing of cases heard by sub-commissions in each of the three years ended 31st March 1894, 1895 and 1896, setting forth the number of such appeals disposed of, and the number in which the notice of appeal was lodged—(1) by the landlord; (2) by the tenant; (3) by both landlord and tenant: and showing former rent, rent fixed by sub-commission, rent fixed after re-hearing, and differences per cent. between sub-commission rent and rent fixed after rehearing.
THE EARL OF RANFURLYsaid the Government had no objection to grant the Return in the form in which it was now moved.
Motion agreed to.

MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL [H.L.]
THE EARL OF BELMOREsaid he wished to make an explanation with regard to the vote he gave on the previous day upon Viscount Gal way's Amendment on Clause 2 of the Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister Bill. He was surprised to find, on looking at the Votes that morning, that he was entered as having voted for the Amendment, whereas his intention was to vote against it. He had made inquiries and found that he had been misled through his own fault, but he wished to draw attention to the error he had made.
THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN moved, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
*THE DUKE OF ARGYLL,who was received with cheers, on moving to leave out the word "now" and to add at the end of the motion the words "this day throe months," said: I rise to ask your Lordships to reconsider the decision which you came to on the Second Reading of this Bill. It is a little more than ten years since a similar duty devolved upon me. The House had passed the Second Reading of a like Bill, and when the motion for the Third Reading was moved, I appealed to the House to proceed no further with the Measure. On that occasion the Bill was stopped. I realise that I have now to confront a considerably larger majority in favour of the Second Reading, and that, therefore, I have less chance of success with the motion I have now to make. If I believed that the majority which was obtained on the Second Reading represented the matured opinion of the House, I should retire from the contest with a protest and nothing more; but some of my Friends have explained that majority in various ways. Lord Herschell seemed to hint that he knew of several cases in which Peers had changed their opinion upon the subject; others had said the majority consisted of the younger Peers, either by succession or by creation, and others had given various explanations of the majority. I have looked at the names in the division, and I am bound to say they resist all analysis. There was cross-voting amongst the Members of the Government, there was cross-voting amongst the younger peers by succession and by
1196
creation, and there was a great deal of cross-voting, to my surprise, amongst the Catholic peers. I am therefore unable to explain the change which has apparently come over the opinion of this House, unless it be as a result of careful management and of good whipping on the part of those who are in favour of the Bill. Under the circumstances, I am driven to see if anything was said during the Debate to account for the change of opinion in the House. A leading member of the Press has said the Debate was short and perfunctory. It certainly was very-short—there were only four speeches, two for and two against the Bill I think there were only four speeches and no speaker went deeply into the subject. At the same time, I am bound to confess that, remembering that Debate, I never recollect a Debate in which the leading ideas of those in favour of this Measure came out more clearly, and my principal object to-night will be to direct attention to the preconceptions which covered the whole of that discussion. There was a total putting by, a total and intentional omission, of everything connected with what is called the religious argument, and even the most reverend the Arch-bishop was so impressed with the secular atmosphere of the Assembly that he said he would not enter into the religious argument. I beg your Lordships to observe what this means. This Assembly is not one in which we would naturally discuss points of pure theology; but at any moment questions may arise, so close is the connection between Church and State, which may compel you to enter upon questions of pure theology. Look at this Bill itself. It is one which deeply concerns the administration of the sacraments. I must ask your Lordships a simple question—Do you remember what it is the marriage law is founded upon? Do you remember the fact—is it a little or a great fact—that marriage is the product of Christianity and Christianity alone? It rests altogether upon the authority and the traditions of the Church in Christ. Is it a rational course to say that you will discuss a Bill which makes a great breach in the existing law of marriage and will not consider at all the religious argument? And here I cannot help observing on the

1197
extraordinary language held by my noble and learned Friend Lord Herschell, who I suspect is the real father of the Bill.
LORD HERSCHELL: Oh, not at all. [Laughter.]
*THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: I am glad to hear him repudiate the parentage; but he is the principal, supporter of the Bill in this House. I am surprised at the language which he held with regard to the part taken by the Bench of Bishops. Does he remember who the Bishops are in he constitution of this country? They are one of the three estates of the realm. They are the most ancient an venerable part of this ancient and venerable Assembly. They represent in this House those traditions and doctrines of the Church of England on which the marriage law is founded. I am not myself a member of the Church of England, and it seems strange that it should fall to me to defend the position which that great body holds in this House; but I cannot hear these invidious distinctions drawn between the Bishops and other Members of this House without uttering a protest. In my younger days the Bishops took a more active part in secular discussions than they do now: and I say that on this question of marriage we are bound respectfully to hear them. What would my noble and learned Friend say if in regard to a great Bill dealing with the criminal law we treated with contempt, or comparative disparagement, the law Members of this House? He would think it a great outrage, and I think it is an equal outrage that any disparaging remarks should be east upon the Bishops of the Church of England. [Cheers.] The first preconception I find in the Debate was "No religion," and the second "No logic." [Laughter.] My noble relative Lord Percy asked, "Why do you confine it to marriage with a wife's sister; why not add the wife's niece?" The answer was, "Oh, bother logic; we don't care a halfpenny for it." That was the answer of the noble Lord and it was emphasised by my noble and learned Friend the ex-Lord Chancellor. He is a great lawyer—a very great lawyer—and he knows very well how the law of England has been built up—built up not merely by statute, but by arguments and decisions in the Courts of law, by precedent after precedent,
1198
argument after argument, until there arose that stately pile which we know as the Common Law. What is the weapon which he and his confrères use? Is it not logic? I never pass over any great Judgment without carefully reading it. In the great decisions of the Judges you have pure logic, pure reason. That is the weapon they use, and then conies down my noble and learned Friend and he ridicules logic. Is this a position for reasonable men to take up, or an argument which can be used in any Assembly which has any judgment to exercise on the matter? I think it is not. We are bound to look to logic, and if my noble and learned Friend says that logic has very little effect on the minds of men, I altogether deny his proposition. I say, on the contrary, that when an Act of Parliament is passed involving something novel in principle, and those who propose the Act wish to stop at a particular point, the invariable tendency and ultimate result is always that the idea which that Act involves works itself out in the course of time. ["Hear, hear!"] The noble and learned Lord said that nobody would ever want to marry his wife's niece, but within 24 hours of his speech another Member of this House, Lord Cowper, gave notice of an Amendment to include the wife's niece. He withdrew it because, I am told, he knew that it would wreck the Bill. There are a great number of noble Lords present who would legalise a marriage with a wife's sister, but not with a wife's niece. I say that is an illogical position, and one which cannot possibly stand in this country; and we have Lord Cowper's evidence that there is one distinguished Member of this House with a very logical mind who is prepared to go a step further. There are other steps following; there is the wife's aunt—why should she be not included? You may depend upon it if you break down the table of affinity the whole affinity will go by the board. [Cheers.] Therefore I say the language of the noble Lord, that we were to have no religion and no logic, shows the preposterously weak foundation upon which the whole of this argument is raised. There never was a greater mass of illogical confusion from beginning to end than this Bill. And I must complain of the conduct of this Bill in this House. I do not think it decent that a question

1199
affecting the religious opinions and feelings of a great body of the people should have been pressed forward with such haste. The Third Reading, the Standing Committee, and the Report stages have been taken in three consecutive days. You have by the confession of the author of this Bill essentially changed its character, and yet you are now urging it forward. In whose interests has this been done? I am sorry to say I have been told that it is in the interests and for the personal convenience of a particular section of this House which is in favour of the Bill. I do not understand why this Bill was not introduced earlier in the present Session, when your Lordships' time was not much occupied. My noble Friend Lord Dunraven said, Do not be afraid of the consequences of this Bill. But what security did he give us? Not religion, not logic, but trust in human instincts. As to human instincts in this question of the relations of the sexes, do we not all know that on this subject men's instincts are utterly corrupt, and that everywhere, except when under the influence of religion and tradition, they resort to practices ruinous to their race, and lower than any that are practiced by the beast? That is the instinct that my noble Friend asks us to rely upon. One of the greatest of our historians, Gibbon, has occasion, in a curious passage, to deal with this very question of the instincts of humanity on the question of marriage. He says that an instinct almost innate and universal appears to prohibit the incestuous commerce of parents and children in the infinite series of ascending and descending generations, but that concerning the oblique and collateral branches nature is indifferent, reason is mute, and custom is various and arbitrary. In Egypt, he continues, the marriage of brothers and sisters was admitted without scruple or question; a Spartan might espouse the daughter of his father, an Athenian that of his mother; and the nuptials of an uncle with his niece were applauded at Athens as a happy union of the dearest relations. That is the human instinct which my noble Friend tells us we are to trust to. My own belief is that the highest instincts in the noblest Members of this House are the inherited instincts of Christianity and the Church. ["Hear, hear!"] Do you suppose that these
1200
horrible unions to which Gibbon refers, and which now revolt every civilised man, are by mere animal instinct impossible in your own country after so many years of Christianity? If you do I will not refer to what I have been told by my old Friend Lord Shaftesbury as to what he knew went on in the dwellings of the poor, but I will tell you a story about the late Lord Dalhousie. He had taken up this Measure with perfect simplicity of character and of mind, and he also used this argument about instinct. In conversation with him I asked him whether he was quite sure of those instincts oven in our age, and in our own country. He looked very thoughtful for a moment, and then told me that once, when he was an officer in the Navy, the talk of a group of sailors which he overheard one night horrified him. Incestuous commerce in the oblique or collateral line, which was common among the ancient Romans, had no horror for these sailors in the British Navy. Well, said I to Lord Dalhousie, do not ever argue again upon the instincts of man keeping him from these horrible practices, and that is the lesson which I would earnestly impress upon your Lordships. Do you believe that the human instincts which have been referred to can be trusted to prevent men from forming these horrible relationships which disgraced the ancients? From what has been communicated to me I am obliged to give a negative answer. Of course, there are particular texts from Scripture which may be quoted upon the subject, but for the most part we cannot rely upon particular texts, but upon analogy and long passages and upon the pure consciences of the Christian Churches. One passage upon which the table of consanguinity is founded has nothing whatever to do with the Jewish law, and it is no part of the Levitical law. The Jews were told that they were not to practise with regard to marriage the abominable customs of the heathen, one of those customs being the marriage of near relations. The question is what we are to understand by a near relation. The answer to that question is that we are to consider consanguinity and affinity as equal, and are not to marry a nearer of kin to our wives than we could marry in the same degree of kinship to ourselves. That

1201
is a simple principle, and the moment we depart from it we break down the whole law. That is part of the law of the Christian Church, and is founded upon Divine law and upon Divine direction, and I will not consent to argue the marriage question except upon that great system of law upon which the whole of the Christian law is based. ["Hear, hear!"] It was asked by way of argument what our neighbours, and especially what our colonies were doing in regard to this matter, I have every respect for our colonies, but I cannot see why this country should be guided by those juvenile communities which are now engaged in sowing their political wild oats. ["Hear, hear!" and laughter.] The law of divorce, indeed, when it is extended beyond certain limits, destroys marriage altogether, and it must not be imagined that in those colonies and States of America in which exceptional facilities for divorce exist the people are satisfied with the law, for in many instances I believe it is rebelled against. At the time of the French Revolution marriages of all kinds were made easy, but the Emperor subsequently, taking note of the consequences of the law, struck marriages with a deceased wife's sister out of the Code Napoléon. I know that your Lordships like good, stiff, clear, logical argument, although some of your Lordships have unhappily, in an evil hour, been persuaded to throw over your logic and your religion; but I believe that I have shown that the existing law of marriage rests upon the authorities and traditions of the Christian Church, and upon nothing else; that the Christian Church has spoken upon that subject: and that the principle which has been laid down by the Christian doctrine is that affinity and consanguinity are equal, and that a breach in that law will involve the downfall of the whole line. ["Hear, hear!"] That many of your Lordships who detest the consequences—you or your descendants—will find yourselves involved in those consequences; that instinct, mere human instinct, apart from teaching and tradition, is no security at all, and, last of all, that the Bill is illogical, unjust to the clergy, and unjust to all who think with the clergy, while it introduces confusion into the law of England, and, let me add,
1202
as my firm conviction, will destroy the peace, happiness, and comfort of our domestic homes. [Cheers.]
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYfelt himself in one sense in the same position as the noble Duke, for he, for his part, had had very little intention or desire ever to address the House again on this subject, it having been his lot more than once to bring in a Bill of this sort before the House; but on this occasion, as the noble Duke seemed to think that his noble Friend behind him was the only supporter of the Bill on his side of the House, he would like to disabuse the noble Duke's mind of that imagination The noble Duke said that the supporters of this Bill disregarded both religion and logic. He denied the force of the argument on both points. With regard to religion, the supporters of the Bill entirely disclaimed the imputation that they had less regard for religion than the noble Duke. ["Hear, hear!"] They did not believe that this Bill was mixed up with the religious question if it was rightly looked at. So far as he could catch it the noble Duke said that the law of Christian marriage was really based on the avoidance of the abominable customs of the heathen, and more than once seemed to imply that this marriage, which was permitted in many parts of the world, was one of those abominable customs. He could not conceive an argument more destructive to the cause of those who opposed the Bill. ["Hear, hear!"] This, which was practised by millions of Christian people as God-fearing as the noble Duke himself, was, forsooth, one of the abominable customs of the heathen! He would say nothing with regard to the argument about Leviticus except that he agreed that one could not pick and choose.
*THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: What I said was that our table of affinity in the Church of England was adapted from a chapter in Leviticus, and that that chapter laid down a principle for the avoidance of the abominable customs of the heathen.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYasked how, if there was a moral law which prohibited marriages of affinity as morally wrong, could any just man possibly adopt a code which not only permitted the marriage of two brothers with the sister-in-law of one brother,

1203
not only permitted two brothers to marry one woman, but actually enjoined upon them that, in one case, they must marry the widow? It was impossible to pick and choose, to adopt a marriage law based on Leviticus, and then to put aside one portion of it because it was not suitable.
*THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: What the noble Earl has referred to is no part of the Levitical law.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I bow in astonishment to the noble Duke. Does he not find it in Leviticus? ["Hear, hear!"]
*THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: Oh, yes.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: The noble Duke found it in Leviticus, but it did not suit his argument to acknowledge its binding force, and so he put it aside. There was no logic, justice, or morality in such an argument. ["Hear, hear!"] The noble Duke was very severe on the want of logic on the part of the supporters of the Bill. Well, it had been constantly affirmed of Englishmen, and affirmed truly, that they were not logical in their institutions and laws, and probably a great measure of the success of our system of constitutional government was due to the want of logic. They had not drawn up codes based on abstract principles, but had adapted themselves to the needs of the hour and had built up the ancient fabric of the Constitution not by logic, but by careful observation of what the community required. The supporters of the Bill could point to the fact that there was a strong feeling in the nation in favour of the Bill. The noble Duke asked whether this could be the mature opinion of the House of Lords. How long did an opinion take to mature? [Laughter.] Was 40 years not long enough? During more than 40 years they had had discussion after discussion, and if the opinion of the House had not matured now it seemed to him that it never would. [Laughter.] The noble Duke read a very severe lecture upon what he considered the unfair treatment of the episcopal Bench. He hoped there was no Member of the House who would think of treating unfairly any class of Members in the House, least of all the right reverend Prelates. They represented the Church, and were entitled to respect for their position and learning
1204
and should be always carefully listened to; but what he imagined had been the feeling of the House and outside it was that it would be a very dangerous thing if the opinion of the great majority of the laymen in the House was permanently overriden by a majority composed of the episcopal Bench. ["Hear, hear!"] That was a position which could not possibly endure, and where lay opinion had distinctly and plainly made up its mind that a certain Measure ought to be passed then, he maintained, it became a very serious thing indeed that the right reverend Prelates should stand in the door and say to the laymen, "You shall not pass through." ["Hear, hear!"] He thought there was nothing disrespectful in that attitude, and certainly no disrespect was intended. It had been argued that for social reasons it was very inexpedient that these marriages should be allowed. He did not think so, but those who held that view might consistently and with reason oppose the Bill. The noble Duke used the old argument that if marriage was allowed in this case why not in other cases of affinity? That might be perfectly logical, but there was nothing more unwise than to base statutes on logic. They must be based on the requirements of the people. There was no reason why the marriage law should be reduced to a logical code. These might do very well as closet arguments. He would not call the noble Duke a "closet" statesman, because, of course, he had had much experience of practical affairs, but those were arguments by which closet statesmen were usually guided, and they were arguments which led to confusion, discontent, and disregard of the law. He did not believe that this Bill would cause any of the evils which were foretold by its opponents, and he earnestly trusted that it would become law.
*THE BISHOP OF ELYsaid that in Scripture they found the distinct statement that the Canaanites were doomed to destruction because of the crimes they had committed, and those crimes were specified, and the first on the list was the union of a man with a woman near of kin to him. A number of examples were then given showing what was meant by the expression "heir of kin," and those examples included cases of affinity

1205
as well as consanguinity. No mention was made of cousinship. He stood on the law of Scripture, and not upon the law of councils and canons. In the prohibited degrees were included a father-in-law, mother in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, and so on. What was the law which the Canaanites broke? It was the law of nature, that law by which every man was bound. He did not believe that the destruction of the Canaanites was an unjust action. It was punishment inflicted on account of crimes, and the first crime specified in the list was the crime of union with a woman near of kin to one. Having that before his eyes, he could not consent to the legislation now proposed. He could not sanction this departure from what had been the law of the land since it had been a Christian State. It was said that these unions were not uncommon among the poor, and that they ought to be legalised in consequence. He doubted whether it was a good principle to lay down that a law ought to be abolished because it was broken. But he would remind their lordships that an Inquiry was held some years ago as to the number of these marriages among the poor, and it was found that there were such marriages, though not so many as was sometimes supposed. It was also found, however, that there were cases of marriage within the limits of consanguinity, and if Parliament was going to base its action upon the occasional customs of the most ignorant among the people, it must go further than this Bill, and say simply that a man might marry any woman he chose. That would be logical. Another argument of the supporters of the Bill was that the present haw caused hardship. They said:—
"A man's wife dies, leaving children, and he is forbidden by the law to select for the super-vision of his household and the education of his children the one woman who is most fit to fill that position"
But that was a false description of the state of the case. What the supporters of the Bill said a man could not do was just what he could do as the law now stood. They were nearly all acquainted with cases where a sister-in-law lived with her brother-in-law without scandal. That was possible now, because the law protected the woman. Abolish the
1206
present law, and the woman must leave her brother-in-law's house. According to the customs of this country, a young man and a young woman who could marry could not live together unless they did marry. If they altered the present law, they would not change the opinion of thousands of their countrymen, who viewed this kind of marriage as a crime. The result would be that a woman who held that opinion would be obliged to leave her brother-in-law's house. The children would lose the care of their aunt, and in many cases would be intrusted to the less tender care of a strange stepmother. It was said that it was hard that a man who married his sister-in-law in a colony should find that his marriage was viewed as invalid when he came to this country, and his children as illegitimate. No doubt it was hard; but whose was the fault? Was it not the fault of the Colonial Legislature, which had passed the law which enabled the man to marry his deceased wife's sister, with the result that he found himself in an equivocal position? We were not unaccustomed in this country to difficulties arising from diversities in the marriage law. Across the border there was a law of marriage and inheritance differing from ours. In Scotland a man might he legitimate when he would be illegitimate in this country. There had been a time when this difference between the laws of the two countries might have boom put an end to. The ecclesiastics of this House, generations ago, earnestly besought the barons of that time to consent to a certain change in the law of marriage and inheritance; and if that change had been made the; law of Scotland and the law of England would now have been the same. But the proud answer given by the barons on that occasion was historical—"Nolunms leges Angliæ mutare." He trusted that their Lordships on this occasion would return the same answer, and refuse to alter the law of England for the wretchedly inadequate reasons that had been adduced.
LORD HERSCHELL: I wish to say that I am not to be regarded as the author of this Bill, or as its special patron. When I first entered Parliament, some 20 years ago, this subject came before the House of Commons. I had not given it previously any attention, and

1207
I went down to the House with an open mind, or rather, perhaps, with what would now be called a slight prejudice against the proposal to change the law. I listened to the arguments that were used, and I ended by being fully satisfied that it was my duty to vote for the Bill. Since then, the more I have considered this question the more satisfied I have become that the course which I then took was right. The noble Duke has maintained to-day that the religious argument against the proposal of this Bill is not based upon the Levitical law itself, but upon that part of it which, as he said, has been raised to a higher elevation and become Christian law. But the right rev. Prelate who has just sat down takes a different course. He brushes aside what has been stated to be the view of the Christian Church and tells us that union with one near of kin was one of the sins for which the Canaanites were punished.
THE BISHOP OF ELYdid not wish it to be supposed that he brushed aside the view of the Christian Church. All he had meant to say was that he would not on that occasion discuss councils and canons.
LORD HERSCHELL: I understand why the right rev. Prelate brushes councils and canons aside, and I will shortly explain why. The right rev. Prelate takes his stand upon the Jewish law, which was that a man must not marry any one who was his near of kin; but the Jews themselves never regarded a deceased wife's sister as being among the near of kin with whom marriage was forbidden. Why are we to be bound by a view of Leviticus which has never been taken by the Jews, but which the right rev. Prelate insists now is binding on us as Christians? The right rev. Prelate referred to the question of councils and canons, and the noble Duke said we must look to see what part of the Jewish law had been incorporated with Christianity and made part of the Christian Church. How are you to discover that? In the sacred books which embody the teachings of Christianity, and to which we all look as the fountain from which we are to draw Christian truth, where is there a trace of any introduction into the Christian law of a prohibition of marriage with a
1208
deceased wife's sister? It was not part of the Jewish law, and even if it was I defy any one to find in the sacred books any trace of an importation into Christianity of such a prohibition. The noble Duke says it depends upon tradition, and, of course, here comes in the importance of the canons which the right rev. Prelate brushed aside. But I maintain that you cannot point to any time in the Christian Church when marriage with a cousin was not regarded as on the same basis as marriage with a deceased wife's sister; and yet with us marriage with a cousin is permitted, while marriage with a deceased wife's sister is prohibited. I admit that it was part of the teaching of Christianity to adopt from Judaism certain truths which were to have full force among Christians. But where I join issue is that I can find no trace of that having been done with regard to the particular matter under discussion, either in the sacred books or in the early traditions, unless you are going to accept a proposition which certainly has not been the view of the English branch of the Catholic Church for many centuries. That is all I have to say, my Lords, on the matter—on which I have frequently troubled your Lordships—except that I would refer to one point mentioned by the right rev. Prelate who has just spoken. We do not admit that this change in the law will produce the evil social results which he anticipates. We do not believe that it will prevent brother and sister-in-law from living together in the way they do now after the death of the wife—the sister-in-law having the care of the children—because it might be possible for them to marry. ["Hear, hear!"] My belief is that the alteration in the law will have an opposite effect. If any feeling exists of a contrary nature it is a false, a wrong, and a merely conventional feeling, and the sooner it is got rid of the better for society. ["Hear, hear!" and murmurs of dissent.] I hear with surprise some indications of dissent. If a brother and sister-in-law live together who can and yet do not marry, no reason would exist for supposing that they want to marry, and there would be no reason for scandal; but, on the other hand, if they live together and cannot marry, then I room for scandal might arise, and

1209
naturally arise, and we know that it has; sometimes arisen. [Cheers.] I believe—and I think it is the feeling of the great mass of the people who are interested in this Bill and who support it—that its effect will undoubtedly be to check evil and immorality, and not to encourage it. [Cheers.]
VISCOUNT HALIFAX, in opposing the Third Reading of the Bill, said the noble Lord who had just sat down favoured the House on the Second Reading of the Bill, and he had done so to some extent on the present occasion also, with a disquisition upon canons and theological arguments which must have almost made their Lordships think that for a time the House had been turned into a council or a synod. [Laughter.] He had no intention of following the noble Lord in a line of argument which he thought was entirely unsuitable to their Lordships' House, for he might say, without any disrespect, that that House was hardly competent to discuss and decide upon the exact value and force of the canons of the remote, or less remote, ecclesiastical councils. In a proper place and on a proper occasion, he apprehended that it would not be very difficult to convince the noble Lord that he had entirely misinterpreted the canons to which he had referred, and that the effect of those canons was very different to what he had supposed. The noble Lord must know perfectly well that it was undeniable that, with certain exceptions, the whole sentiment and feeling of the Christian Church, east and west alike, until the middle of the 15th century, was opposed to those marriages as forbidden by the Divine law, and the eastern part of the Church had adhered to that position up to the present time It was in harmony with the principles of the Church of England, and the Church of Scotland, and also with those of the Roman Catholic Church, except in so far only as it was modified by the power of certain Papal dispensations. The supporters of the Measure could not deny that it was a great responsibility on the part of the English Parliament to put itself in opposition to the great and acknowledged traditions of Christianity on the subject of matrimony. Even on the ground of sentiment he thought that those who introduced the Bill were far more likely to be wrong than the whole
1210
sentiment and tradition of the Christian Church. [Cheers.] After what took place on the question on the previous day, there was no saying to what lengths those who supported the Measure would not be prepared to go; but he would recommend those noble Lords who, in this matter, were always holding up the Roman Church to be consistent, and if they quoted the Church by way of example they should also quote the dispensations by which alone such marriages were permitted. They were told yesterday that even the English clergy were not entirely agreed on this matter. This was a matter which was acutely felt by the clergymen throughout the country. Only to-day he had been asked to present to their Lordships a petition signed by 2,675 clergy—signed by them within the last four days—begging their Lordships to reject the Bill. If their Lordships passed this Bill, they would alienate their friends for the sake of those who would not thank them for what they did, and they would take a great stop in the direction of making harmonious action of Church and State in this country impossible.
*THE BISHOP OF SALISBURYpointed out, in reply to Lord Kimberley, that the levivate marriage, or marriage of a widow with her husband's brother, was exceptional. It was ordered when a man was childless, in order to continue the family succession, on which the Old Testament laid great stress; but was absolutely forbidden in other cases. No argument could therefore be based on it for Christians. The 19th "Apostolic" Canon to which he presumed Lord Herschell referred, read, "He who has married two sisters or a niece cannot be a clerk." It was not cousin, but niece. It was the Greek word which meant niece.
LORD HERSCHELL: In the Latin version, the word is translated "cousin." [Laughter.]
*THE BISHOP OF SALISBURY, continuing, said the argument about first cousins had been threshed out again and again. In the year 355, by the law of the Church and State, the marriage of two sisters was forbidden as a wicked thing, but it was not till some 30 years later that Theodosius the Great, by an arbitrary exercise of his power, prohibited the marriage of first cousins,

1211
which St. Augustine declared was at that time forbidden neither by human or divine law. Marriage of first cousins was dispensed with by him as ruler of the State, and the law was abolished by his son. It was not until some 150 years later that the Church took up that restriction, which had, he believed, always been subject to dispensation in the west, and had always been a matter of difficulty. It was not until the beginning of the 15th century that there was any dispensation given for the class of marriage they were now asked to make valid.
*THE BISHOP OF LONDONdesired to say a few words in reference, to the scriptural declarations upon this matter, and to the declarations of the early Church. The old Jewish law, which he did not think any ordinary reader of the Bible would understand to be intended only for the Jews, laid down certain general principles, and illustrated those principles by examples. Under the old Jewish law nothing was clearer than that the woman was never put in these matters on a level with the man. For the first time in the New Testament they read such a sentence as "he committed adultery against her." So, too, with regard to divorce. There was no question in the New Testament of a woman divorcing her husband. The rule which was there laid down was that the man with (me single exception might not divorce his wife. A woman might leave her husband, and that of course was a grievous offence, but it was not dealt with in the same way in the Old Testament and in the New Testament. In the New Testament the woman was treated as having rights precisely parallel with those of the man. Nothing could be clearer in this respect than the words of St. Paul when he spoke of the necessity that the man should keep to his own wife, and the wife to her own husband. The prohibition of polygamy was of the same character. There, too, there was a distinct difference in the Old Testament between the man and the woman; no such thing was tolerated as a woman having several husbands, but it was tolerated that a man should have several wives. Our Lord put that all aside, but in doing so He simply laid down the new principle that in all these things the woman should be treated as
1212
the man, and it was on this ground that the Christian Church, in laying down the rules of the prohibited degrees, had maintained that the rules to be found in the old legislation of the Jewish law were to be applicable to women just as they were to men, and that what was forbidden to the man was henceforth forbidden to the woman. He would not go into the canons, for the simple reason that it would take something like a lifetime to master them. He had read a great many, and he felt it was impossible to say that all of them could be interpreted strictly by the words as they appeared. Having dwelt on the effect of the canons referred to by Lord Herschell, the right rev. Prelate argued that they had to consider the whole body of them. The object was to obtain the purity of the home, and to that end, to prevent impurity creeping in, marriage was necessary, and these things were forbidden. The danger was to prevent the corruption of the home—home which was characteristic of the human race, distinguishing it from all other living creatures upon the earth—the home in which they found the beginning of all religion, of all religious instruction. That it was which was to be protected and kept pure, and that was the aim held in view by Him who authorised the old Jewish law of marriage. If they put woman on the same level with man, it was obvious that the protection of the home of the wife was as important as the protection of the home of the husband. When he married a woman he became a member of that family, and to prevent anything like impurity the law was necessarily stringent. Purity was to be absolutely enforced so that nothing like the things prohibited could take place. He should now say a word or two about the present position of this Bill. There were large numbers of clergymen who looked upon these marriages as sinful, and nothing would induce them to admit to Holy Communion those who had transgressed in this way; they would in fact rather suffer any punishment the law might inflict than celebrate such marriages. Indeed the Bill, as drawn up by its promoters, proposed to protect these clergymen from the danger of being called upon to disregard their own consciences in the matter. The Bill, in fact, was now a totally different Bill

1213
from the original scheme, which disregarded the question whether they were to create this terrible war between the law and the clergy of the land, He hoped their Lordships would not consider that because they had carried the Second Reading of a very different Bill they were, therefore, pledged to carry the Third Reading of this Bill.
THE EARL OF DUNRAVENpointed out that no undue haste had been used in pushing forward this Measure. The Bill was printed and was in their Lord-ships' hands on the 10th or 12th of June; it was read a Second time on 22nd of June; eight days elapsed, he believed, between the Second Reading and the Standing Committee stages; it passed through the Standing Committee on Tuesday, and through the Report stage the previous day. That was a tolerably reasonable time in an ordinary case. And considering the fact that a Bill almost identical with this was fully debated in that House two years ago, and that similar Bills had been debated there during the last 40 years, he thought it was rather unjust of the Duke of Argyll to accuse them of indecent haste on this occasion. The noble Duke also thought that the Debate on the Second Reading was too short and perfunctory; there was no Member of that House more cap-able of preventing the Debate from being perfunctory than the noble Duke himself—[laughter]—he was present when the Motion for the Second Reading-was made, and if he had spoken the Debate would have certainly been longer—[renewed laughter]—and would, in his opinion, have been stronger. He would not go into any arguments in favour of the Bill—certainly not into any arguments of a theological character. He would not attempt to deal with canon law; he had the high authority of the right rev. Prelate that it required a whole lifetime to understand it, and as he did not begin to study it as a small child there was no use in his attempting to understand it now. [Laughter.] He confessed, also, that he was not capable of understanding whether what was (reek for a niece was at the same time Latin for a cousin. [Laughter.] He thought the noble Duke was not justified in saying that they wished to eliminate religion altogether; it seemed to him that the noble Duke did not draw a
1214
proper distinction between religion and theology. [Cheers.] The attitude he took up was that the theological argument and arguments about the meaning of chapters in Leviticus, etc., had been practically abandoned, and that the question of its merits must be fought out on the ground of its probable effect on the social life of the nation. ["Hear, hear!"] The whole of Parliamentary work was in the nature of a compromise, and consequently could not be utterly and entirely logical. The noble Duke had a very poor opinion of human instinct, reason, and conscience. He differed entirely from the noble Duke in that he thought human instinct might be very largely trusted. Surely human instinct and reason were capable of education, and the instincts of the civilized Christian of the 19th century were very different from those of a mere brute beast. The noble Duke said that they could not trust human instinct in these matters, but could only be guided by divine ordinance, but after all, how did they judge of divine ordinance except through human reason? In all these matters they must judge by their reason, instinct and consciences. To him, one of the chief glories of Christianity was its supernatural adaptability to the needs and requirements of human nature, and he believed that the vitality of the Christian Church depended very largely upon its capacity for understanding the needs and requirements of human nature. Instinct and reason, ethics and morals, were not fixed quantities, but changed and developed. As this amendment of the law which they desired had long ago been the law in nearly every civilised country in the world, surely it was evident that a great change had taken place in Christian lay opinion, at any rate, on this subject. They denied that this change would have a detrimental effect upon the family, and they could point to experience in proof of that position. The noble Duke had said that the decision their Lordships came to on the Second Reading, must have been due to elaborate whipping on the part of the promoters of the Bill. He had in his hand a printed circular from the Cardinal Archbishop, in which he said, among other things, that the Holy Father himself had directed him to use every influence to induce Catholic Members in both Houses

1215
of Parliament to take up the defence of the common law of the Church and vote against this Bill, which attempted to violate it. In the matter of whipping they were not in it with their opponents. If this Bill was read a Third time it would be a triumph, not of elaborate whipping as had been suggested, but of intelligence over what almost amounted to brute force. [Laughter and cheers.]
The House divided on the Question whether the word "now" shall stand part of the Motion:—

CONTENTS

…

142

NOT-CONTENTS

…

104

The announcement of the numbers was received with cheers.

DIVISION LIST:—CONTENTS

Wales, H.R.H. Prince of.

Lonsdale, E.

Lucan, E.

Connaught, H.R.H.D

Malmesbury, E.

York, H.R.H.D.

Morley, E.

Devonshire, D. (L. President.)

Orford, E.

Portarlington, E.

Portsmouth, E.

Bedford, D.

Rosse, E.

Fife, D.

Saint Germans, E.

Portland, D.

Sandwich, E.

Saint Albans, D. [TELLER.]

Spencer, E.

Stradbroke, E.

Sutherland, D.

Strafford, E.

Strange, E. (D. Atholl.)

Abergavenny, M.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Lansdowne, M.

Northampton, M.

Winchester, M.

Falkland, V.

Falmouth, V.

Abingdon, E.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Annesley, E.

Brooke and Warwick, E.

Oxenbridge, V.

Portman, V.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Templetown, V.

Camperdown, E.

Carlisle, E.

Aberdare, L.

Carrington, E.

Ardilaun, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Bagot, L.

Clarendon, E.

Belper, L.

Cowper, E.

Boston, L.

Crewe, E.

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

Durham, E.

Effingham, E.

Burghclere, L.

Ellesmere, E.

Burton, L.

Essex, E.

Camoys, L.

Granville, E.

Castletown, L.

Harewood, E.

Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

Hillsborough, E. (M. Downshire.)

Cheylesmore, L.

Hehester, E.

Coleridge, L.

Kimberley, E.

Connemara, L.

Lichfield, E.

Davey, L.

De Saumarez, L. de Vesci, L. (V. de Vesci)

Northington, L. (L. Henley.)

Deramore, L.

Pirbright, L.

Dorchester, L.

Poltimore, L.

Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore)

Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)

Farrer, L.

Reay, L.

Glenesk, L.

Rendel, L.

Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

Ribblesdale, L.

Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)

Greville, L.

Grey de Ruthyn, L.

Rossmore, L.

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

Rothschild, L.

Hastings, L.

Rowton, L.

Hawkesbury, L.

Sackville, L.

Headley, L.

St. Levan, L.

Heneage, L.

Sandys, L.

Herschell, L.

Sefton, L. (E. Sefton.)

Hobhouse, L.

Shand, L.

Howard de Walden, L.

Sherborne, L.

Inchiquin, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

James, L.

Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

Kelvin, L.

Suffield, L.

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

Swansea, L.

Tennyson, L.

Thring, L.

Kensington, L.

Tollemache, L.

Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

Tredegar, L.

Tweeddale, L. (M. Tweeddale.)

Lawrence, L.

Leigh, L.

Tweedmouth, L.

Lingen, L.

Tyrone, L. (M. Water-ford.)

Loch, L.

Macnaghten, L.

Walsingham, L.

Manners, L.

Wandsworth, L.

Mendip, L. (V. Clifden.)

Watson, L.

Methuen, L.

Welby, L.

Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

Westbury, L.

Wolverton, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Worlingham, L. (E. Gosford.)

Monkswell, L.

Mostyn, L.

Wrottesley, L.

Resolved in the affirmative; Bill read 3a accordingly, passed, and sent to the Commons.

FLOODS PREVENTION BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order); amendments made: Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.
THE PRIME MINISTER (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): As there is no business for Monday, I will move that the House do adjourn until Tuesday.
Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at a Quarter past Seven o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.