Sitting of 13 June 1850

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Cruelty to Animals (Scotland); Sunday Trading Prevention; Railway Audit.
Reported.—County Court Extension; Marriages; General Board of Health.

SEWERAGE OF WESTMINSTER.
MR. T. GREENEput the following question, of which he had given notice, to Viscount Ebrington:—"Whether there is any intention of erecting a steam engine at the corner of Palace-yard, for the purpose of forcing the contents of the sewer to a higher level. If there be such intention, whether it is proposed that such steam engine shall permanently remain, or is it only to be placed there for a temporary purpose: if for a temporary purpose, how long may it be probably required to remain there? Also, how far it was likely that an injurious effect would be produced by stirring up the sewerage at this time of the year."
VISCOUNT EBRINGTONsaid, that if his Colleagues in Parliament and himself had allowed to pass without notice the numerous misstatements and charges which had been made against the Commissioners of Sewers, it was not because they acquiesced in the justice of those charges, or were unprepared with an answer to them at the proper time, but because they did not wish to interrupt the regular business of the House by raising incidental debates. In answer to the first question, he had to say that it certainly was the intention of the Commissioners to place a steam engine in Palace-yard. The drainage of that district of Westminster, in which the Commissioners were proceeding to make great improvements, had been for some time under consideration. The district was a very low one; most injurious consequences had resulted from the want of drainage there; and several unforeseen circumstances, amongst others the unexpected illness of their chief engineer shortly after he was appointed, had delayed the proceeding with those works until a period which the Commissioners regretted. The object with which the steam engine was placed in Palace-yard was for the purpose of raising the water up to the level of the existing sewer in York-street. It was obvious that in driving a much deeper sewer to enable the men to work, all the sewerage must be diverted into a neighbouring sewer; and this sewer being on a higher level, the steam engine was necessary to lift it. The engine would remain until the sewer was finished, which would be about four months from the present time; then it would be removed and the ground made up. The stirring up of the sewerage, he feared, was unavoidably incident to the execution of any new work; but in order
1160
that the residents in the neighbourhood might suffer as little annoyance as possible from the smoke, directions had been given for the use of Welsh coal and anthracite, which produced very little smoke.
MR. T. GREENEwished to know why the work was proceeded with at this particular period of the year?
VISCOUNT EBRINGTONsaid, the greatest complaints had been made by the Commissioners for the Improvement of Westminster, who represented that all their operations must be suspended unless this sewer was made. The Commissioners of Sewers were aware that it was undesirable to execute such works during the hot season; but if this sewer was not proceeded with, the drainage of the district would be indefinitely retarded. The present sewer was part of a general plan for draining the metropolitan districts on the north side of the river.
MR. HENLEYfeared the health of those who resided near must suffer from this pumping up of the sewage water. Not long ago that neighbourhood had suffered very severely from a similar cause, and those living near the spot were now under considerable apprehension of the outbreak of some fearful malady.
VISCOUNT EBRINGTONwas not aware that any further precautions could be taken. It was obvious that if, during the summer months, works were to be stopped entirely, the execution of improvements in the metropolis must be indefinitely postponed. The execution of these works almost unavoidably occasioned temporary inconvenience; and the question was, whether it was better to incur the permanent evil of delay, from arresting the works, or the transitory evil occasioned by their execution.
SIR B. HALLsaid, he should be glad to know why, as this Commission had been in operation several months, they could not have chosen some other time than the hot season for raking up all this offensive matter. This was no time for opening sewers and erecting steam engines. He also wished to know whether the matter had been brought under the consideration of the Board of Health; also, why it was necessary that this sewer should now be made—was that end of the town so low that it was impossible to find an outlet for the drainage? The preceding day, in coming to the door of that House, he had been assailed by an almost intolerable smell. The drainage of the Houses of Parliament was most imperfect.
VISCOUNT EBRINGTONsaid, the subject had been under consideration for a length of time; but when hon. Members found fault with the slow working of the Commissioners of Sewers, they should remember that that body had worked from the beginning under an extremely complicated system of law, which obliged six members of the board to be present to hear even the most trivial complaints of ratepayers—that the attendance of the Commissioners was frequent—that it was also gratuitous—and that the greater part of them, having many other duties to perform, could only give a portion of their time to the business of the Commission. The subject of this sewer had been entertained for some time. It was only recently that the plans and estimates for the works now in progress in Palace-yard were in a sufficiently advanced state to allow of a commencement being made. With respect to the drainage of the New Houses of Parliament, he certainly did not consider it to be in a satisfactory state. He did not consider the sewers to be properly constructed; but that was a matter for the consideration of the Commission who were charged with the superintendence of the New House. The sewers were a great deal too large, and if they acted as such sewers usually did, as elongated cesspools, as long as there was ordure at the other end they would give out offensive smells. But the Sewers Commission were not to blame for a matter which was not under their superintendence.
SIR B. HALLsaid, the particular question he wished to put with reference to the Houses of Parliament was this:—Had the sewer which had been constructed under the superintendence of the clerk of works been placed in such a low level that it would not work; and was it necessary for the sewage to be pumped up?
VISCOUNT EBRINGTONsaid, that he should not like to trust himself, without previous notice, to answer a question as to figures and levels.
LORD ASHLEYsaid, that all that could be done in the matter by the Board of Health had been done; there was scarcely an inch of the ground to which their attention had not been called. With regard to the sewerage of the Houses of Parliament the board was sitting or was shortly about to sit upon the three great cesspools.
The EARL of ARUNDEL and SURREY 1162
said, that as the two boards over which the noble Lords respectively presided appeared to be powerless, so far as the remedying of this defect was concerned, he hoped that the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary would step in and do something for the protection of Members of the House. Subject dropped.

COUNTY COURTS EXTENSION BILL.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee; Mr. Bernal in the chair.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL The ATTORNEY GENERAL moved a clause enacting that the deputy judge should not practise in districts while he acted as deputy. Clerks appointed after the passing of the Act should, he proposed, be compelled to reside in the district.
SIR J. GRAHAMsaid, it was hardly possible to discuss this Bill in Committee satisfactorily in the present chamber. As he stated yesterday, he heard everything from hon. Gentlemen opposite, but he could not hear a word of what was said by hon. Members who sat before him on the same side of the House. He said he wished to call the attention of the Government to the evidence given by Mr. Hagley, a competent officer of the Government, in a valuable report respecting the present state of the law for the recovery of small debts. The clause under discussion, in its present shape. Mould have a prospective operation. Now, under the existing Act the clerks of county courts were appointed by the Judges, with the sanction of the Lord Chancellor; and when once that sanction was given, it could not be withdrawn. The result was, that no direct power was possessed by the Government to remove a clerk, whatever might be his misconduct; and at present there were some of the clerks who resided out of their districts. This was an unsatisfactory state of things, and the evidence of Mr. Hagley was strong in favour of a power of removal being vested either in the Secretary of State or in the Lord Chancellor—he should prefer in the Secretary of State. There was no doubt that the country had pronounced very decidedly in favour of the extension of the jurisdiction of the county courts. He would admit that there were some doubts whether the extension would be found to work so well as had been anticipated; but the opinion was so strong in favour of the present Bill, that he thought

1163
it would be better to extend the jurisdiction of these courts. But it would be most desirable that the present occasion should be taken to remove every defect in the Working of the Act. The Secretary of State for the Home Department had, he believed, appointed a commission consisting of five county court judges; and he was confident that the Government would avail themselves of the opportunity to apply a corrective to the defects of the existing law. One more defect pointed out by Mr. Hagley was respecting the doubtful state in which the existing law left the power to use existing courts for the sittings of county court judges; and he (Sir J. Graham) thought it advisable to take powers providing that wherever there were existing courts they should be available for the purposes of this Act, provided any damage that might be done to the buildings was repaired from the funds raised under the measure. With regard to the clause before the Committee, he thought it ought to have a retroactive as well as a prospective operation.
SIR G. GREYagreed with his right hon. Friend that it would be desirable to be able to remove clerks in cases of misconduct. He should be prepared to carry out the recommendations of the committee of county court judges so far as they might appear calculated to improve the law and practice of the courts.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
The ATTORNEY GENERALhad next a clause enacting that summonses and orders Might be served by parties or their agents. Such a clause had been very generally demanded, and he had prepared one in which he had endeavoured to carry out the wishes of those parties. But he had since received so many representations of the difficulty and danger of admitting such a principle, that he had great doubts whether the House ought to agree to the clause. It seemed hard, upon the one hand, that parties should be compelled, at some expense, to employ others to do what they were able and willing to do for themselves. But remembering, on the other hand, that the due service of the summons was the foundation of the jurisdiction of the court, and that the courts would be liable to be imposed upon if plaintiffs were to be allowed to serve their own summonses, he was inclined to think that it would be better that some additional expense should be incurred than that the courts should be exposed to the
1164
difficulty of a disputed jurisdiction, which might be the consequence of allowing parties to serve their own summonses. With the leave of the House, he therefore proposed to withdraw the clause.
Clause withdrawn.
SIR G. PECHELLsaid, that hon. Members near him were labouring under this disadvantage—that they could not hear one word. There was something in the clause to enable parties to serve their own summonses. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL: I have withdrawn it.] He had not heard anything about it; but if the hon. and learned Gentleman did intend to persevere in moving the clause—[An Hon. MEMBER: It is withdrawn.] If the hon. and learned Gentleman had only spoken loud enough, he might have heard that the clause was withdrawn; but he could hear nothing about it.
The ATTORNEY GENERALcould assure the hon. and gallant Member that he had spoken at the top of his voice, and, if the Chairman would acquit him of disrespect, he would turn round and repeat to the hon. Member what he had said.
MR. HUMEwould really suggest to the Committee whether they had better not retire to the other House. Except the speech of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon, he had not been able to hear one word.
MR. GOULBURN: The reason was because the Committee expected to hear something worth hearing from his right hon. Friend, and accordingly they had listened.
SIR J. GRAHAMsaid, it was more important that the Committee should be able to hear what fell from the Government than anything he could say. He could assure the House that it was impossible for hon. Members to hear what was said by those who were seated before them. In a debate that might not be inconvenient, but in Committee it was exceedingly so.
MR. STAFFORDhad been sitting on the Ministerial side, and had been straining to hear what was going on. He had, however, been compelled to cross over to the Opposition bench in order to listen to the Members of the Government.
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, the next clause he had to propose was one of considerable importance. At present, if a person laid a plaint, and served it on a defendant, even though the latter made no defence, the plaintiff was obliged to go to the court with all his witnesses and incur

1165
all the expense of proving his debt. Now, his object in the present clause was, that whether the defendant was served or not, if he knew that a suit was about to be instituted, he might agree with the plaintiff about the debt, and enter an agreement in writing of the amount of the debt with the clerk of the court; and on such being done the judge might adjudicate upon the case in the same manner as if he had tried it in the ordinary way in court.
Clause agreed to.
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, the object of the next clause he had to propose was to save expense in the summoning of juries. It was to the effect that, instead of high sheriffs and bailiffs, as at present, furnishing a list of jurors, for which a fee of twopence a folio was paid, the clerk of each county court should select a jury, when required, from a list of persons assessed for the poor at a rental of 20 l.
Clause agreed to.
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he had another clause to propose, the object of which was to give the Treasury the power of ordering that judges, clerks, and ether officers should be paid by salaries instead of fees. At present a minute in Council was necessary for that purpose, but it was thought better to place the matter in the hands of the Treasury.
Clause agreed to.
The ATTORNEY GENERALthen proposed a clause vesting the power of appointing and dismissing the necessary servants of the courts and offices in the Commissioners of the Treasury.
MR. AGLIONBYthought care should be taken to have such persons appointed to those offices as would be really competent for the duties, and that the evil of having too small salaries, which would lead to the appointment of unfit persons, should be avoided. These places, he thought, should be under the control and direction of the district clerks.
SIR G. GREYsaid, it was proposed to give the power of appointment and dismissal to the Treasury in cases where there was any neglect of duty; and the same power could be exercised in the case of those persons who were found incapable.
Clause agreed to.
The ATTORNEY GENERALthen proposed a clause providing that town-halls and court-houses shall be used free of rent-charge for the sittings of county courts.
MR. HENLEYthought it possible that under this clause county business might
1166
occasionally be interfered with. It was stated that the courts were not to interfere with the business "usually transacted" in the town-hall or court-house; but it might be necessary to hold courts not at the usual times, and in that case the county magistrates might be excluded from their own buildings.
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, the spirit of the clause was completely opposed to the occurrence of any such contingency. Of course, such arrangements would be made by all parties as would obviate any inconvenience.
SIR G. PECHELLwished to say once more that he could not hear one Word that was said. The conversation going on among a few Gentlemen was quite confidential. He wished to know if the existing settlements regarding town-halls were to be continued?
MR. CARDWELLsaid, this clause had been brought in at his request, and it was certainly intended to save all existing contracts.
Clause agreed to.
MR. MITCHELL MR. MITCHELL moved a clause to the effect that nothing oontained in the Bill should take away the power of the Judges of the superior courts to make order for holding defendants to bail in actions commenced in the superior courts for claims not exceeding 50 l., and that when in any action any such order should remain, the provisions of the Act should not apply with respect to such action.
Clause agreed to.
MR. TORRENSM'CULLAGH MR. TORRENSM'CULLAGH moved—
"And be it enacted, that the court shall, after the first day on which it shall sit in each district or place, commence its sittings not later than nine of the clock in the forenoon, save when prevented by the illness or unavoidable absence of the judge appointed to preside in such court; and that no trial, case, or business shall be entered upon after the hour of six of the clock in the afternoon of any day by such court, except at the request of both parties."
The ATTORNEY GENERALobjected to the clause, as the matter was under the consideration of the Committee of County Court Judges.
LORD D. STUARTopposed the clause, the enactment of which might be attended with great practical inconvenience; for instance, the judges might be obliged to stop in town till the following day, and the witnesses on both sides in the case, together with the plaintiff and defendant, because the clause of the hon. Gentleman would not permit the court to sit after six o'clock.
MR. T. M'CULLAGHsaid, the strongest representations had been made to him on this subject, and he had been informed that cases had occurred of some of the county courts in England sitting until after midnight. He would not, however, press the clause after the objection of the learned Attorney General.
Clause withdrawn.
MR. CROWDER MR. CROWDER moved the adoption of a clause of which he had given notice, for the purpose of conferring the right of appeal. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Lewes, when he introduced the Bill, had in it an appeal clause, and with that clause the Bill was discussed on the first and second reading. In this shape the Bill remained until it reached Committee, when himself and his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southampton objected to the peculiar nature of that appeal clause. It was stated by them, and by others, that the provision would be altogether inefficient for its purpose, and it was urged that it was not judicious that there should be an appeal for the defendant and none for the plaintiff, who, in case he was nonsuited or defeated, had no redress. Upon that occasion it was submitted that the appeal clause should be withdrawn, and his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southampton promised that he would prepare certain appeal clauses. He (Mr. Crowder) had made the same promise, and had fulfilled it, but, to his great surprise, learned a few days ago that it was the intention of the hon. and learned Attorney General, and other influential Members, to oppose the appeal clauses altogether. Let it be remembered that one of the most important grounds upon which the 50 l. extension was opposed by the hon. and learned Attorney General and the right hon. Home Secretary was, that the character of those courts would be lost, and the object of their formation in a great measure defeated, by conceding the power of appeal, which would, they said, be necessary if their jurisdiction were extended to 50 l.; and they added, that the appeals would be attended with delay and expense. But at that time it was never supposed by any human being that if the jurisdiction were extended from 20 l. to 50 l., and if they were to give the inferior judges of those courts such important jurisdiction, that their decision should be absolute, and that, unlike the highest Judge in the land, from the decision of one of them there should be no appeal. He put it to the common sense
1168
of hon. Members whether there ought to exist in this country such tribunals, without the power of appeal from their decisions. He was told that the hon. and learned Attorney General intended to oppose those clauses; and the reason, he believed, alleged by the Government for this course was, that it was their desire to render this Bill as similar as possible to that measure which it was meant to extend. But let him ask the House how the Bill would have been received if it had been in the first instance proposed to give a 50 l. jurisdiction without an appeal. The House would have been shocked at the notion. Since then, he was well aware of what had passed out of doors, and that there was a determination to pass this measure. Believing that it must be adopted, he was most anxious to render it as little mischievous as possible, and he introduced these clauses to give efficiency to its operation. It was on the suggestion of the Common Law Commission that sat in 1833, those county courts were established, and he found the commissioners in their report adverting to the absolute necessity, if Parliament appointed sixty different judges in the country, of having power, if necessary, to rectify their decisions. In 1841, Sir E. Sugden, referring to the extension of the jurisdiction of the county courts, stated that two things were necessary to give to these courts a proper check: a vigilant and independent bar, and a court of appeal. Without a power of appeal over the jurisdiction of the county courts, law would become a lottery, and the most conflicting decisions would be constantly taking place, He had been informed that in three of the metropolitan districts, decisions of the most contradictory character had been given by the judges. In the court of one of these districts a decision of the Court of Exchequer was referred to by the counsel for the plaintiff, and the judge said that he would be bound in his judgment by that decision; while in the adjoining district the same decision was overruled by the judge; and in the third the judge stated that he had nothing to do with the decision of the Court Exchequer, and should decide the matter according to his own discretion. And why should they not all do so? They were possessed of an irresponsible power, hitherto perfectly unknown to the English law. He believed that the surest way to destroy the efficacy of the measure, and to raise the feeling of the country as much against as it was now in favour of it,

1169
would be by passing the Bill in its present state. He admitted that some delay would necessarily take place by granting the power of appeal; but in framing the clause which he intended to propose, he had endeavoured to provide as far as possible against any unnecessary delay.
Clause brought up, and read 1°.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause be now read a Second Time."
MR. FITZROYunderstood the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General intended to oppose this clause; but he wished to say that the hon. and learned Member for Liskeard had rather misstated the facts as to the appeal clause in the Bill originally. He (Mr. Fitzroy) himself had always been opposed to the appeal, and had only introduced the clause in deference to what he understood to have been the express wish of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary and the hon. and learned Attorney General. He considered the adoption of the clause now proposed would be extremely objectionable.
SIR G. GREYdisclaimed having expressed any wish that an appeal clause should be introduced. He had objected to the introduction of the Bill itself, as he thought they were running the risk of depriving these courts of the character which made them popular. He had, on a former occasion, stated that the sum of 20 l. had been taken as the limit in the existing Act, because that was the amount within which no new trial was allowed, and he then stated his fear that if the amount was extended to 50 l., as this Bill proposed, it would open the question of appeal; but, as the House had decided upon the extension to 50 l., his desire still was to retain as much as possible the distinctive character of those courts, and therefore, he should oppose this clause.
MR. AGLIONBYbelieved that the addition of this clause would render the Bill distasteful to the whole country, and make it a curse instead of a blessing. The right of appeal as to matters of fact might induce many judges to throw off their proper responsibility. He knew no form of tribunal so satisfactory as the arbitration of a single barrister of eminence; it was on that ground that he was in favour of the Bill without appeal. For his own part he would rather have a decision pronounced against him than be subjected to an appeal.
The ATTORNEY GENERALmust oppose the introduction of this clause. The object of establishing these courts was to
1170
have the matter in dispute summarily, cheaply, and, if possible, satisfactorily decided; and though he had been opposed to the extension of the jurisdiction to 50 l., the House having decided in favour it, he felt it to be his duty to assist in passing the measure as proposed. The introduction of this clause would be a serious evil, inasmuch as it would destroy the efficacy and the general operation of the court. He was also opposed to the clause because the appeal, not including cases of 20 l., would draw a line between the rich and the poor, which would tend to damage the character of the courts, and shake the public confidence in them.
MR. COCKBURNbelieved an appeal to be absolutely necessary. There was no Member of the House who was a more cordial supporter of the principle of the measure than he was. He was in favour of localising the administration of justice, and hoped to see these courts gradually absorb the legal business of the country; but in order to the beneficial working of the Bill, there must be an appeal from the decisions of the judges to some superior court. He had never yet seen a judge, however exalted he might be in ability and intelligence, upon whom the consciousness of being subjected to superintending control did not act salutarily; and he believed that these sixty judges needed such control. It must be recollected that they would not have the same check from the bar and the press as the superior courts, and unless they were operated upon by the consciousness of there being an appeal from their decisions, their decisions would be contradictory, and there would be a confused administration of the law. No other judge, not even the Lord Chancellor, was exempt from appeal. He admitted that the object of the Bill was to secure summary, speedy, and cheap justice; but when the jurisdiction should be extended to 50 l., a new class of business would be introduced, involving important principles of law, and without an appeal the decisions could scarcely be otherwise than conflicting, seeing that the judges would not have the same reason for keeping up their legal knowledge as the judges of the superior courts. Let it be recollected that the Bill would have to go before the other House of Parliament, where they had heard it was likely to meet with considerable opposition. Unless they provided for an appeal to the superior courts, there might be considerable hostility in the other House;

1171
and, if only because he was anxious for the ultimate success of the measure, he should support the proposed addition.
SIR J. GRAHAMsaid, he, too, was very anxious for the Success of the measure; but he would not prognosticate as to the fate of the Bill in the other House. He was extremely glad that Her Majesty's Government had adopted the course which they had done that evening, that of endeavouring to perfect the Bill as far as possible, so as to meet the reasonable expectations of the great body of the people. He was unable to combat the arguments urged with his accustomed force by the hon. and learned Member for Southampton. He admitted that it might have been desirable to wait longer, in order to see what had been the exact working of the County Court Act. He also admitted, that amongst sixty judges they could not expect uniformity of decision, and that from the very constitution of these courts there could not be such a check on the conduct of the judges as existed in the superior courts. But the two hon. and learned Gentlemen who had just spoken, even though they might argue with the wisdom of Solon, shared a misfortune which had befallen greater persons, and their arguments were liable to the objection which was expressed in two words, "too late." It was the opinion of the people of this country, that in the superior courts of law, what with delay of process, and what with the great expense attending an application to them, justice was too dear; and that they must have a more summary and ready process. He was afraid that the justice which was about to be placed at their disposal, though cheap, would be imperfect as compared with that which they were accustomed to receive at the hands of the Judges of this country. He also entertained some fears as to the indirect effect of this measure in relation to the bar of Westminster Hall—a body of men which he considered to be one of the greatest ornaments of the country, and to whom it was under eternal obligations. If such was the effect, he should regret it. Still the judgment of the people of this country had gone forth. They said, that the course of proceedings in the superior courts with reference to debts of 50 l. was so extravagantly dear that it amounted practically to a denial of justice, and they demanded that a further experiment should be tried. If he was right in reference to the state of the public mind on this question—and
1172
he believed he was perfectly right—by granting an appeal they would violate public opinion on this subject, for they would thus perpetuate all the delay and expense of the present proceedings in the superior courts. He was extremely glad Her Majesty's Government had taken the step which they had done with regard to the investigation of the cost of proceedings in the superior courts. He considered that step a wise one, and wished that it had been taken sooner, either by the Government or their predecessors in office. Late reforms were always dangerous; but he was glad that a remedy was about to be applied, even though it were late, to what required remedying in those courts. It was the earnest and the legitimate desire of the people of this country, with regard to debts of moderate amount, to have cheap and ready justice at their own doors; and though he thought the clause proposed had been both framed and supported in the right spirit, and although he could not satisfactorily answer the arguments urged for it in the abstract, he felt bound to say that he thought the House would not correctly represent the opinions of the country by sanctioning it.
SIR R. H. INGLISsaid, however right it might be to desire cheap, speedy, and summary justice, certain justice was not less important; and he could not help fearing that the decisions of the sixty county court judges would be found as conflicting as those of Election Committees were formerly, when no person could anticipate the decision of the Committee except by looking at its constitution. He had no wish to impede the progress of the Bill; on the contrary, he aimed at making it perfect, and for that reason he should vote for the additional clause.
MR. J. S. WORTLEYdoubted whether those were the best friends of the measure who resisted the proposed addition. It was his firm conviction that if the Bill were passed without including the right of appeal, the county courts would become as remarkable for their unpopularity as they now were for their popularity. The expense of the proposed appeal would be comparatively trifling, not exceeding that of an appeal to the quarter-sessions. In Scotland there was in the ease of debts exceeding 10 l. a right of appeal to the Court of Session, and there it worked satisfactorily.
COLONEL THOMPSONwould excuse himself for interfering, by stating that he

1173
acted chiefly under authority and advice. But, on his own unaided judgment, he hoped he might without profanity, say, "The Lord deliver us from summary jurisdiction! "for certainly it was not necessary to look far, to see good reason for that prayer. Nobody would persuade him that there was any cry in the country, "Cheap law and bad!" And he had heard no answer to the principal argument of the learned advocates for the clause, which was, that judges decided better when there was an appeal hanging over their heads than not. For these reasons he must support the clause.
MR. J. EVANSopposed the clause. He was about to argue a case in the new trial paper in the Queen's Bench, which was a year old; and he had frequently had to argue country new trials after they had been a year and a half or two years in the paper, when he had forgotten all about them. There would be no end of appeals if his hon. and learned Friend's proposition were acceded to, and the business of the Superior courts must necessarily fall into arrear.
MR. CROWTHERsaid, that the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon had failed to convince him of the propriety of passing this Bill without the appeal clause. The House was legislating, not for the moment, but for a continuance, and it would be a strong piece of legislation to pass this Bill without giving an appeal from the judges of the county court, when an appeal had always been allowed from judges selected from the very first ranks of the bar. With regard to the observation made by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Haverford west, there might be some arrear in the business of the Queen's Bench, but in the Exchequer and Common Fleas there were no arrears at all.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 27; Noes 108: Majority 83.

List of the AYES.

Adderley, C. B.

M'Cullagh, W. T.

Barrington, Visct.

Napier, J.

Best, J.

Patten, J. W.

Bremridge, R.

Portal, M.

Brotherton, J.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Chatterton, Col.

Strickland, Sir. G.

Davies, D. A. S.

Thompson, Col.

Denison, E.

Townley, R. G.

Floyer, J.

Vivian, J. E.

Granger, T. C.

Westhead, J. P. B.

Halford, Sir H.

Wortley, rt. hon. J. S.

Hamilton, Lord C.

TELLERS.

Hood, Sir A.

Crowder, R. B.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Cockburn, A. J.

House resumed.
Bill reported; as amended, to be considered on Tuesday nest.

PUBLIC LIBRARIES AND MUSEUMS BILL.
Order for Committee read.
MR. EWART MR. EWART moved that the House resolve itself into Committee on this Bill. He understood that the hon. and gallant Member for Lincoln intended to oppose Mr. Speaker's leaving the chair to go into Committee, although he had divided the House on the introduction of the measure, and on the second reading. The object of the Bill was to allow the inhabitants of towns with more than 10,000 inhabitants to have the advantage of free libraries and museums. He had, in the first instance; proposed that town councils should have the same powers to levy rates for this purpose, as they had under the Baths and Washhouses Act. With the view of meeting some of the opponents of the measure, who objected to this power being given to the town councils, he had withdrawn the former Bill, and introduced a new one on the subject. By the present measure it was essential that the consent of two-thirds of the ratepayers should be obtained before this measure could be carried into effect in any place. On an application being made on the subject, the mayor of a borough was bound to give public notice on the door of the town-hall, and in a newspaper circulated in the place, of his intention to call a meeting of the inhabitants of the place to consider the matter, and this meeting could not be held until at least ten days after the notices had been issued. If the meeting should agree to the plan, the votes of the ratepayers would be taken, and the Act could not be brought into operation in any place without the consent of two-thirds of the ratepayers. He trusted there would be no further objection to the Bill going into Committee.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair."
COLONEL SIBTHORPsaid, although this Bill might be considered to be a new one as compared with the former, he felt bound to continue his opposition to it. These were not times for spending money in the way proposed, when it might be much better expended in providing food and employment for the people. When they bad done this, it was time enough to provide amusements and recreation of the character to be provided for by this Bill. Instead of endeavouring to afford them industrious and profitable employment, he

1175
supposed they would be thinking of supplying the working classes with quoits, peg-tops, and foot-ball. They should first teach the people to read and write. What would be the use of these libraries to those who could not read or write? He supposed that the hon. Member and his Friends would soon be thinking of introducing the performances of Punch for the amusement of the people. The Bill was wholly uncalled for. There were no petitions presented in favour of it. Instead of calling upon the unfortunate ratepayers to pay for these amusements, he, for one, would be more disposed to put his hand in his pocket in order to enable them to enjoy them altogether free from taxation.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out from the word 'that' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'this House will, upon this day six months, resolve itself into the said Committee,'"
instead thereof.
MR. HUMEsaid, that, from the speech of the hon. and gallant Officer, it was evident he had not read the Bill with that attention which was required. Though the greater part of what he had said had been inaudible where he (Mr. Hume) sat, yet there were some points on which he was disposed not to differ much from the hon. and gallant Member: for instance, he was averse from saddling people with any taxation without representation. It would be most objectionable, in particular, to do so for such things as billiard tables. The Bill, however, did not propose to do all these things entirely without the consent of the inhabitants, but after a public meeting of the ratepayers, and the vote of a certain majority of them. With reference to the gallant Officer himself, he should not be surprised if one of the very first things he would do, after the passing of the Bill, would be to present his constituents with a handsome sum of money wherewith to purchase a library. In the United States there were some 10,000 public libraries, but in England, not 200; and, thinking it was much better that the people should have the opportunity of spending their time in public libraries in preference to public houses, he did hope that the gallant Officer would not put the House to the trouble of dividing, but let them proceed with the details of the measure.
MR. ALDERMAN SIDNEYfelt some difficulty in opposing a measure of this kind; but there were several very great discrepancies in the Bill as it at present stood.
1176
There was no provision in the Bill for calling a public meeting of the burgesses, and, if such meeting were called, it was not two-thirds of the whole of the burgesses, but only two-thirds of those at the meeting, whose assent was required. Again, the Act having been once put in force, there was no provision for its ever being repealed. In many towns he believed it would prove utterly abortive. In such a town as Leeds, for example, a single library or museum would not be of the slightest benefit to persons residing at a distance from the centre of the town. He could not admit that the Bill was called for, and should divide against it.
MR. HEALDhad objected to the former Bill; but after the alterations which had been made, he should vote for going into Committee. He thought the preliminary step of taking the opinion of the ratepayers was a most fair mode of proceeding.
COLONEL CHATTERTONasked whether it was intended to make it applicable to Ireland?
MR. EWARTsaid, it did not apply to Ireland, but he understood that an hon. Member had given notice of his intention to introduce it into Ireland.
MR. STANFORDwas not opposed to the principles of the Bill; but he complained that the understanding that had been come to on a previous occasion had been departed from by the hon. Member who had charge of the Bill. There was a distinct understanding, on the occasion to which he referred, that the Act should not be forced on any borough without the assent of two-thirds of the ratepayers. There was a distinct understanding, on the occasion to which he referred, that the Act should not be forced on any borough without the assent of two-thirds of the ratepayers. The effect of this would be, that in the borough which he represented, the 4,000 or 5,000 ratepayers which it contained would be governed by two-thirds of the persons upon the burgess-roll—a proceeding to which he should certainly object. He considered, also, that the Bill was too limited in its object. The vast machinery which it proposed to put in motion was merely to erect buildings, and nothing more. When the buildings were erected there would be no books to put into them, unless the defect was supplied by donations. He believed it would prove as inoperative as the Museums Bill which was passed five years ago; the fact being, he understood, that not one museum had been erected under that Act.
MR. KERSHAWsaid, that the statement

1177
which had just been made by the +hon. Member for Reading was hardly consistent with fact, inasmuch as he knew of one museum, at all events, that had been established under the Act—he meant the one at Salford; and he believed the Act had also come into operation in other places. With respect to the present measure, he begged to say, that so far from the large ratepayers being likely to object to the small rate which the Bill provided for, his firm conviction was, that they would willingly pay it, in order to secure to the people of this country the great benefits which would be derived from this Bill, if it should become law. In his opinion, it was impossible to overrate the advantages which were likely to flow from a measure of this kind; and, therefore, it should have his hearty support at every stage.
MR. SPOONERappealed to his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lincoln, whether it was worth while to take the sense of the House again upon the principle of the Bill, there having been already two divisions upon it; and whether it would not be better to go at once into Committee, and endeavour to amend it there as much as possible.
MR. FORBEShad heard various reasons assigned for going into Committee on this Bill, but none of them appeared to his mind at all satisfactory; and, therefore, if his hon. and gallant Friend divided the House, he should vote with him.
MR. WYLDwas surprised at the opposition which had been offered to this Bill by the agricultural interest, and could only account for it by supposing that they were alarmed lest it should lead to the diminished consumption of an article in which they largely dealt (malt); because it appeared, from the whole course of evidence on this subject, that, in proportion as institutions of this kind were established, drunkenness and crime had diminished.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes 87; Noes 21: Majority 66.

List of the NOES.

Benbow, J.

Dick, Q.

Best, J.

Gwyn, H.

Booth, Sir R. G.

Hildyard, R. C.

Brockman, E. D.

Hood, Sir A.

Chatterton, Col.

Hudson, G.

Cubitt, W.

Inglis, Sir E. H.

Denison, E.

Law, hon. C. E.

1178

Masterman, J.

Stanford, J. F.

Mailings, J. R.

Stanley, E.

Prime, R.

TELLERS.

Sidney, Ald.

Forbes, W.

Spooner, R.

Sibthorp, Col.

Main Question put, and agreed to.
House in Committee.
On Clause 1 being proposed,
MR. GOULBURNdesired to be informed in how many instances the Museums Bill, which was passed five years ago, had been adopted?
MR. EWARTsaid, it had been, or was being adopted, in Warrington, Salford, Manchester, Leicester, and other places.
MR. BROTHERTONsaid, that, as he observed the object of hon. Members opposite was to waste the time of the House, in order, apparently, to prevent them getting to the next Order on the Paper (the Marriages Bill), he begged to move that the Chairman report progress.
MR. LAWthought they had better go on with the present Bill.
SIR G. GREYreminded the hon. Gentleman that the effect of his Motion would be to delay the measure indefinitely.
MR. HUMEconsidered that, in the circumstances, it would be advisable to proceed with the business which was expected to come on; and he would therefore support the Motion.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 68; Noes 48: Majority 20.
House resumed.
Committee report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
On the Question, that the Committee have leave to sit again,
MR. EWART MR. EWART moved that the Chairman have leave to sit again on Wednesday.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House will, upon Wednesday next, again resolve itself into the said Committee."
MR. LAW MR. LAW moved the substitution of the words "this day six months," for "Wednesday."
Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "Wednesday next," and insert the words "this day six months" instead thereof.
MR. HUMEexpressed his sorrow to find how much disposition there was in the House to obstruct a measure for the enlightenment of the country. He was sorry for it, but hon. Members opposite seemed

1179
determined advocates for keeping the country in as dark an ignorance as possible.
MR. LAW, without the least disrespect to the hon. Member, must enroll him amongst the advocates for ignorance, inasmuch as he had just voted to stop the progress of this Bill for the enlightenment of the country.
SIR H. VERNEYsaid, that those hon. Members who were advocates for this Bill had great reason to complain of the conduct of the hon. Member who had charge of the Bill. He considered the measure one of the greatest importance to the country; its only fault was, that it was applicable to towns alone, and not to the agricultural districts.
COLONEL THOMPSON, as an impartial witness, must say, that in his judgment there had been no opposition from the other side of the House, and all the opposition had been on his.
Question put, "That the words 'Wednesday next stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes 85; Noes 47: Majority 38.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Committee to sit again on Wednesday next.

MARRIAGES BILL.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
Clause 3.
MR. ROUNDELL PALMERrose to move the Amendment of which he had given notice. He said the Bill had been introduced last year in a form which was perfectly consistent and intelligible, and which professed to make no difference in any way between Churchmen and Dissenters. It did not then profess in any sense to be a Bill for the especial relief of persons dissenting from the Established Church of Great Britain and Ireland. The Bill then provided that there should be full liberty to all persons throughout the united kingdom to contract this description of marriage, and that it should be at the option of any minister of religion, in the church or out of it, to celebrate such marriage or not. The principle of that Bill was affirmed by the House on the second reading, and he (Mr. R. Palmer) gave notice of amendments which would have had the effect of preserving the definitive doctrine of the Church on this subject, and of preserving its discipline to this limited extent, that no clergyman should be permitted to solemnise a marriage contrary
1180
to the law of the Church of which he was a minister. Those amendments were not accepted by his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bute; and he had therefore abundant ground for saying that down to the end of the last Session there was no pretence to legislate especially for Dissenters upon this matter. But soon after the House had risen for the recess, there were signs of a remarkable change of view on the part of his right hon. and learned Friend, and it became evident that the subject was about to be presented to the consideration of the House as in an especial manner a Dissenter's question. He held in his hand a printed copy of a letter which appeared to have been written by his right hon. and learned Friend to some gentleman belonging to the Dissenting body, and which had been published by that gentleman in a Dissenting newspaper called the Nonconformist. That letter showed the new points of view in which the question was then first presented. His right hon. and learned Friend said—
"It is my intention to reintroduce the Bill to which you refer at the very beginning of the Session, and to press it through the House of Commons, if possible, before Easter. In the House of Lords I regret to have to anticipate a very formidable opposition; and, therefore, it is very important that those who have an interest in the question should spare no exertion to influence public opinion, and, through the force of public opinion, to sway the decision of the Lords. Hitherto, I confess that I have been disappointed at the absence of anything like a systematic support from the Dissenters; for, though an important petition was presented by Mr. C. Lushington, signed by 108 of the principal ministers of Dissenting congregations, no general movement has been made; and yet, considering the high ground of Church authority and canonical decisions which was taken by the opponents of the Marriage Bill, the question really becomes one of religious liberty. If the organisation of the Dissenting bodies could be used for procuring petitions, it would, in my judgment, be of immense value, for though there will be a considerable majority in the House of Commons in favour of the Bill, there will, unless some new impulse be given, be little chance of success in the House of Lords, and it is not a subject on which it is easy to keep up any strong public feeling."
It was evident from that letter that they were to have the measure presented to them in a new point of view, and since that time there had undoubtedly been a very great endeavour made, with a certain degree of success, to obtain a large amount of peculiarly Dissenting support—and he wished to speak with all due respect of the Dissenting communities—for this measure. Accordingly,

1181
when his right hon. and learned Friend applied for leave to introduce this Bill at the commencement of the Session, he took new ground, and instead of proposing it as a measure equally and indifferently applicable to all Her Majesty's subjects, he placed the Bill in a great measure upon the ground of the conscientious opinions entertained by the Dissenting bodies, and said he had come to the conclusion that it would be wise to omit those provisions to which objection had been made, and to leave the rules and discipline of the Established Church perfectly untouched by the measure. His right hon. and learned Friend had said, speaking of the Bill as it stood, that the doctrine and discipline of the Church of Scotland were left by it intact; but he (Mr. R. Palmer) thought he would be able to prove that that was an extremely erroneous proposition. He found his right hon. and learned Friend—adopting to that extent the Amendment which he had suggested last Session—proposed now to provide "that nothing contained in this Bill should be deemed or construed, in any civil or ecclesiastical court of this realm, to alter or affect any doctrine, canon, or law ecelesiastical of the United Church of England and Ireland, or of the Church of Scotland, whereby the degrees of consanguinity and affinity within which marriage is now held to be prohibited by the doctrine and discipline of those churches respectively were settled or defined." This did nothing beyond providing that the abstract doctrine of the Church on the question should not be taken to be altered. The clause then provided that no clergyman, minister, or officer of either of the Churches specified should be required or authorised knowingly to solemnise or grant any licence for solemnising any marriage contrary to the doctrine or discipline of the Church of which he was a minister. There was nothing more in the clause to save the doctrine or discipline, or laws of either of the Churches; but his right hon. and learned Friend had qualified the amendments which he had so far adopted, by a most important proviso, declaring that the parties to any such marriage should not, by reason only of such affinity, be subject to censure or punishment by suit in the ecclesiastical court. This was in effect providing that the whole of the administrative discipline of the Church should be destroyed, leaving untouched only the doctrinal definitions relating to the subject. The
1182
object of his (Mr. R. Palmer's) present Amendment was to do in reality what his right hon. Friend professed an intention to do; to leave the rules, and doctrine, and discipline of the Church, entirely intact; but this clause would prevent proceedings from being taken in the ecclesiastical courts for the purpose of enforcing the discipline of the Church. He would ask the Committee to consider what infractions of the rights and discipline of the two Churches might result if his Amendment was not adopted. Let them take the case of proceedings in the ecclesiastical courts for restitution of conjugal rights between persons who had contracted the description of marriages to which this Bill referred. The right hon. and learned Gentleman professed to leave untouched the doctrine of the Church on this subject; so that it was still to be the acknowledged and unaltered doc trine of the Churches of England and Soot-land that a marriage with the sister of a deceased wife was an incestuous marriage. Suppose such a marriage to be contracted, and that afterwards one of the parties felt a scruple of conscience, and was led to believe that the unaltered law of the Church of England, affirming such marriages to be incestuous, was in conformity with the law of God. The other party, taking a different view, might bring a suit in the ecclesiastical court for a restitution of conjugal rights. What was the ecclesiastical court to do? As the Bill stood, these marriages were declared to be lawful; no decree or sentence of any court whatever was to pronounce any such marriage null or void; and by this third clause it was proposed to take away the power of proceeding in the ecclesiastical court for any censure or punishment by reason only of the affinity of the parties contracting marriage. No words were introduced which could enable the ecclesiastical court to say, "We will draw a line between these and other marriages, and we must refuse to decree restitution of conjugal rights on the ground that the Church considers the marriage incestuous." A suit for the restitution of conjugal rights could at present only be defended on the ground either of the invalidity of the marriage, of adultery, or of cruelty—the court having the power, on the establishment of the first plea, to pronounce the marriage null, or on proof of the second or third to decree a separation à mensâ et thoro. It was clear, if the Committee did not adopt the proviso which he proposed, that they would compel the

1183
courts of the Church to pronounce decrees requiring parties to live together in a state which the law of the Church denounced as incestuous. He begged to call the attention of the Committee also to this important fact—that a clergyman of the Church might have contracted one of these marriages, and might be living in a state regarded by the doctrines of that Church as incestuous, and yet the Bill would preclude his being subjected to any ecclesiastical censure or punishment by reason of such marriage. He (Mr. R. Palmer) thought that, if this Bill passed in its present form, no clergyman could, without very serious risk of penal consequences in the ecclesiastical or temporal courts, refuse to administer all the rites and sacraments of the Church to those members of the Church, whether clergy or laity, who might contract marriages which, according to the doctrine of the Church, must be regarded as incestuous. It appeared to him that, so far as Scotland was concerned, the gravest constitutional principles were involved in this matter. What was the ecclesiastical law of Scotland on this subject? By the Act of Union it was declared that the maintenance of those Acts of the Scottish Parliament which were passed upon the accession of William III., for establishing and securing the Presbyterian religion, church government, and discipline, should for ever be confirmed, and that they should be perpetual and unalterable conditions of the union of the two kingdoms. By one of these Acts so made perpetual and unalterable, the Confession of Faith of the Church of Scotland was ratified and established as part of the law of the land, and in that Confession of Faith he found these two articles. The first was—
"Marriage ought not to be within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity forbidden in the word. Nor can such incestuous marriages ever be made lawful by any law of man, or consent of parties, so as these persons may live together as man and wife. The man may not marry any of his wife's kindred nearer in blood, than he may of his own; nor the woman of her husband's kindred, nearer in blood than of her own."
The Confession of Faith also set forth the authority and duty of church officers, as distinct from the civil magistrates, to administer a spiritual and moral government in the Church by means of censure and absolutions. The article was—
"Church censures are necessary for the reclaiming and gain of offending brethren, for deterring others from the like offences, for purging out that leaven which might infect the whole
1184
lump, for vindicating the honour of Christ and the holy profession of the Gospel, and for preventing the wrath of God, which might justly fall upon the Church, if they should suffer His covenant and the seals thereof to be profaned by notorious and obstinate offenders. For the better attaining of these ends, the officers of the Church are to proceed by admonition, suspension from the sacrament of the Lord's supper for a season, and by excommunication from the Church, according to the nature of the crime, and demerit of the person."
Now the last proviso in this clause would distinctly prohibit the church courts of Scotland from executing these powers, for it declared that parties to any such marriages should not, by reason only of their affinity, be subject to censure or punishment in the ecclesiastical courts. He had received many representations on this subject, and he had no doubt that hon. Members who represented Scotland would be able to confirm those representations. He had received a letter from an exemplary beneficed clergyman of the Church of Scotland, from which he would venture to read some extracts, to show the distress and confusion that would be occasioned if they passed this Bill without some such proviso as he proposed. His correspondent said—
"It ought to be remembered that the discipline of our Church (I speak of the Church of Scotland) extends, not merely to the clergy, but to the members of the Church. Suppose, then, that a church member contracts such a marriage as that which this Bill proposes to legalise, he is regarded by our ecclesiastical law as guilty of having contracted an incestuous marriage. Suppose, then, that this man applies for church privileges, baptism for children, or admission to the Lord's table for himself; these privileges, according to the laws of our Church, must be refused, and refused until the incestuous intercourse be discontinued. There is thus a wide difference between such a marriage and what is called an irregular marriage. An irregular marriage is recognised by the law of Scotland, and yet the parties are liable to church censure; but our ecclesiastical law does not in such a case require that the connexion be dissolved, which it does in the other, and, accordingly, parties who have contracted an irregular marriage may be restored to church privileges while living together, which cannot be the case with such as have contracted what the laws of our Church consider an incestuous marriage. The Church, as recognised by the State, has unquestionably been established for the purpose of supplying with divine ordinances those who are without reproach; but if this Bill be passed, the Church of Scotland must regard persons as having disqualified themselves for her communion by doing that which the laws of their country warrant them to do. Then, suppose, again, that a clergyman of our Church takes advantage of this law and enters into such a union as it legalises; the church courts must interfere and take such steps as will ultimately lead to his deposition. They can have no choice in this.

1185
The question will then arise, 'Can a man be lawfully deposed for doing that which the civil law entitles him to do?' The civil law cannot regard him as worthy of deposition. The fruits of the benefice will thus be severed from the cure of souls, which the civil courts a few years ago declared to be impossible, and thus the civil and the ecclesiastical courts are brought into collision; the civil courts refusing to give effect to the sentence of the ecclesiastical, the civil courts declaring the man still to be minister of the particular parish to which he may belong, and still a minister of the Church of Scotland, while the Church of Scotland herself declares him not even to be in communion with her. There will be this most important difference between such a case and those which led to the secession of 1843, that the collision will not be betwixt the civil power and a party in the Church, but betwixt the civil power and the Church itself."
That was the case as regarded Scotland. But what did the English canons say? He would take the 109th canon, which declared that—
"If any offended the brethren, either by adultery, whoredom, incest, or any other uncleanness or wickedness of life, such notorious offenders shall not be admitted to the holy communion till they be reformed."
Now the 99th canon declared that no persons should marry within the prohibited degrees, and that all marriages contracted against the terms of that canon were to be considered incestuous. The words were these:—
"No person shall marry within the degrees prohibited by the laws of God, and expressed in a table set forth by authority in the year of our Lord 1563; and all marriages so made and contracted shall be adjudged incestuous and unlawful."
The Bill then before them—if it passed—and the canons taken together, would constitute a body of law which the clergy would be both morally and legally censurable for not obeying, but the parts of which were not consistent. Upon a moral and doctrinal question, such as that of the prohibited degrees of marriage, the clergy were bound to obey the law of the Church; and if Parliament wished to preserve that law and to protect the clergy in their obedience to it, he did not see how they could refuse the Amendment that he had proposed. He knew that one of the objections to the Amendment which he had placed upon the paper was this, that the effect of it would be to hold out inducements to some members of the Church of England to become Dissenters. If any desired on that ground to become Dissenters, he would say, let them go. Better that they openly became Dissenters than that persons holding such opinions as they
1186
did should be retained within the body of the Church. If they conscientiously differed from the Church, they might, as professed Dissenters, entitle themselves to all due respect; but if they differed from the Church upon important and fundamental principles, why should they join us? Such members gave no strength to the Church, and the union of them with the Church could be of no service to the country. If the House were induced to adopt the Amendments which he had proposed, they would find this to be the effect of introducing them—that they would, as far as possible, enable the members of those great religious communities which disapproved of the Bill, to relieve themselves from its operation. Was that a slight thing? If the Bill remained as it stood, every married man and woman throughout the country would find the domestic relations in which they stood to the sisters of the wife inevitably changed; and, after the wife's death, no widower, however decided against a marriage with his wife's sister, could continue to associate with her as a brother-in-law. If the laws and discipline of the two Churches were preserved inviolate, this might be some protection to all who, being within the pale of those Churches, would be subject to their laws, and amenable to their discipline. But if, while they pretended to leave untouched the law of those Churches, they took away all power of enforcing that law, they took away all protection from those who dissented from the principles upon which the measure was founded—they took away all protection from every one whose social relations and position might be interfered with by its provisions.
Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 17, after the word "passed," to insert the following words:—
"Nor shall any member of either of the said Churches, who may hereafter contract any such marriage, be exempted, by virtue of this Act, from any such Spiritual or Ecclesiastical censure or punishment; nor shall any sentence for restitution of conjugal rights be pronounced by any Ecclesiastical Court in any suit or proceeding between the parties to any such marriage."
MR. J. S. WORTLEYcould not give his assent to the Amendment, because he believed it not only uncalled for, but contradictory in principle and highly mischievous in operation. It was wholly inconsistent with the general tone and tenor of the Bill; and, with all deference to his hon. and learned Friend, for whoso ability he had the highest respect, he must take

1187
leave to say that nothing could be more absurd or irrational. The Amendment had its origin in that which had dictated from first to last the opposition which had been offered to this Bill, namely, in a desire to stretch the ecclesiastical authority to the utmost possible point. There could be no question that the anxiety to effect this most undesirable object was the head and front of the opposition which had been offered to the Bill; and in no portion of that resistance was the spirit more clearly discernible than in the present Amendment. The effect of the Amendment would be to lead to this inconsistent and anomalous result, that a man marrying the sister of his deceased wife would contract an alliance, the validity of which would be recognised by the civil courts, but in such position would he stand with respect to the ecclesiastical courts that any person who was prompted by an impulse of malignity against him would have nothing to do but to institute a proceeding against him in the latter tribunals, and to cause a judgment to be passed upon him, the effect of which would be to expose him to the penalty of standing in a white sheet at the church door. Against such an anomalous state of the law as this, he, for one, would never cease to protest. There was not the least colour of truth in the Statement that the Bill was a coercive measure. It compelled no man to contract such a marriage, and no clergyman to solemnise it, against their own sense of right. Perfect freedom of conscience was guaranteed to all, both lay and clerical.
SIR R. H. INGLISobserved that his right hon. and learned Friend had imputed to the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth a wish to extend the limits of Church authority. [Mr. J. S. WORTLEY: Ecclesiastical authority were the words he had used.] If there were any distinction between ecclesiastical authority and Church authority he would leave his right hon. and learned Friend to explain it to the Committee. His right hon. and learned Friend was understood to say, he wished to leave the law as regarded proceedings in ecclesiastical courts precisely where it stood at present. He would leave marriages within the prohibited degrees precisely where they were at present, so far as proceedings in the ecclesiastical courts were concerned. His right hon. and learned Friend, in the letter which the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth had read to the House, complained that the subject then before the
1188
House "was one upon which it was not easy to keep up any strong public feeling." He had himself that morning received a lithographed letter, and he presumed that he was not the only Member of that House who had received such a communication, stating that the matter now before them was a question of civil and religious liberty; a question of civil and religious liberty, that a man should be free to marry his deceased wife's sister. In his opinion the House of Commons had no discretionary power—they were bound to consider whether the Bill was, or was not, agreeable to the word of God. Opposition to the Bill did not come from those who sought to enlarge Church authority or ecclesiastical power, neither were the defenders of the Bill to be considered hostile to the Church of England.
SIR F. THESIGERsaid, he wished for an explanation of his right hon. and learned Friend's opinion as to the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Plymouth; he seemed to have no objection to the latter part of the Amendment. If he understood rightly, his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bute stated that no ecclesiastical court would possess authority to pronounce sentence in a suit between parties who stood towards each other within the prohibited degrees of affinity.
MR. J. S. WORTLEYexplained.
MR. COCKBURNthought there could be nothing more mischievous than the legislation now proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth; for the Committee, if they agreed to the Amendment, were about to place the ecclesiastical tribunals in direct opposition to the civil tribunals of the country. For all civil purposes, the civil tribunals were, by this Act, to give effect and validity to these marriages; and yet at the same time, by this Amendment, the ecclesiastical tribunals were to be at liberty to pass ecclesiastical censures upon those who contracted the very marriages which the Legislature pronounced to be legal. Now, the ecclesiastical courts of this country did not stand so very high in public estimation at the present moment, that it was expedient to give them the coup de grace by putting them in direct opposition to the civil authority. What had the ecclesiastical courts to do with marriage? The reason was, that ecclesiastics formerly claimed a jurisdiction in regard to marriage because they had treated it as a sacrament; and the House

1189
was asked to allow these courts to deal with the subject as if the question were a purely ecclesiastical one. The ecclesiastical courts claimed to exercise jurisdiction in regard to the restitution of conjugal rights "for the safety of the soul;" but he believed that such suits were instituted for something else very different. If the Bill were bad, let the House throw it out; but if they determined to pass it, as he trusted they would, believing that it would work great good, let them not neutralise its effects, and involve their legislation in inconsistencies.
MR. OSWALDwished to obtain some information as to the effect of this Amendment with regard to the Church of Scotland. There were no ecclesiastical courts in Scotland, but there were church courts belonging both to the Established Church and the Free Church. The first part of this Amendment would allow the church courts of Scotland to say that a person who had contracted these marriages had tendered himself subject to their censure; and he wished to know whether the Bill would give to the Scottish Churches the power of maintaining that discipline which was absolutely indispensable to every church, if it were to continue a living body with the power of putting its belief into action.
MR. P. WOODregarded the Amendment as calculated to prevent rather than to provoke a collision between the ecclesiastical and civil courts. He, for one, was anxious to see the ecclesiastical courts liberated from many subjects that now occupied their attention, and he thought he had reason to complain of Her Majesty's Government for not having introduced a Bill to reform those courts. It was stated that such a measure was about to be brought forward, but the Session had well nigh passed, and no step had yet been taken to redeem the promise made by the Government. In the mean time he thought the House ought to leave the ecclesiastical courts to deal with these marriages according to their own principles and doctrines, and the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth would have that effect. He was anxious to see an alteration in the mode of proceeding in ecclesiastical courts, which he admitted was not satisfactory, and he should be glad when the promised Bill was introduced to reform the state of the ecclesiastical law, both temporal and spiritual.
MR. J. S. WORTLEYsaid, that his
1190
intention was to preserve in the fullest degree the discipline of the Church of Scotland.
MR. LAWsaid, it would appear, then, that the Church of Scotland would have the power to censure its members for having contracted these marriages. Would his right hon. and learned Friend extend that power to the Church of England?
MR. J. S. WORTLEYexplained that with the exception of suits in the ecclesiastical court, which were excepted by the Amendment before the House, the power of censure now held by the Church of England, as well as of Scotland, would not be interfered with.
MR. ROUNDELL PALMERdeclared his entire dissent from the statement just made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
Question put, "That the proposed words be there inserted."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 103; Noes 145: Majority 42.
Clause agreed to; as were also Clauses 4 and 5.
Clause 6.
COLONEL CHATTERTONsaid: Sir, having given notice of my intention to move the insertion of a clause in the Marriage Bill of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Buteshire, I must of necessity claim the indulgence of the House. Perhaps, Sir, it may not be expected that I should take any part in this debate; but as I know of no reason why a soldier should not be interested in a matter of a religious character, I venture, as such, to offer my decided objection to the concession now sought for. I am unwilling that this Bill should pass for one or two reasons, which I shall briefly state to the House. When I acknowledge I am predisposed to receive with favour and with confidence every sound argument against legalising those impure marriages which the Divine law has ever pronounced incestuous, I only acknowledge the force of that Christian education which has taught us all to view with repugnance even the idea of marriage within the prohibited degrees. Before the Catholic Church in England rescued herself from the usurpation, and reformed herself from the innovations of Romanism, the marriages between first and between second cousins was prohibited, and could not be entered into except by dispensation. But by the table of prohibited degrees, published in the year 1663, such marriages were not prohibited;

1191
and by this table of kindred which should govern us, the Church has only introduced her authority against those marriages which were contrary to Divine law; and amongst those divinely prohibited marriages is the supposed one of a man with his deceased wife's sister. It may not, Sir, be here either irrelevant or out of place to call to mind the 99th canon, as exhibiting the earnestness of the Church in this matter. By this canon it is ordained—
"That no person shall marry within the degrees prohibited by the law of God, and expressed in a table set forth by authority in the year of our Lord 1563; and all marriages so made shall be adjudged incestuous and unlawful, and consequently shall be dissolved from the beginning, and the parties so married shall by course of law be separated."
Sir, upon this canon Burn remarks that—
"Before the statute the 32nd of Henry VIII., other prohibitions than God's law admitted were invented by the Court of Rome. The dispensation thereof they always reserved to themselves."
But be it remembered that the marriage now contemplated, namely, that of a man with his wife's sister, has ever been held by the Catholic Church of all ages as prohibited by Divine law. Sir, I am well aware there unhappily exists, and has existed for a long series of years, much religious controversy upon this subject; for we find the question was agitated nearly 300 years ago, as will be seen by an extract of a letter I hold in my hand from that exemplary and erudite divine. Bishop Jewell (then Bishop of Salisbury), to Archbishop Parker, second Archbishop of Canterbury. This letter, which is dated "Sarum, Calends November, 1561," gives, in my humble judgment, the clearest and most satisfactory view and interpretation of this part of the 18th chapter of Leviticus, so much in disputation. The letter says—
"Whereas ye desire to understand ray poor advice touching certain words in the xviii. Leviticus, by which ye think it lawful for a man to marry successively his own wife's sister, I would rather ye had taken in hand some other matters to defend. I reckon the words of Leviticus whereupon ye ground are these—'Uxorem et sororem suam ad lacessendam earn, ne duces ut retegas turpitudinem ejus ilia adhuc vivente.' There are no express words in the Levitical law, whereby I am prohibited to marry my wife's sister: ergo, by the Levitical law such marriage is to be accounted lawiul; for, notwithstanding the statute in that case makes no relation unto the 18th chapter of Leviticus as unto a place wherein the degrees of consanguinity and affinity are touched more at large, yet you must remember that certain
1192
degrees are there left out, untouched, within which, nevertheless, it was never thought lawful for man to marry. For example, there is nothing provided there by express words that a man may marry his own grandmother, or his grandfather's second wife, or the wife of his uncle by his mother's side—no, nor is there any express prohibition in all this chapter but that any of these may join together in lawful marriage. Wherefore we must needs think that God hath in this chapter especially and namely forbidden certain degrees, not as leaving all marriages lawful which he has not expressly forbidden, but that thereby, as by infallible precedents, we might be able to rule the rest; as when God saith no man shall many his mother, we understand that under the name of mother is contained both the grandmother and the grandfather's wife, and that such marriages are forbidden; and when God commands that no man shall marry the wife of his uncle by his father's side, we doubt not but in the same is in-eluded the wife of the uncle by the mother's side. Thus you see God himself would leave us to expound one degree by another; so likewise in this case, albeit I be not forbidden by plain words to marry my wife's sister, yet I am forbidden by other words which, by exposition, are plain enough; for when God commands me I shall not marry my brother's wife, it follows directly by the same that he forbids to marry my wife's sister, for between one man and two sisters, and one woman and two brothers, is like analogy or proportion, which in my judgment in this case, and other such like, ought to be taken for a rule."
In this religious view of the case, Sir, I offer my opposition, not from my own weak and erring judgment, nor from my private judgment of Holy Writ, but as instructed by that teacher of righteousness, the witness and interpreter of Holy Scripture, the Church of Christ. These sentiments of a religious character, brief, cursory, and feeble, as may have been their expression, are, however, sufficiently cogent with me, as a Churchman, to give my emphatic denial to the Bill now before the House. I must leave the theological and controversial defence of the teaching of the Church to those whom the Church has ordained, as for other more sacred and mysterious duties, so likewise for this important work, a work in the present day requiring much learning and great self-denial, I mean the duty which ordination imposes upon every priest of the Established Church, "to be ever ready to banish and drive away all erroneous and strange doctrines, contrary to God's word." I must also beg, Sir, to oppose this measure upon social grounds. It is really painful to contemplate the effect even the agitation of the question has upon social life. The manifest tendency of the concession sought for must be to introduce jealousy, estrangement, and suspicion into

1193
married life; for can any one suppose that under this Bill the same pure brotherly intercourse which has hitherto prevailed, and I trust ever will prevail, between a man and his sister-in-law could possibly exist? The very possibility of their future marriage would totally prevent any more confidential or affectionate intimacy between a man and his wife's sister, than might exist between him and any other woman not at all related to him. I confess, Sir, I cannot see the necessity of this Bill. I can answer for my own countrymen, my Protestant and Roman Catholic brethren, that the principles of both the measures you propose will never be acted upon by thorn; nor can I see how any faithful son of the English Church can set at nought her plain and unqualified condemnation of these marriages; and upon this point it greatly gratifies me to quote the excellent authority of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dungarvon, whose brilliant and persuasive eloquence on this subject so charmed the House, and to which I also beg to pay my humble tribute of admiration. Being anxious to strengthen my case as regards Ireland, the House will, I trust, permit me to read an extract from a letter I have lately received from a most worthy and learned divine, a dignitary of the Established Church in the south of Ireland. He says—
"I am obliged by your sending me Mr. Wortley's Bill, a measure which, I trust, for the welfare and happiness of the women of these kingdoms, will never pass into a law; such connexions in this country are held in universal and just abhorrence. The feelings of the Roman Catholic laity and clergy are even more strong against it than those of our own people; the Presbyterians of course share in the dislike of the Scotch Church to such marriages. Some time since I made inquiry throughout this country, and ascertained beyond a doubt, that such marriages are scarcely ever heard of, and the conviction that legalising such connexions would be destructive to morality and the best interests of society."
Sir, it would gratify me much by the permission of the House to read an extract from a most respectable Dublin paper, the Mail, on the wretched consequences of this proposed Bill:—
"Some of the London morning journals have inserted, and continue to publish, a disgusting advertisement, purporting to be the substance of an unanimous resolution passed at a congregational meeting of Dissenting ministers, who pronounce in favour of the marriage of a widower with his deceased wife's sister or niece. What sort of ministers they pretend to be who thus declare
1194
themselves opposed to the salutary restraints by which religion and long-hallowed custom have fenced about the character of the domestic hearth, we cannot tell. Perchance, they may 'dissent' from the moral law of the Gospel, and incline towards the Turkish system, which goes even farther than they at present see any necessity for going, and sanctions the intermarriage of brothers and sisters. In some Roman Catholic countries, it is not an uncommon thing for a man to marry his own niece, his brother's or sister's child; and we recollect what a sentiment of abhorrence was raised against Dom Miguel for proposing such a connexion with the present Queen of Portugal. But without going at largo into the question, we may refer to one or two incidents, showing the disastrous tendency of the bare agitation of such a subject. A man was lately committed to prison in Lancaster on the charge of murdering his wife, his accomplice being her sister, with whom he had been living in a state of criminal intimacy, and their object was to remove the only obstacle to their being legally united in matrimony according to the measure introduced into Parliament by the hon. Mr. Stuart Wortley. Still more lately, in the county of Norfolk, a similar incident occurred. Elias Lucas, charged with the murder of his wife, was brought to trial on the 25th of March last at Cambridge; there stood beside him in the same dock Maria Reeder, his wife's sister, charged with aiding and abetting the murder. It appeared that the sister Maria had come to reside with the unfortunate couple some weeks before the fatal event. It was at or about this time that the illicit passion which engendered the murder arose, or at least manifested itself clearly. They were both found guilty of administering arsenic, and now lie under sentence of death."
The unfortunate guilty pair have since been executed.
"A recent trial in Tipperary illustrates the practical tendency of such a change as Mr. Wortley's Bill would introduce. A Dr. Langley was tried for the murder of his wife and acquitted. The verdict was a just one we admit; but it was fully proved that the prisoner, after living for many years in terms of unbroken affection with his wife, had latterly adopted a course of brutal unmanly treatment towards her, which embittered at least, if it did not shorten her days; and what was the origin of such a sudden change of conduct? It is fully detailed in a letter written by himself, and read at the trial. He conceived an unhappy passion for his wife's niece, to whom no doubt he expected to be joined in matrimony, as soon as the complaisance of the Legislature would sanction such a marriage; and from the moment that thought found harbour in his breast he began to hate his wife. His words are very remarkable, and worthy of consideration—'My aversion to my poor and unfortunate Ellen has now become unconquerable.' How many uncles and brothers-in-law would transfer their affections in a similar manner if the law should open the way towards the gratification of their illicit fancies? This case of Dr. Langley's should not be lost sight of by the defenders of Christian morality in Parliament when Mr. Wortley's Bill comes again to be considered."
But I greatly fear I have quite exhausted

1195
the patience of the House; and, thanking them very sincerely for the hearing they have honoured me with, I would, in conclusion, give my opinion that the only persons of Her Majesty's subjects who appear anxious for this miserable privilege are those of the manufacturing class who are Dissenters. If it be deemed right, if it be deemed politic or advisable, grant the concession to such persons, and when they accept it, we shall learn how much a tender conscience can bear. But let us, as Churchmen, remember that these marriages of a man with his deceased wife's sister or niece are forbidden by divine command as incestuous and unlawful, as the Church testifies and teaches; and let it ever he borne in mind that what God has forbidden, no human enactment, no human authority, can ever render either safe or lawful. Anxious, Sir, to rescue my country from that discredit which in my mind will encircle England should this Bill pass into a law, and following the example of my right hon. Friend the Member for Perth, who wishes to throw the same halo round his country, I beg to move that the provisions of this Act do not pass into a law in Ireland.
Clause (Provided always, and be it Enacted, That nothing in this Act contained shall extend, or be construed to extend, to Ireland) brought up, and read 1°.
MR. FARRER MR. FARRER moved that the Chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again. Having been listening attentively for some time, he must declare he could not hear one syllable that had fallen from the hon. and gallant Officer. To-morrow morning, perhaps, when the newspapers were published, he would have it in his power to form an idea of what the hon. and gallant Officer had said; but now he was utterly ignorant of what it was all about. It was now just twelve o'clock of the first night of their sitting in the New House of Commons. They were without any ventilation, and with works going on outside, he was sorry to say, with a very pestiferous smell. Hon. Members would have to pass by these works to get to their homes, and the best thing the House could do was to support his Motion, and all go home to bed.
COLONEL SIBTHORPsupported the Option for adjournment. In the progress of the Museum and Libraries Bill he could not tell what hon. Members were saying, and it was almost impossible to find out
1196
what they were dividing about. The sooner they got out of that unwholesome place the better, and in the morning they could form an opinion of what had been said in argument.
MR. J. S. WORTLEYappealed to the House not to yield to any Motion for adjourning so important a question. As to the arguments of the hon. and gallant Officer the Member for the city of Cork, they might apply to the principle of the Bill, which had been confirmed by the House, but did not make out any peculiar case for the exemption of Ireland. Don't let the House be guilty of the absurdity of enacting one law for Ireland, and another for England. The principle of the Bill had received the support of the present Archbishop of Dublin and of the late Dr. Dickenson, the excellent Bishop of Meath. The opponents of the Bill said it was a woman's question; but one of the most distinguished Irishwomen, Miss Edge-worth, stated that her father had married two sisters, and that the marriages had been productive of the greatest domestic happiness.
MR. F. MAULEobserved, that all the persons quoted by the right hon. and learned Member were Protestants, but he had not referred to the fact that the Bill was repugnant to the Roman Catholics, almost universally. Although he differed from them vitally in many opinions, he thought they were entitled to the same justice that he wished to see meted to himself. He would vote for the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for the city of Cork.
MR. NAPIERcould affirm of the Protestants of Ireland, that their feeling against the Bill was just as unanimous as among the Roman Catholics. He was confident no question could be selected on which the opinions of all religious persuasions in Ireland were more determined and unanimous. It was said the Archbishop of Dublin was in favour of this Bill, but he was not an Irishman; and, even if he were, the opinion of one archbishop was not to decide the opinion of the whole population. He considered the Bill as destructive to the happiness of families, and as, therefore, he would vote against it on every opportunity, he should support the Motion.
COLONEL THOMPSONhad always understood, not that the manufacturing population were the prompters of this demand,

1197
but that the middle classes were charged with getting up a stormy agitation for it. He therefore protested against the terms that had been used in the debate as to the former. He felt strong doubts as to Scotch and Irish unanimity. On a previous occasion it had been urged on the House that the feeling of Scotland was unanimous, but the newspapers showed that at that very time Scotchmen were breaking one another's heads in Edinburgh in public meetings on the subject. Scotch unanimity would become a proverb.
MR. F. MAULEsaid, the feeling in Scotland was unanimous until it was stirred up by a paid agitator. That person had been amongst his (Mr. F. Maule's) constituents, and endeavoured to get up a petition; but when he attempted to hold a public meeting in the large and populous city of Perth, he could not find one respectable man to take the chair.
MR. SADLEIRsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Buteshire had adverted to the fact of an English Archbishop of Dublin being in favour of this Bill; but he kept out of view the circumstance that Ireland was in a great measure a Catholic country, regarding matrimony as a sacrament, and believing that marriages such as this Bill proposed to legalise were contrary to law, so long as they were solemnised without that dispensation which the Catholic Church had power to grant. Let the House remember, that upon no one subject had the legislation of the Imperial Parliament been more unfortunate in Ireland than on that of marriage. A large and influential portion of the people were Presbyterians, and they viewed with abhorrence the object and policy of this Bill. A case of such a marriage as this Bill would legalise, was upon one occasion brought before the Synod of Ulster, and they determined that the parties should not communicate until a separation had taken place. The evidence in the report as to the Presbyterians being favourable to these marriages, consisted of the statements of an individual who in Scotland was known as Duncan Chisholm, of Inverness, but who in Ireland stated himself to be an Irishman of the name of George Matthews. He also represented himself as a member of the Presbyterian Church, but those statements were untrue. He had received numberless communications from members of the Presbyterian Church, expressing
1198
their disgust and indignation at the evidence of that man, and expressing also their astonishment at the Commissioners, if they were anxious for truth and information, not taking some steps to know the real opinion of the Presbyterian body upon the subject. They had not either examined any dignitary of the Catholic Church in Ireland upon it; and he could not make up his mind whether even the people in England were anxious for this Bill to pass or not. Parliament ought not to seek to force upon a people a law abhorrent to their social feelings and their religious convictions.
The O'GORMAN MAHONprotested against the accuracy of the statements made by the hon. Members for Dublin University and Carlow. The former Gentleman had made an allusion to the Archbishop of Dublin; surely, it was proper enough that the English Church in Ireland should be presided over by an Englishman, As for the Catholics, their Church recognised the principle of these marriages, retaining to this hour the right of dispensation. Parliament should not place itself in antagonism with 7,000,000 of people in Ireland.
MR. MONSELLmaintained that all classes in Ireland, the Roman Catholics, the Presbyterians, and the Established Church, were almost unanimously opposed to the Bill. The promoters of the measure, with burning zeal and ample pecuniary means, had not been able to get signatures to petitions in favour of it in Ireland. The people of Scotland were also opposed to it, and a very large proportion of the people of England. Why not respect the moral and religious feeling of the people of Ireland upon this subject?
COLONEL THOMPSONfelt constrained to ask whether it was possible to suppose that the 7,000,000 of Irish Catholics believed their Church to be in the habit of granting dispensations for incest, or for anything abhorrent to general morals and the good of society? What the Roman Catholic Church avowedly admitted under conditions, Irish Catholics must of necessity view as, at all events, one upon which human wisdom and legislative decision had a right to be heard.
MR. C. ANSTEYprotested against the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin speaking in the name of the Roman Catholics of Ireland—a superstitious and idolatrous body, with

1199
which he could have no connexion whatever.
MR. NAPIERsaid, he had many Roman Catholics amongst his conscientious supporters, and by these he had been requested to oppose the Bill.
MR. M'GREGORinsisted that the religious sentiment, as well as the domestic sentiment of the people of Scotland, was opposed to the measure.
MR. SADLEIRsaid, that the Roman Catholics held these marriages unlawful unless sanctioned by dispensation, which, in Ireland was never granted, except under very peculiar and pressing circumstances.
COLONEL RAWDONthought it would be improper to except Ireland from the operation of a law which was to be applied to England and Scotland.
VISCOUNT CASTLERBAGHdeclared that the strongest feeling prevailed against the Bill amongst all classes in the part of Ireland with which he was connected, whether Presbyterians, Roman Catholics, or members of the Established Church.
MR. FARRERsaid, his reason for proposing the adjournment of the debate was, that, under existing circumstances, members had not been able to hear accurately what had been said in the course of the discussion; but as the feeling of the House seemed to be opposed to his proposition, he would withdraw it.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 114; Noes 132: Majority 18.
House resumed.
Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.
The House adjourned, at a quarter before Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Judges of Assize; Drainage and Improvement of Land Advances.
2a Sheriff of Westmoreland Appointment.
3a Court of Chancery (County Palatine of Lancaster).

UNIVERSITIES COMMISSION.
LORD MONTEAGLE LORD MONTEAGLE moved—
"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, for Copies of Letters addressed by the First Lord of the Treasury to the Universities of Oxford and of Cambridge on the Subject of the Issue of a Commission of Inquiry, and Copies of any Resolutions or Communications entered into or made on behalf of those Universities in relation to the same Subject."
He did not believe that any inconvenience could arise from the production of these papers; but in making his Motion, which he trusted would not be resisted, he felt hound at the same time to state the grounds on which he wished to bring these papers under their Lordships' consideration. He should be very sorry indeed if he should raise even an inference that he imagined Her Majesty's Government, in advising this Commission, were actuated by any adverse feeling against the Universities. On the contrary, he was willing to admit that in issuing this Commission they were only desirous to promote the interest of the venerable institutions into which it was proposed to inquire. But while he gave the Government credit thus far, he begged to express a doubt whether this measure, taken at this time, and under present circumstances, was really calculated to promote the object which they had at heart. This inquiry originated purely and exclusively with the Government itself, without any communication with any University authority, or with any one connected with

1147
the Universities. Indeed, from one of the documents now moved for—he meant a letter from the Illustrious Prince who was Chancellor of the University of Cambridge—it appeared that His Royal Highness was entirely unaware of the intention of issuing this Commission until the declaration was made in the other House of Parliament. He was not present when the noble and gallant Duke who sat near him made some observations upon it; but it appeared that the Chancellor of the University of Oxford also was equally unapprised of the intentions of Government. Indeed, he knew no one who, before Lord John Russell's declaration, entertained the slightest suspicion that such a course as that announced in the House of Commons was about to be taken. It might be assumed that such a course should be taken; but at the same time great difficulties were thrown in the way of success, by leaving those most interested in the subject entirely in the dark, until incidentally it was declared in Parliament not only that such a measure was contemplated, but that such a decision had been taken. The question of University reform, as affecting the admission of Dissenters, had been brought before Parliament, in 1834, by the late Earl Grey, then First Minister, one of the very highest authorities upon that and every other subject. He himself (Lord Monteagle) had also brought it, in the same year, before the Commons. But the question were a very different aspect now from that which it then bore. The condition of the two Universities was totally different at present from what it then was. During the interval that had elapsed since then, there had arisen in both Universities an active and an efficient spirit of University reform. He should deceive their Lordships if he ventured to say that that spirit was represented by a numerical majority of the members of the senate in either University; but both at Oxford and at Cambridge those who had applied themselves to the important task of University reform carried with them so great a weight in point of character and University station, and literary distinction, that they had been able to obtain, through the force of opinion, more than he individually could have anticipated. In the University of Cambridge the measures of reform that had been in progress had been very considerable. He should only allude to a few; but it was but justice to that University to state that which it had already done, and
1148
that which was in progress; because he found, to his astonishment, that, on the part of many who had discussed this question, they seemed to have either shut their eyes, or not to have taken the trouble to inquire into what had been already done, or into what was now in progress. So desirous were they of having everything done by interference from without, that they undervalued or ignored that which had been effected by the Universities themselves. The complaints formerly urged had been, that in the University of Cambridge the course of study was too confined to mathematical pursuits; that they had set aside the more general objects which were brought under consideration by the lectures of the professors; and had confined themselves to the peculiar study for which the University of Cambridge granted its highest senate-house honours—mathematics. He admitted that for a considerable period of time, the highest honours of the University were to be gained almost exclusively by high mathematical attainments. But had they confined themselves to that? He thought that it was about the year 1822 that they introduced a corresponding system of honours as connected with classical eminence. That change was, to a certain extent, undervalued, or at least it was not viewed with a just degree of favour; but honours gained from classical attainments were now sought for with as much ambition as were in the old time honours connected with the mathematical science. Nor was it to be said that mere distinction was thus gained; an honourable position in the University could now be gained by the classical tripos; the system had now taken root, and was from day to day advancing. Many improvements had arisen since the date of the appointment of his late Royal Highness the Duke of Gloucester as Chancellor of the University. The first prize he established was one for English composition. But it was in 1848, the University of Cambridge opened an entirely new field of University distinction; by the establishment of two new tripos. History, political economy, moral philosophy, botany, all the various pursuits of science, were all now involved, and would henceforth become matter of University distinction. But it was said even by those who admitted these facts, that nothing was done to improve the colleges. Now, he prayed their Lordships' attention to what had been done in this respect. Take, for example, his

1149
own college, the Royal foundation of Trinity. The whole of the statutes of Trinity had been reformed; they had been consolidated; they had been amended, but without the exigency of any commission whatever. That revision was commenced by the college in 1837, and the new statutes were completed and confirmed by the Crown in 1844. They had been amended in the natural way at the recommendation of the Crown; and with the consent of the Crown the statutes were revised, and adapted to the present times. The rival college, St. John's, had done the same. New statutes had been framed, and confirmed by the Crown in 1849. But it was said there were local restrictions subsisting with respect to the election to fellowships, and that those injudicious restrictions, for so they were in many instances, had not been removed. He contended that where they had the power of removing those restrictions, in several cases they had done so. The whole of the statutes of Pembroke College had been revised, and confirmed by the Crown in 1844, and the restrictions of fellowships to counties removed, as had also the statutes of Jesus' College. The University, for the last seven years, had been intent on the revision of its own statutes; and that revision was very nearly brought to a close, and there was every reason to suppose that within the present year it would be complete; and this had been done without any external pressure. Even in relation to medical degrees, enlarged studies had been superadded to the former courses, examinations in medicine and botany, and a course of chemistry. He had only glanced at a few parts of the reform that had been effected, and all the professors themselves were anxious to render their courses as efficacious as possible. There had also been various prizes founded by the colleges themselves. It was far from his wish, in stating these facts, to claim any peculiar merit for the excellent and learned persons who had been engaged in this work; they required no eulogium from him; but what he wished to impress on the minds of their Lordships was, that these improvements had been undertaken voluntarily by authorities within the Universities, and that they were in progress at the time when the Commission Was proposed to be issued. He thought this Commission had been undertaken without an adequate or just appreciation of that which was now in progress, or without any thought at all of the
1150
difficulties which stood in the way of these improvements being carried out; difficulties whch such a Commission could hardly fail to increase. The parties engaged in effecting these improvements included the most able and intelligent men within the Universities; but, at the same time, it could not be denied but that they constituted a numerical minority, and therefore the effect of any interference would be materially to increase the difficulty, and add to the task which these reformers had undertaken. The Government were thus about to forfeit, or at least to risk, an advantage that was certain, for one that was more than doubtful. He was far from intending to say that the whole subject of University reform could be effected without the interposition of Parliament; but how different would such interference appear when forced on the Universities, compared with Parliamentary interference asked for by the Universities themselves, as the means of overcoming obstacles that they might hereafter find to stand in the way of their improvements. He therefore thought that an external and forcible interference with improvements now in progress—interference with those measures which were now nearly accomplished—was a very great mistake, and might inflict serious injury. He was sure that, in his own University (Cambridge), they had nothing in the world to conceal. In one respect, indeed, it would be productive of a great advantage; he meant in dispelling the absurd belief of the wealth of that University. So far from such being the fact, they had not money enough to build an enclosure for the botanical garden; and they had scarcely money enough to provide stationery to lay on the table of the senate-house. It was supposed that they were greatly indebted to the public purse, and that such assistance laid the grounds for an inquiry. The very contrary was the fact. They contributed to the public much more than they received. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, he believed, extracted from the University of Cambridge 3,000 l. or 4,000 l. a year in the shape of stamp duty on degrees, and only conferred about 800 l. a year towards the payment of certain professors. He thought there had not been stated adequate, or indeed any, grounds to justify the issuing of a Commission at present. He did not call upon Government to reverse their determination, by deciding that oh no occasion should a Royal Commission issue. But he

1151
entreated them to hesitate and consider whether this was the proper time, and to wait and see whether, when the necessity arose, an application for a Commission might not come from the Universities themselves. He gave the utmost credit to Government for their sincere desire to advance the cause of University improvement; but he was perfectly persuaded that the issuing of a Commission at the present moment, so far from aiding in this object, might, on the contrary, interfere with the improvements already in progress or in contemplation. He hoped there would he no objection to laying this correspondence on the table; and he should also wish that the form of the intended Commission, and the names of the Commissioners, should be laid on the table before a final step was taken. It was thus alone that any responsibility could be practically enforced. If the House were kept in the dark till these inquiries were commenced, it would be in vain to expect any effective interference on the part of this or of the other House of Parliament.
The EARL of CARLISLEsaid, that on the part of the Government there was no objection to the production of the papers moved for; but begged to assure the noble Lord and the House that both Lord John Russell and the other Members of the Government, in any steps they contemplated on this subject, were actuated by most respectful and even reverential feelings towards those eminent institutions. For his own part he must say, that he would have to sacrifice altogether his private feelings on the question before he could be party to any commission not influenced by such considerations. He could assure his noble Friend that the Members of Her Majesty's Government were not in the least more disposed than himself to ignore or undervalue (to use the very terms of his noble Friend) the many useful improvements and steps in the direction of progress which had been adopted, and which were in the course of adoption in both Universities. And, indeed, it was hoped that the intended commission might not he without its use, not only in recognising and calling public attention to them, but in co-operating with and encouraging the Universities in their praiseworthy endeavours. It was notorious—his noble Friend had admitted it—that many of those improvements were not effected without considerable resistance. He (the Earl of Carlisle) entertained the hope that the proposed inquiry
1152
would give strength and encouragement to the friends of rational improvement in those learned institutions. The proposed commission had no doubt been subjected to a great deal of censure. Apprehensions had been expressed that any proceedings on the part of Her Majesty's Government on this question might have a dangerous effect; but he must say that he should draw quite a contrary inference. The more ignorance and misconception prevailed on any subject, the more useful it appeared to him to let in upon it the full light of day, and to let it he shown in what respects the institution which was the subject of attack was unjustly impeached, and in what respects it called for and admitted well-considered improvements. It must, he thought, he obvious that the charters, and instruments, and statutes which were framed in the days of the Plantagenets and the Tudors, although modified in the days of Archbishop Laud, must be found not to meet in all respects the requirements of the present day. The alteration or diversion of these statutes and charters from their original intentions was in some respects absolutely necessary, in consequence of the change of manners, pursuits, and even of the religion of the country. He admitted, however, that such alteration or diversion must always he a matter of extreme deliberation and caution. At the same time their Lordships must remember that nothing of that kind would take place without the intervention of the Legislature; and it seemed to him that one of the most useful points to which the labours of the commission could be directed would be to consider, in conjunction with the resident members of the University, who, from their habitual experience, must be most thoroughly acquainted with the subject, what was most required, and in what respects application might be made to the Legislature for further alterations and modifications of the existing laws. It might be said—and it had been said, he knew—that any suggestions for such modifications or alterations might be confided entirely to those learned bodies themselves; that the public might safely leave it to them to suggest what was necessary to be revised or introduced. But it was certainly obvious that those who had desired the issue of the contemplated commission, would not be satisfied to leave the question in their hands. Whatever might be thought of the proceedings of the Government on this question, he most unequivocally disclaimed

1153
on their part any feeling of hostility or disrespect towards the Universities. If any want of due regard had been shown either to the resident members or to the illustrious persons who were the guardians of the Universities, he was sure that no one could more deeply regret it than his noble Friend at the head of the Government. The two individuals who filled the post of Chancellor of either University held that rank in the estimation of all men which would make it impossible that any wilful disrespect should be intended. Their Lordships would remember that under the Government of Sir Robert Peel a commission was issued to inquire into the resources of cathedral and other ecclesiastical establishments; and he would undertake to assert that the very names of the most reverend persons who served upon that commission afforded of themselves a proof and guarantee that no disrespect was intended towards the bodies who were the subject of that inquiry. And so with respect to the present commission: whoever might be the persons who should be appointed to serve upon it, he felt sure, and he could take upon himself to state to their Lordships, that the Government would take care that they should be men who, besides their general character, would be actuated by the most tender attachment and respect towards the Universities, and who would be fitted, by their more extended relations with the world out of doors, to cooperate beneficially with the most enlightened friends of education within the Universities.
The EARL of POWISlooked upon the proposed Commission as an indication of the Government's intention, not merely to improve the course of studies in the Universities, but, in compliance with the cry which had been so often raised in the other House of Parliament, to admit those to their privileges whom the present constitution and statutes excluded. "University Reform" had come to be synonymous with the "admission of Dissenters into the Universities." Considering the manner in which the Government had consented to the issue of a commission, he thought it was not at all extraordinary that the commission should be looked upon with considerable jealousy by both Universities. If the commission had been announced by the First Minister of the Crown as a substantive measure, it might then have come to the Universities with professions of amity; but such professions now came too
1154
late. If the commissioners should deal with the Universities in the manner anticipated by those who were favourable to the commission, they would be guilty of a direct infraction of the laws of property; they would destroy property granted to the Universities, not by the public, but by the piety and munificence of individuals in past ages, who had sacrificed their fortunes that they might be enabled to found scholarships and professorships for the encouragement of learning for all future ages. The First Minister in the Commission had pointed to the destruction of all fellowships and scholarships appropriated by their founders to certain districts or schools. Was this to encourage persons hereafter to leave property to the Universities? The Universities were exempted from the statutes of mortmain, to encourage those grants and bequests which this interference with property would stop. The noble Earl who had just pronounced a declaration of goodwill to the Universities on the part of the Government, had alluded as a precedent to the Ecclesiastical Commission issued by Sir Robert Peel. He thought the noble Earl could not have chosen a precedent more calculated to strike terror and to create hostility in the breasts of the friends of the Universities. What was the result of that commission? It destroyed two bishoprics of the country, as far as episcopal property was concerned; and a Bill was now in the other House of Parliament, the object of which was to divert episcopal revenues to parochial purposes. It did not attempt to reform or make more efficient the cathedrals. It simply proceeded to seize upon their revenues, in order to augment small livings, while it did not do anything to remove those legal obstructions and absurd provisions of the Act of Geo. II. which prevent donations of land and bequests to those livings. The members of the Universities would be justified in being extremely cautious as to the evidence which they should give under the intended commission, which it was believed was not sanctioned by the constitution of the country. The statement of the noble Earl would have the effect of warning both Universities that their property was not likely to be dealt with in a more tender manner than were the episcopal and cathedral properties by the Ecclesiastical Commission issued during the Government of Sir Robert Peel.
LORD BROUGHAMperfectly agreed

1155
with his noble Friend who spoke last but one, that nothing could be more untrue than the supposition that the issuing of this commission arose from any want of respect, or from any unkindly feeling towards the Universities. Nevertheless, he, for one, must say that he thought the issuing of that commission was a very great error—a very grievous mistake. Having already, in the letter which he had addressed to his noble and gallant Friend who sat near him (the Duke of Wellington), and which, no doubt, most of their Lordships had read—having stated in that letter his arguments against the issuing of the commission, he would not now trouble their Lordships with a repetition of them. That letter he felt bound to write in consequence of his own position at the head of one of the colleges of this country, namely, the University College of London, which possessed very considerable endowments. In writing it, he acted entirely on his own responsibility; he wrote it without having had any communication with the other authorities in that college; he had purposely avoided making them responsible. He was also prompted to write that letter in consequence of the part which he took in inquiries of this description in 1833, and, indeed, ever since 1816. Their Lordships would recollect that from the commission of inquiry into the public schools, and other educational establishments of the country, the Universities were carefully exempted. The Government with which he was connected excepted the Universities expressly for the reason given by his noble Friend opposite, namely, that they knew improvements were going on in those institutions, and they felt that it would be unwise to interrupt them. Still, such an inquiry would have been far more appropriate than that which would take place under the proposed commission; because the inquiry in the time of Lord Melbourne, and to which he (Lord Brougham) was a party, was a compulsory proceeding. It was said by the noble Earl that this was to be a voluntary proceeding. So much the worse, because they would have one-sided information—they would have those persons who were discontented with all that was done, and everything that was not done, coming forward to give their information. It might be very correct information; but what would become of those parties who were to be assailed by such informants? They would have no means of defence; they
1156
would not have the power of sommoning one single person to give testimony in their defence before the Commissioners. It was exactly as if himself or the noble Lord opposite were indicted for any offence, and the Crown had the power of summoning witnesses to prove the case against them, whilst they had no power of summoning evidence to prove an alibi, or to prove that other persons had committed the offence alleged against them. That was precisely the position in which the members of the Universities would be placed by this voluntary commission of inquiry. He recollected that, when the heads of different colleges and schools were examined before the Education Committee, he compelled those worthy persons to produce all the information in their power with respect to the colleges to which they belonged, and thus he compelled them to break their oaths, as they fancied. And why? Because it was found that they had misconstrued their oaths, they having overlooked the exception in them, nisi aliquâ necessitate co-gente vel utilitate suadente. But there were some oaths in which there was no such exception, and he did not like to interfere in such matters, even where he had full power as Chairman of the House of Commons Committee. He must say he was a little astonished to read a letter of the Illustrious Chancellor of the University of Cambridge on this subject, to which his noble Friend opposite had referred. He (Lord Brougham) deeply regretted that that Illustrious Prince had been placed in the false position of Chancellor of a University of this country, and for this short reason—that the Chancellor of a University ought to be a person wholly unconnected with the Crown—wholly independent of the Crown—because it might be his bounden duty, as Chancellor, to be in conflict with the Crown. His noble and illustrious Friend near him (the Duke of Wellington) was unconnected with the Crown, and might well perform the duties of Chancellor of the University of Oxford, as he did well perform them, He was not in the false position in which Prince Albert was with respect to the Crown and the Chancellorship of the University of Cambridge. Now, the very first result of that false position was, that the Illustrious Prince had written a letter on this subject, approving of the commission in strong terms, and that letter had made him unpopular in the University. He (Lord Brougham)

1157
would, if he had the honour of an interview with that Illustrious Prince, remind him that he had mistaken the law of this country a little when he said that a Royal Commission spoke the sense of Parliament. A very natural mistake was that for those who had lived in countries where the Legislature and the Prince were one and the same person. In that case, a Royal Commission did speak the sense of the Legislature. In Germany, no doubt, it did; but in this country it did not. The sense of Parliament was spoken by an Act of Parliament, and not at all by a Royal Commission. A Royal Commission in this country spoke the sense of the Crown, that was to say, of the Minister of the Crown, but it in no way spoke the sense of Parliament. It appeared that this commission did not arise from any want of respect or kindly feelings towards the Universities on the part of the Government, but from a desire on their part to satisfy the prejudices of certain parties. But could that be said to be a sufficient reason for the issue of this commission, and particularly when, as he knew of his own knowledge, the Universities were making rapid, wise, and most useful improvements? The question was, whether it was right or wrong that "certain people's prejudices" should be satisfied by the issue of this commission? Were they to deal with this question, as they were dealing with the Post Office, to satisfy the prejudices of certain individuals? There was a pressure, it was said, from without on this subject. The question was whether that pressure ought to be yielded to or resisted. He deemed it ought to be resisted.
The EARL of CARLISLEwould be sorry that an inference should be drawn from any words of his which he had not intended to convey. When he referred to the commission relating to chapters, it was not his intention to indicate that the same results were likely to follow from this com mission as followed from that. Their re venues were then transferred, be it right or wrong, to other persons and purposes. There were no others now to whom it was proposed to transfer the property of the Universities.
LORD BROUGHAMwas not sure of that.
The EARL of CARLISLEdisclaimed any such intention. He only referred to the former commission for the purpose of showing that this proceeding was dictated by no want of respect.
The DUKE of WELLINGTONwas happy to hear the explanation of the noble Earl. He must confess he was perfectly satisfied with what was stated in the first instance, on the understanding that the intention was to make choice of the persons who should compose this proposed commission on the principle on which the persons were selected who composed the Ecclesiastical Commission.
LORD BROUGHAMobserved, that if a commission was appointed, though it should consist of angels, this must inevitably follow—they must open their doors, and their ears, and their books of notes to receive the information and all the accusations that any discontented persons chose to lay before them; nor could they suppress this. It must be reported and printed, and laid before Parliament.
The DUKE of WELLINGTONentirely agreed with his noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham) upon the abstract question of the appointment of a commission to inquire into the Universities at all. He (the Duke of Wellington) had stated his opinion upon that question, and he did not think it necessary to state it again. That upon which he intended to express his satisfaction was the explanation of the noble Earl respecting the choice of the members of the commission, The noble Lord at the head of the Government, who had declared his intention of advising the appointment of this commission, had stated in his letter addressed to the Illustrious Prince and to himself respectively, as the Chancellors of the Universities, the object to which the inquiries should be directed. He (the Duke of Wellington) certainly did not desire that those inquiries should be made; he did not think those inquiries were necessary. But, if they were to have a commission, he did desire that it should be composed in the manner referred to by the noble Earl.
On Question, agreed to.
House adjourned till To-morrow.