Sitting of 19 May 1870

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—Hon. George Frederick Nugent Greville-Nugent, for Longford.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolutions in Committee—Metropolitan Board of Works Loans (Stamp Duty) *.
Committee—Irish Land [29]—R.P.; Army Enlistment * [106]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Feudal and Burgage Tenures Abolition (Scotland) * [48–130].
Considered as amended—Gas and Water Facilities * [77]; Wine and Beerhouse Act (1869) Amendment* [97].
Committee—Report—Considered as amended—Third Reading—Tramways(re-comm.)* [113], and passed.

ARMY—MILITARY STORES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. MILLERsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, That, looking to the condition of some of the Admiralty stores, as described in this House by the Secretary to the Admiralty, whether any inspection of the stores for the use of the Army has been made since he came to his present office; and, if so, when; and whether he has any objection to state generally the condition in which they have been found; if not, whether it would not, in his opinion, be of importance to follow the example of the Admiralty and have the Army stores forthwith inspected, so that their condition may be ascertained?
  MR. CARDWELL, in reply, said, periodical inspections of Army stores
  966
  were regularly held by officers specially appointed for that service, and the Reports carefully examined at the War Office. The last Annual Report was at the close of the financial year—namely, the 31st of March, 1870, and the result generally was, that the stores were in good condition, and fit for service. New stores were not purchased when these were already sufficient for use; obsolete and unserviceable stores were sold as the market suited. It would not be economical to force sales of surplus stores, which might afterwards have to be replaced at a higher price.

THE BROADMOOR ASYLUM.

  QUESTION.
  DR. LUSHsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, having regard to the opinion of the Commissioners in Lunacy, expressed in their Report respecting the condition of Broadmoor Asylum at their visit, 14th October 1868, viz.,
  "That this is not in our opinion an efficient way of dealing with mental disease, however complicated with criminal habits and even dangerous violence, we conceive it our duty once more to put on record; but, the same remonstrance in effect having been made unavailingly at every visit of the Commissioners since Broadmoor was opened, it is with no expectation of any kind of present result that we repeat it now,"
  he will take care to assure himself, before filling up the vacancy in the office of Superintendent of Broadmoor Asylum, that the physician to be appointed holds opinions in accordance with modern views of the proper treatment of insane persons?
  MR. BRUCE, in reply, said, that there had been a dispute of long standing between the Commissioners in Lunacy and the Directors of the Broadmoor Asylum as to the mode of treatment to be adopted towards the more violent lunatics. The hon. Gentleman had correctly quoted the Report of 1868; but it had reference to circumstances in 1867, which were exceptional. If the hon. Gentleman would wait for the Report of 1869, which had been delivered, and would be laid upon the Table shortly, he would find that it was much more satisfactory, and that the Commissioners were entirely satisfied with the present state of things. In saying this he was anxious that it should not be supposed that he made any reflection upon the character or position of the late Dr.

  967
  Meyer, whose recent loss was a very great one to the public service, and who was a man of great energy and ability, and possessing a thorough knowledge of his profession. The greatest care would necessarily be taken in the choice of his successor.

ARMY—MILITARY TRAIN AND THE CONTROL DEPARTMENT.—QUESTION.
MR. RAIKESsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is intended to confirm the acting appointments in the Transport Branch of the Control Department held by thirteen Military Train Officers, viz., three as Commissaries and ten as Deputy Commissaries; whether such confirmation would confer a step of rank upon each Officer, and whether such was the result contemplated by the Government when the Royal Warrant for the Control Department, dated Jan. 1, 1870, was framed, or is it a violation of that Warrant; and, whether these Officers will be eligible for transfer to the Supply Branch; and, if so, whether their previous training and service qualify them to fill posts superior to those departmental Officers who have had experience in their duties, but over whom they would thus take precedence?
COLONEL LOYD LINDSAYsaid, he would beg also to ask the right hon. Gentleman, Whether he will inquire into the claims of other Officers senior to the thirteen in question, who would have been glad to have accepted the posts now given to their juniors?
MR. CARDWELL, in reply, said, that it was intended to confirm these appointments if well reported on at the end of the year's probation. The relative rank of each of these officers would be higher than the substantive rank they held in the Military Train. The result intended was, that the officers, instead of being placed on half-pay, should be transferred with their work and their men to the new corps. The senior officers not volunteering, the juniors obtained the advantage. He believed, therefore, that in what had been done there had been no violation of the Royal Warrant. These officers would, as a rule, be employed in the duties for which their previous training had most qualified them; but would be available for any duties which the public service required from them. With reference to
968
the Question asked by his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Loyd Lindsay), he might say that the officers of the Military Train had been liberally treated as respected unattached promotion; but if any case of hardship were brought to his notice, he should certainly think it his duty to inquire into it.

HUDSON'S BAY COMPANY.

  QUESTION.
  VISCOUNT MILTONsaid, he wished to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he has any objection to lay upon the Table of the House a Statement disclosing the amount paid to the Crown, by the Hudson's Bay Company under the statute of the 4th William and Mary, chapter 15, in respect of Rupert's Land, and when such payments ceased to be made; and also the amount of rent received under Licences granted in and pursuant to the Act 1 and 2 George IV., chapter 66, for the purpose of enabling such company to trade in the Saskatchwan and Red River Territories; as also to lay upon the Table of this House Copies of any licences that may have been granted in pursuance of the last-mentioned statute up to the present time?
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, he would endeavour to answer his noble Friend's Question—
  VISCOUNT MILTON: I beg your pardon. I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  MR. STANSFELDnot giving way, Viscount MILTON left the House.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, in the absence of the noble Lord he would, for the satisfaction of the House, answer the Question which had been put. The noble Lord's Questions were not always very easy to answer, and not always easy to understand. But with regard to the first Question, he had referred to the statute in question, and had also taken the trouble to refer to the accounts so far as he could, and the receipts during the period referred to, which was 180 years ago. By the statute of William and Mary, a tax, he believed of £5 per share, was to be levied for one year upon the Hudson's Bay Company shares. But he had been unable, from the details which existed, to find anything that would enable him to answer the Question of the noble Lord, and he thought it highly improbable that details and receipts, cal-

  969
  culated to furnish what the noble Lord required, should have been preserved for so long a period. The noble Lord asked for the amount of rent received under the licences, and, as far as his researches enabled him to arrive at a conclusion in the matter, he believed that the company required no licence to trade in the Saskatchwan and the Red River Territories, because that portion was covered by the original charter of the company. Lastly, the noble Lord inquired whether there was any objection to lay copies of licences upon the Table. The only objection was that they saw no possible good in complying with the request.

NAVY—PENSIONS FOR FLAG OFFICERS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HANBURY TRACYsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, If he will take into consideration the propriety of creating a few temporary pensions out of the Greenwich Hospital Estates, for the benefit of the distinguished Flag Officers who were retired by Order in Council in 1860, without any compensation whatever, and have now but little prospect of receiving the ordinary Greenwich Hospital Pension?
  MR. CHILDERSreplied, that in 1865 a charge was made on the Greenwich Hospital income for pensions for certain officers, and of these 10 were to be granted to flag officers on the active list to induce them to retire. That was a questionable arrangement, and it was altered by the plan of retirement adopted two months ago, which provided that these pensions should only be given to retired flag officers. This arrangement had been found to be very satisfactory. The hon. Gentleman asked him to extend these pensions and give more of them to the officers referred to. His (Mr. Childers') difficulty was that there had always been a great objection to charging the Greenwich Hospital income with pensions for officers, and he feared that, if he carried further to any large extent the provisions of the Act of 1865, there would be naturally considerable objection raised. The state of things was this—out of 10 pensions granted only nine had been actually assigned. One had never yet been appropriated, and would not be assigned until the death of an officer who had been an officer in Greenwich Hospital. He would not
  970
  make any promise; but he would consider whether this additional pension might not now be granted.

DUTY ON CARRIAGES.—QUESTION.
MR. C. S. READsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If Coachmakers who lend carriages to their customers (free of any charge whatever), during the time their customers' carriages are undergoing repairs, are liable for Duty on carriages so lent; whether such carriages being actually exchanged or bought, the Coachmakera will still be liable for the Duty; and, if the Inland Revenue Department are correct in stating that "the Law requires a licence to be taken out for every carriage used?"
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, in the first place I must correct my hon. Friend—there is no duty on carriages at all now. The duty is for the use of a particular carriage, and for using it; and if a coachmaker keeps a carriage and lets it to one of his customers, he must take out a licence for it, or else he will be liable to a penalty. If the carriage is exchanged or bought the coachmaker will not get his money back; but the person who has bought the carriage, or taken it in exchange, must take out a fresh licence. Whether the Revenue Department are correct in stating that "the law requires a licence to be taken out for every carnage used," must depend on the context. The proposition is generally true; but it must be taken with this qualification—if the proprietor of a carriage takes out a licence, and during the currency of the licence sells that carriage and buys another, so that he has not more than one carriage in use at one time, he is not liable to any penalty.
SIR GEORGE JENKINSONsaid, he would bog to ask whether a man should take out a licence for a carriage not actually in use though actually in possession?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: If the carriage is not used during the year there is no occasion to take out a licence.

THE PATENT OFFICE—CASE OF MR. EDMUNDS.—QUESTION.
SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury a Question of which I have given him private Notice. It will be necessary to

971
make a very short explanation of this Question—which, I trust, the House will permit me to do—with respect to Mr. Edmunds, who is generally known in connection with what has been called the "Edmunds' Scandal." Mr. Edmunds was accused of being a defaulter to the Government. A Committee was appointed for the purpose of investigating the question. They did not go into his accounts or submit them to audit. Other proceedings followed, upon which Vice Chancellor Giffard—now Lord Justice Giffard—entirely cleared Mr. Edmunds' character in these words—
"In one respect I am bound to say that the arguments and the evidence adduced on behalf of Mr. Edmunds have been successful—that is to say, they have been successful in clearing his character from all imputations."
And the Vice Chancellor thus closed his judgment—
"I repeat, as I said at the outset, that the defendant's evidence has removed any imputation that could be justly or fairly cast upon his character; and, having regard to all the circumstances, difficult position in which he was placed, and the fact of the audits being refused, I shall certainly not make him pay any costs."
Subsequent proceedings took place, and the case was eventually referred to the arbitration of two barristers. ["Order!"] If it is disagreeable to hon. Gentlemen that I should proceed in this way, I will conclude with a Motion. The case was referred to arbitration, as I have said; but the arbitrators did not go into the accounts, which had been audited by Messrs. Chatteris and Nichols and found to be correct. They did not examine Mr. Edmunds' witnesses; but they gave what I cannot help thinking was an ex parte decision upon the question, in which they found Mr. Edmunds liable for sums of money which were clearly accounted for in the bank books in their possession. In consequence of that, Mr. Edmunds' private fortune has been utterly and entirely ruined—he is a ruined man. We are now informed that the Government intend to proceed against him; and it is stated, on good authority, that, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or by his order, a writ has been issued against Mr. Edmunds for the purpose of placing him in Whitecross Street Prison—notwithstanding that imprisonment for debt in all private transactions has been abolished by Act of Parliament. In the meanwhile, Mr. Edmunds has taken the only means he is advised is open to him for bringing his case under the consi-
972
deration of a jury. That can take place not later than the beginning of July. It it understood that he will be arrested, incarcerated, and detained in gaol, and thereby prevented from meeting a jury of his countrymen to decide upon a question as to which I, in common with many others, both noblemen and gentlemen, consider there has been one of the gravest miscarriages of justice that have occurred within my recollection. I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he has given an order for the arrest of Mr. Edmunds, and, if he has done so, whether he will consent to countermand the order until Mr. Edmunds has had an opportunity of obtaining the consideration of his case by a jury of his countrymen? I beg leave to move that this House do now adjourn.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Sir James Elphinstone.)
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, the case with regard to Mr. Edmunds is exceedingly simple, and can be stated in a very few words. At his own earnest request the question at issue between him and the Government, which was whether he was in default—I wish to use the mildest expression I can select—in respect of a large sum of money received by him in his office, was referred to the arbitration of two barristers, one of whom was appointed by Mr. Edmunds himself. They found that Mr. Edmunds was indebted to the Government in the sum of £7,142 13 s. The Government have taken up their award, paying half the expenses of it, though the whole was awarded to be paid by Mr. Edmunds, the amount being £601 16 s. Under these circumstances judgment was signed on the 11th of April, and execution has been issued against Mr. Edmunds under the advice of the Law Officers of the Crown, and the writ is now in the hands of the officer for execution. I am a consenting party to that, and I have not the least intention of holding my hand, and standing between the execution of this writ and Mr. Edmunds. The hon. Baronet speaks as if there was some appeal that would be made by Mr. Edmunds to a jury. Had there been any possibility of the decision which I have mentioned being reversed by any tribunal whatever, it would be the I duty of the Government to wait and hear the decision of that tribunal; but the House is well aware that when a case has

973
been left by consent to arbitration, and the arbitrators have made their award, and execution has issued in regular form, there is no tribunal in the country that can rip up these proceedings again. What the ton. Baronet has alluded to is this—that Mr. Edmunds has commenced an action against the Lords of the Treasury for certain expressions in a Minute of theirs, in reference to this transaction. That action Mr. Edmunds is at perfect liberty to bring, and nothing we are doing can prevent him; but I see no reason whatever, because Mr. Edmunds is of opinion that the Lords of the Treasury have libelled him, why I should forbear to issue this process to recover a large sum of public money for which he has been found liable. That is the whole state of the case, and I hope my answer will be satisfactory to the House.
MR. HORSMANsaid, he was not aware, before entering the House, that anything would be said on this subject to-day, and he intended to offer only one or two remarks respecting it. He confessed he had heard the statement of his right hon. Friend with great regret, and he would now say exactly what he knew about the matter. About a year and a-half ago, when this subject was under the consideration of the Treasury, Mr. Edmunds applied to different Gentlemen in the House to look into it and take up his case. Among others he (Mr. Horsman) was spoken to, and he declined to interfere. Afterwards it was stated to be a very hard case, and it was considered that, upon public grounds, investigation was necessary. At last, in consequence of a strong pressure put upon them, a former Member of that House, Sir James Fergusson, and himself, agreed to look into the case, on one condition—namely, that Mr. Edmunds submitted all his accounts to one of the most eminent accountants in London, named by themselves; and they promised that, if the report of that accountant was favourable to Mr. Edmunds, then they would ask the Treasury to take his case into their consideration. Mr. Edmunds' accounts were accordingly submitted to the accountant in question, whose report was entirely favourable to Mr. Edmunds; and, on that ground, they did privately state to the Treasury that they thought the case ought to receive their favourable con-
974
sideration. Afterwards, there came the trial, which he (Mr. Horsman) watched with interest; and he was glad to see that the judgment of the Vice Chancellor confirmed the report that the accountant had made. Again, he had seen the report of the result of the arbitration, and he could not take upon himself to say that the judgment of the arbitrators was not a sound one; but the conclusion he came to from the first—and on which his mind was made up long ago—was, that Mr. Edmunds had been an extremely foolish, but not a consciously or intentionally dishonest man. That he believed to be the truth of the matter. Whether he ought now to be proceeded against, to the extent of his incarceration, should depend on the question not whether he was a debtor, but whether he was a fraudulent debtor? He (Mr. Horsman) must say he had not yet found that character fairly attached to any part of his conduct. He might have been imprudent, foolish, obstinate, and even stupid; but still if, as he believed, there was nothing wilfully, consciously, and intentionally dishonest, he thought his incarceration—especially in these days, when debtors were not usually imprisoned—would be a very strong proceeding. He had never, directly or indirectly, held any communication with Mr. Edmunds since the investigation he had alluded to; but, having then taken some part in this matter, he thought it his duty to state to the House what he know of the circumstances of the case.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: Sir, my right hon. Friend (Mr. Horsman) was correct in saying that Mr. Edmunds' case came before Vice Chancellor Giffard; but it was a comparatively small portion of the case that came before the Vice Chancellor, and related only to a portion of the accounts—namely, with reference to the skins or parchments. Mr. Edmunds brought an action against Mr. Greenwood, the Solicitor to the Treasury; and Mr. Edmunds was very anxious that all the matters involved in that action, and all the disputes between him and the Crown, should be referred to arbitration. That request was acceded to by the late Government; and, in pursuance of an arrangement, which was in a great degree entered into between them and Mr. Edmunds, the present Government subsequently agreed to Mr. Edmunds' request, that all the matters of difference

975
between him and the Crown, and also between him and Mr. Greenwood, the Solicitor to the Treasury, should be referred to arbitration. The matter was accordingly referred to two arbitrators—the one appointed by the Crown, and the other by Mr. Edmunds. Mr. Denman was one, and Mr. Pollock, Q.C., was the other gentleman, whom everybody would admit to be arbitrators of the highest character. The arbitrators appointed an umpire—Mr. Manisty, also a very eminent Queen's Counsel. We have reason to know that the two arbitrators entirely agreed—so that it was not necessary to call in the umpire at all; and they agreed that Mr. Edmunds, notwithstanding his previous repayments to the amount of £7,000 and upwards, still owed to the public the sum of nearly £8,000. I do not hesitate to say that the case against Mr. Edmunds appears to me a very serious one indeed. I think it right to state that I do not think it necessary to accuse him of absolute fraud; but there is no question in my mind—and I am bound to say this, after what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman—that he is open to very grave censure indeed. [Mr. HORSMAN: Hear, hear!] It has now been decided, by a tribunal that cannot be questioned, that Mr. Edmunds altogether owed the public, I think, the sum of £15,000 or £16,000. That is the position in which the matter stands. [Mr. HORSMAN: The accounts extended over some 30 years.] Yes, and I confess that appears to me to make the case rather worse; for he owed the public much of that money for years and years, and must have known that he owed it. I think it, therefore, very questionable whether the Exchequer, or my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would be justified in allowing further delay to intervene, before the payment by Mr. Edmunds of the moneys to which the public are entitled, and which he has so long detained.
SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONE: I wish, Sir, to give notice that I will, at no distant day, move an humble Address to Her Majesty, praying for the appointment of such a Commission as that which sat at Weedon, to investigate the whole of the matters in dispute between the Crown and Mr. Edmunds. I now beg leave to withdraw my Motion for the adjournment.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: I desire to say, in order that there may be no misapprehension, that Mr. Edmunds himself repaid the sum of £7,000. The further sum was found to be due from him, and it is to recover that sum that process has now been issued.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

IRISH LAND BILL— [BILL 29.]
(Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Chichester Fortescue, Mr. John Bright.)
IRISH LAND BILL— [BILL 29.]

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 16th May.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  SIR JOHN GRAYsaid, he rose to move that the clause which stood in his name on the Paper be read a first time; and before proceeding to discuss the subject-matter of his proposition, he wished to remove two misapprehensions that had been industriously circulated for the purpose of prejudicing the Committee, and especially some of the Irish Members, against his proposal. He would deal with the latter first. It was whispered about that the clause as it now stood was different in principle and in detail from that which was originally placed on the Notice Paper in March, and the increased length of the clause was dexterously used to prop up the assertion. Any Gentleman who took the trouble of reading the Notice given by him in March, and the clause as he now presented it, would see that the difference consisted principally in the addition of a clause with special provisions for the protection of remaindermen, which was of necessity nearly as long as the original clause, and that the clause dealing with absolute owners, as distinct from the limited owners of settled estates, did not in its operative details differ in the slightest degree from the clause as at first proposed by him, though there were some provisions for registration, notices, and other mere forms of procedure added to give it completeness. The motive of these misrepresentations was too obvious to require exposure, and he would content himself by thus refuting the assertion. The other misrepresentation was, that he intended that his clauses should supersede the Government Bill, and that

  977
  they were in fact a rival Bill. This was as fallacious as the other was false. He did intend and hope that if his clauses were accepted they would render the main clauses of the Government Bill inoperative; but they would, if accepted, depend on the force exerted by the Government clauses, and the incertitude produced by them, for their practical acceptance and application. His intention was not to set aside or supersede, but to supplement the Bill, and by offering another alternative to the many already embodied in the Bill, substitute in action fixed tenure with an improving rent for a system of eviction with compensation for the wrong done, which was the proposed operation of the Bill as it stood. What was wanted in Ireland was oblivion of the past, based on a generous reconciliation between the landlord and the tenant classes. His clauses offered this reconciliation as an alternative to litigation, and the Government must be prepared to accept all the responsibility of setting up its will against that of the Irish people, and systematically insisting that the old Irish feuds should be perpetuated, and that a reconciliation of classes should be rendered impossible by Act of Parliament. His clause was intended for no such ambitious purpose as the paternal feelings of the Government towards their Bill suggested to them. He did not oven ask for any new powers—his clause only proposed to make an exception to one of the sweeping provisions of the Bill, and that was the reason which caused him at first to bring it forward in the shape of a proviso exempting certain arrangements from the Government clause which forbade free contract between the tenant and the landlord. The clause, if passed by the Committee, would not in any respect alter the existing law. It would not confer new powers that do not now exist. It was intended only to retain in favour of the good and generous and just landlord his present legal power to enter into amicable and just contracts with his tenants. Under the existing law any absolute owner could enter into an arrangement, and establish as the rule of his estate the series of provisions as to tenancy embodied in his clause, and the practical effect of his clause would be to retain that power for the landlord on condition that he covenanted that if he used the power of free contract, the interest of
  978
  the tenant should be protected by the very same procedure that secured to the landlord his present legal power of free contract. The Bill deprives alike the good and the bad landlord of that freedom, and coerces both to submit in all things to its provisions, and not to travel out of them, no matter how advantageous to landlord or to tenant, or to both, and to society at large. He approved of the object of rendering agreements void which contracted the parties out of the Bill. It was a humane policy intended to protect the tenant from undue pressure by the bad landlord, and to preserve to him all the advantages of the Act. His clause gave the same protection with this difference—it would protect the tenant from eviction if the landlord wished to contract himself out of the Bill, and would allow such contracts only on the condition that the tenant should be evictable on none save defined statutory grounds. It would substitute, by the will of the owner and assent of the tenant, fixed tenure and fair rents for compensation after eviction. It would prevent the evil of eviction, not punish for its infliction. He would illustrate the position by pointing to a case with the details of which he was conversant. His hon. Friend the senior Member for Wexford was at that moment engaged in preparing an arrangement with his tenants to give them fixed tenures at fair and equitable rents. If that arrangement was completed before the Land Bill became law it would be a valid arrangement; but should the Bill receive the Royal Assent before the agreement shall have been perfected, the arrangement would be rendered absolutely void by the proposed law as regarded all tenants valued under £50, which included all tenants who pay a rent of about £60 a year or under. The Committee would remember the unwillingness of the Government to place the tenant of the South, who had the benefit of an existing tenant-right custom, in the same advantageous position as it proposed to place the Northern tenant. Refusal after refusal came from the Treasury Benches, but common sense prevailed in the end, and the Government retraced their steps without pressure when least expected, and those who supported them in force in their policy of injustice to the Southerns afterwards supported them with equal unanimity in their altered policy. Lord Portsmouth's rule of estate was

  979
  one of the cases cited in the debates he referred to. Lord Portsmouth created a tenant-right custom on his estate. Lord Granard introduced a similar custom on his Longford estates; but under the Bill, if not altered, no landlord could create such a beneficent custom henceforth, save for the larger tenants, and if he aimed at reconciliation he must first wade through the mire of consolidation. He wished to impress this on the Committee. At present the law allowed reconciliation between the hostile classes. Under the new law there would be more than 300,000 tenants in the three Provinces, Munster, Connaught, and Leinster, shut out from reconciliation, and forced by the Government into litigation and hostility. He might say, without the risk of being deemed egotistical, that he had at least the means of acquiring a thorough knowledge of the feelings of the Irish people on the land question. It was an old question, and it ever presented throughout its history the one distinct phase—the desire of the people to be rooted in their own soil and not expelled at the caprice of others. It was the same question from Strongbow to Elizabeth; from Elizabeth to James; from James to Cromwell; from Cromwell to William; from William to Victoria. For more than seven centuries they had strife and discord, arising out of the efforts of the conquerors to force English ideas on the Irish people. He would end this strife and contention at once, and was anxious to attempt it even by the gradual process under the permissive principle. Under it he aimed at an oblivion of past wrongs, a general spread of reconciliation; the generosity of the landlord offering justice in the future as a free gift voluntarily offered and gratefully accepted, thus laying, in friendship and gratitude, the basis of lasting goodwill, confidence, and unity, where all was discord, distrust, and hatred. He implored the Government, if they really meant to render Ireland peaceful and prosperous, not to allow any pride of paternity to mar so glorious a prospect as was opened to them by refusing to permit the landlords of Ireland to adopt the principle that, in present justice, there should be a general amnesty for past wrongs. If he thought he could carry a compulsory clause enforcing reconciliation he would try it; but he knew that he must fail in the present state of opinion in the House, and he therefore
  980
  proposed, with the approval of a large number of the Irish Members, the permissive and voluntary plan. Having thus removed apprehension as to what was the real object of this clause, having shown that it was only to retain for those who were disposed to reconcile themselves to their tenantry the legal power they possessed to do so, he would now proceed to explain in detail the special protections provided for the tenant. The rules of the tenancy proposed constituted, in fact, the only points to be discussed, and two questions arose as to them—were they sufficiently protective to the tenant, and were they just as respects the landlord? The representatives of the tenant interests were the parties to determine the first, and they had already decided that they were. The landlords, as represented by the declaration forwarded to the Government, practically settled the other question; but, in fact, as it was a purely voluntary arrangement, and as it was only asked that the landlord be not disabled by the Act from doing that which he now can do, no landlord need adopt it if he did not like, as no tenant can be forced to accept unless they agree, and, therefore, no real difficulty can arise as to the second question. In order to avoid trespassing too much on the indulgence of the Committee, he would deal first, without regard to their numerical order, with the rules that were not likely to be disputed, and then come to those upon which differences of opinion might exist. The 1st rule enabled the landlord and tenant mutually to agree upon the future rent; that, he presumed, would not be disputed even from the Treasury Bench. The 3rd rule declared the interest in the farm to be a chattel interest; but shut out the possibility of its being sublet or subdivided by either the tenant or his testamentary or other legal representatives, and declared that whenever sold it must be sold as one whole and undivided farm. In order to prevent injustice the Court might be appealed to in special cases, as of minority, lunacy, a large farm, to empower the tenant on good grounds to divide his farm, or the legal representative temporarily to sublet it, if the landlord proved unreasoning. The 6th rule enabled the landlord and tenant to agree to a fine and a fixed rent instead of a variable rent. This was an extension of the Government principle of sale and purchase applied to fee-farm

  981
  grants, and therefore could not be reasonably objected to by the Treasury, as it was only an adaptation of Part III. of this Bill. In this rule the interests of all encumbrancers were amply protected. Rule 8 was almost a copy of the clause with respect to the buying out of the Ulster custom, and the registration rule was a mere detail of form analagous to the forms of notice served under the Railway Clauses Ireland Act. He had thus briefly disposed of all the rules save Rule 2 and Ride 5, one relating to rent and the other to tenure. The tenure was to be a continuous tenure, fixed and certain, giving statutory grounds on which alone disturbance, the new word for eviction, coined by the Government, could take place. And these causes were such as no honest tenant would object to—non-payment of rent—subletting or subdividing without the assent of the landlord or of the Court, and waste or dilapidation, declared by the Court to be sufficient to warrant the termination of a destructive tenancy. He thought that the landlord who voluntarily gave fixity of tenure to the tenant was entitled to protection against having the corpus of his property wasted, and the tenant had the counter-protection that he would have an equity of redemption in all cases of eviction. This rule was the essential part of the provisions. It would stop capricious eviction, instead of compensating the tenant for being ruined. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government spoke with great pathos and forcible eloquence of the evils that resulted from capricious evictions in Ireland, and described the evicted as a man not only disturbed in his occupation, but as deprived of his future means of livelihood. Yet the Government Bill only provided compensation for ruin so complete. Rule 5 of the tenancies under his (Sir John Gray's) clause would stop the ruin, prevent the industrious man from being deprived of a livelihood for himself and family, and thus create content, security, confidence, hope, peace, and good-will throughout the land if generally adopted. That rule was the essence of the clause. It was acted on by the late Lord Derby on his Tipperary estates; and in 1847 he said of these tenants that they had a practical fixity of tenure, and that he did not object to it as a landlord. The rule would, nevertheless, be objected to by the Government as revolutionary. He would
  982
  deal with that suggestion again; but for the present he would accept the term and admit that it would revolutionize Ireland, if generally adopted, by substituting peace and reconciliation for disorder and hatred. He would now come to the rule which the doctrinaires on the Government Benches would most noisily protest against. The Rule No. 2 provided for the rapid, prompt, and certain adjustment of all differences as to rent by the arbitration of the Court acting as umpire between the landlord and tenant. ["Hear, hear!" from the Treasury Benches.] He perceived that the Government objected to the provision; but he contended that it was essential, if the landlord gave fixed tenure, that a sure means should be provided for enabling the landlord who could not evict to get such fair increase of rent as was his just due, and enabling a tenant who had made a property by his outlay on the holding, and who would have no claim if he surrendered, to be protected against the contingency of a continous disagreement with his landlord as to the proper and just rent. What better means could be desired than letting the Court act as sole arbitrator—practically as umpire—between the landlord and the tenant, and thus stopping all disputes on the point by fixing on a rent for the ensuing 14 years, with power on mutual agreement by the parties to substitute a free contract rent. This appeal to the arbitration, was in fact, not coercive as a fixed rule for determining a rent—it was a protective power of ending disputes, and, if the two parties were reasonable and a little yielding, they need never go to the Court. If neighbours failed to make them agree, then, and then only, was the Court appealed to as an arbitrator, to force accord, and terminate the dispute. In practice the Court would probably, in most cases, divide the amount in dispute, and send both parties away friends and contented. In all cases the decision of the Court would be accepted as the justice of the case; and it certainly did not lie in the mouth of the Government to object to the Court on which they themselves conferred such unlimited power, being entrusted with the power of amicably arranging a question of this kind. But it will be said that the principle of valued rents is introduced into the Bill by this rule. The principle is embodied in the rule, that he would admit; but

  983
  the principle was not introduced by him: it was taken from the Bill, which is saturated in every clause with the principle, and which enforces the practice of valuing rents. This he would show to the satisfaction of the Committee by referring to the terms of the Bill as amended, in which "rent" is constantly set out as one of the terms to be determined on by the Court as to its fairness or the extravagant extortion of it. ["No, no"] The Minister says no—the Bill must speak for itself. In Clause 4, sub-Section 4, he found these words, in the amended as well as in the original clause—"A tenant shall not be entitled to compensation" if he quits his holding of his own accord, if the Court finds that he was given—
  "permission by his landlord to dispose of his interest in his improvements to an incoming tenant upon such terms as the Court may deem reasonable."
  Was that clause a sham, or was it a reality? If a reality, what did it mean, if not that the tenant was to get, at the option of the landlord, permission to sell his interest to the incomer, but that the Court was to judge as to the equity of the terms on which the permission was given. The first element for the consideration of the Court in such a case would be the rent to be paid by the new tenant. Let any man who understood land and the dealings with it examine how that clause would work—if it worked at all. Should the landlord demand an increased rent from the incoming tenant, might he not by that rent devour all the value of the outgoing tenant's interest? The words—"upon such terms as the Court may deem reasonable" enabled the Court to check the unscrupulous, and an offer to allow the tenant to sell, unless accompanied with an undertaking that the rent be not unfairly increased, would be a mere trap for both tenants, and the Court would denounce it as a fraud, and proceed at once to fix the rent and subject the landlord to the penalty of purchasing the improvements himself if he refused to accept the valuation of the Court as to the terms of his permission to sell. If the clause meant anything, and if words had meaning, the principle of determining by a third party what is a fair rent was abundantly embodied in the 4th clause. He (Sir John Gray) approved of it, and copied it in his own clause. What he contended for was that the Bill, and not his clause or rule,
  984
  introduced the principle of valued rents. In the last paragraph of Section 4 he found the principle still more clearly stated. In awarding compensation under that paragraph, the Court was to take into consideration "the rent at which such holding has been held." Here the very word "rent" was embodied in the clause; thus, in terms, declaring that which in the absence of the word "rent" might be said to be a matter of inference only, for if the Court did not estimate the value of the holding, how could it estimate the fairness or unfairness of the rent? The Court, to carry out this clause and give it force, must endeavour to arrive at the just value of the holding, ascertain the just rent by valuation, and then compare the valued rent with the actual rent in order to determine was the rent a fair rent, a high rent or a low rent, and on that ascertainment award the compensation. Yet the Government denied that their Bill embodied a valuation of rent, and would, as he understood, oppose his clause, because, indeed, the doctrine of valued rent was imported into it. In the 14th, or Equities Clause, introduced to the House by the Premier with a boast that it embraced the right of having the rent considered by the Court, the same principle was to be found. In Clause 24, the term "a fair yearly rent," irrespective of the value of improvements, was introduced and applied to reserved rents under leases granted by limited owners. Who was to ascertain the fair yearly rent? Not the owner—not the tenant; the Court was to judge if it be a fair or an unfair rent, and. it could do that only by some process of valuation. He would refer to one other clause only, as he was unwilling to trespass too much on the indulgence of the Committee. In Clause 6 the same words occurred, but in Clause 8 they were used in a still more direct manner, so as to remove the question from the region of inference to that of fact. That clause (8th) applied to persons disturbed for non-payment of rent due to the landlord, and the Court was empowered to inquire into the amount of rent contracted to be paid—and part of which remained unpaid—and to determine that the eviction, though nominally an eviction for nonpayment of rent, was neverthless a disturbance under the Act if they determine that the rent was an excessive or unfair rent. He contended, then, that their own Bill was saturated with the just

  985
  principle of valuation which he embodied in his clause, adopting it from the Bill, but not importing it into it. He would add a few words to show that the Bill also was laden with alternatives. The 1st clause gave the Ulster tenant, as an alternative claim, either the "custom" or the scale under Clause 3. The 2nd clause gave the same to the man in enjoyment of a Southern "custom," and the 3rd clause gave every person within the scale the alternative to claim in one of two ways. What, he would ask, was the lease but an alternative plan by which landlord and tenant could escape the specialities of the Bill? What was the clause fixing the £50 valuation as the contracting limit but an alternative scheme? In fact, the Bill was already as full of alternatives as it was of valuation; and his clause, instead of being a new Bill, as was asserted by the Government organs who were inspired to assail it, was only one other, but more just alternative which he proposed to add as one tending to substitute reconciliation for litigation. He would now say a word or two as to the opinion of the Irish public as to the clause he proposed. A declaration approving of identical principles was presented to the Government some months since, and he would ask the Committee to examine for themselves the meaning and force of that memorial. The Irish Landlords' Committee, in a recent official Report, stated that the Ulster tenant was secured by Clause 1, what was "practically a lease in perpetuity with powers to sell," and computed that if to the Ulster tenants, who could prove the custom, were added the Southern tenants in the same position, the numbers would be such as to warrant the conclusion that 205,549 tenants, chiefly Ulster tenants-at-will, would hereafter enjoy perpetuity tenures. He, therefore, deducted the 9 counties of Ulster from the 32 of Ireland, and of the remaining 23, he found no less than 22 represented in the memorial to which he referred, by 39 Members of Parliament, Wicklow alone being unrepresented. 16 of the counties were represented by 22 county Members representing land, and 10 city or borough Members, and 6 other counties were represented by 7 city or borough Members, as Dublin, Waterford, Carlow, leaving one county only unrepresented. The tenants of these vast areas, who would, be excluded from
  986
  a policy of reconciliation based on justice by the rejection of the clause by the Government—for the Committee would in this do whatever the Government ordered—amounted to 311,138, and all these, save only 6,428 in Wicklow, were represented by their constitutional representatives in the demand made on the Cabinet. The Irish Conservative Press, the National, the Liberal—all save the Government organs—approved either of his clauses or of Judge Long-field's, some preferring one, some preferring the other, but all preferring any one of them to the Government ride of litigation. The Times, the organ of the English nation, urged the acceptance of his clause with as much earnestness and more ability than he could command, the opposition came from the Government and the Government organs. Was it wise, was it prudent to ignore such a body of Irish opinion, so united, so earnest, and thus force all reasonable men to conclude that the forcing on Ireland of English ideas was as much the policy of the Cabinet to-day, as it was in the days when the language and customs of the Irish race were doomed to annihilation? The official organ told them a few days since that this permissive clause would be forced on landlords by the revolver. The calumny was unfounded. What inducement was offered for the use of the revolver by this clause, that was not ten-fold greater as regards the Purchase Clause so lauded by the Cabinet? Under his (Sir John Gray's) clause the tenant had an almost certainty of having to pay a continuously increasing rent were he to force the landlord to adopt it. To be sure, if he had to pay the increase he would receive in return an increased profit to enable him to do so, and for every shilling additional he had to pay he would pocket three. But in the case of the purchase at the 21 years' rent, as computed by the Government on the present average price brought by land, the tenant who could force his landlord into a sale, would have as the result an instant diminution of rent of nearly 20 per cent, the actual amount being a fraction over 19½, and a certainty that at the end of 35 years he would have no rent at all to pay but to the landlord of his own farm. Which plan, then, held out the inducement to use force with the landlord; that which gave a reduction of 20 per cent on all rents at once, and an assurance that the

  987
  time would come when there would be no rent, or that which promises an increase of rent—a perpetual rent—and only offers a security against eviction? He did not object to the purchase plan—and he availed himself of this opportunity of thanking his hon. Friend the Member for Limerick for having succeeded in securing a reduction of the interest payable by the tenant from £6 10 s. to £5 yearly. In that he did a great service. But he knew the tenants would not use threats or terror in either case, and not believing that the landlords would break up their estates by selling 10 acres here and 20 acres there—that, in fact, the Purchase Clause would be a dead letter—he was anxious to fix and root the 300,000 Southerns in the soil as firmly as the 200,000 Northerns, and turn them at once to industry by the certainty of their future. He would, perhaps, be told that his idea and the Irish idea of fixed tenure was revolutionary, but he would warn those who had to rule Ireland that they must look to a higher philosophy than that of rigid and cold logic in the effort to touch the feelings and win the hearts of a people. The rules of logic were sound, and those of economy were equally useful; but if men aim at ruling a people with the success of statesmen, they must consult the instincts of the governed as well as the rigid maxims of political science, and he, for one, would prefer being called revolutionary by those who ignored the feelings of a people to being deemed wise or sage on the condition of adopting a cold and heartless philosophy. His hon. Friend the Member for Clonmel was denounced as revolutionary a few nights since by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, because he was sufficiently unorthodox to propose something outside the Government Bill. He would advise his Friend to disregard the denunciation. There was little force, less argument, and no logic in the application of such terms to men who advanced with the times, and he would add that when the term was applied in that House by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland it was utterly destitute of weight—destitute of weight, not because everything said by his right hon. Friend was not entitled to the greatest respect because of his high official position, to still higher respect because of his personal qualities, his great ability, and his high character, but because on
  988
  this question, and with respect to this special term, he has put himself without the pale of influence, and stripped his denunciation of all authority. The right hon. Gentleman used the term revolutionary too often and too recklessly. He, (Sir John Gray) addressed the Mayor and citizens of Kilkenny, in 1867, on the land question, and ventured to suggest that the alternative of fixity of tenure or a peasant proprietary by purchase be offered to the landlord, and his right hon. Friend, then sitting on the opposite Benches, denounced him as a revolutionist amidst the cheers of the House. But he was not pilloried alone. John Stuart Mill, the philosopher of the day, had promulgated the idea of a peasant proprietary, and the right hon. Gentleman placed him in the same pillory, and branded him also as a revolutionist. Another, and a greater than both—a man whose absence from that House they all deplored, and for whose speedy restoration to health every lover of his country and of his kind would earnestly pray—John Bright—propounded the same revolutionary doctrine from below the Gangway, and he, too, was put side by side with himself and Mr. Mill in the political pillory, and also branded revolutionist. This, Sir, was in the spring of 1867, and there they were three years later; and his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland having changed sides, was at that moment giving force and effect, as a member of the Queen's Cabinet, to the principles he but three years ago denounced as revolutionary; and the Bright Clauses were accepted by the whole Committee, at his suggestion, as the most valuable, if not the only really valuable, clauses of the Ministerial measure. The word revolution then had no terrors for him, and he would recommend his hon. Friend the Member for Clonmel to regard it at its true value. But there was a revolution which was to be met and combated. What stayed the progress of revolution in Prussia, and gave to the King a brave, devoted, and invincible army? The just land laws that gave perpetuity of tenure to the peasant-farmers at fixed rents. What put down the conspiracies of the revolutionists of Russia? The fixing every peasant-farmer securely in his own land. When the nobles saw that reform and civil freedom for the Russian peasants was inevitable, they adopted, as the watchword of their

  989
  policy, "Freedom without the land," the Emperor, who took his information direct from the people, adopted, as the expression of his policy, "Freedom with the land," and carried his principles into effect, giving to the people civil rights, and securing to them the land they occupied, in perpetual tenure, by purchase or at fixed rents, and thus laid the basis of the future progress and greatness of his Empire. What have the English Government done for the ryots of India? They have given fixity of tenure and adjustable rents varying with prices, as he (Sir John Gray) proposed to allow the just landlords to do by his clause; and he would warn the Government and the House that, if they wished to defeat the growing revolution in Ireland, to put an end for ever to agitation on the land question, they must adapt themselves and their legislation to the instincts of the people, as the only means of conquering those prejudices which the past misgovernment of Ireland had produced, They must recognize the existence, by the laws of nature and of eternal justice, of an inherent right in the people to strike root and grow in the land where God had placed them, and by a just law declare that no hand save that of God alone, can of right remove them from that land against their will and without their free assent. The hon. Gentleman, having stated that he would not deal with the clause respecting limited owners until the fate of the clause applicable to absolute owners was decided, concluded by moving that the following clause be read a first time—
  (Permissive Parliamentary tenant-right.)
  The absolute owner of any land not subject to the usages named in Clauses 1 and 2, or either of them, may, by registering such land or any part of it under this Clause, as hereinafter provided, and in the prescribed form, free such land, himself, and his successors in title, from all claims whatsoever on the part of the tenant of such land under the provisions of this Act or any of them, and such registration shall place such land under the provisions of "the permissive Parliamentary tenant-right" herein provided for; and after such voluntary registration by the owner, every tenancy of such land shall be regulated by the following rules:—

  1. The rent, as agreed upon by the landlord and tenant at the time of such registration, or in the absence of any special agreement in contemplation of such registration the rent then payable, shall continue to be the rent payable by the tenant of the holding until it be altered by mutual agreement, or as hereinafter provided for;

  2. After the expiration of fourteen years from the date of such registration, or from the date of
  990
  the last time subsequent to such registration, at which the rent was adjusted by mutual consent, if the landlord and the tenant cannot agree as to the continuance of such rent, or as to what alteration ought to be made therein, either party may apply to the Court to arbitrate between himself and the other party; and the Court shall, on hearing all the circumstances of the case, determine, as such arbitrator, what rent shall be paid for the next ensuing fourteen years, or until the landlord and tenant may mutually agree upon some other rent in lieu thereof; and in determining such rent the Court shall have regard to the altered value of land and to the value of agricultural products in the locality; and to such other circumstances as the equities of the case may require to be considered; but no increase of the rent shall be made because of any improvements in or on the holding for which the tenant would be entitled to compensation if claiming under the general provisions of this Act, unless such improvements have been made in whole or in part by the landlord or his predecessor in title, or by the tenant or his predecessor in title, in pursuance of some valuable consideration given by the landlord or his predecessor, directly or indirectly, or of a specific agreement; and in case of a failure at any subsequent time of the landlord and tenant to agree to continue the then rent or to adjust by mutual agreement the rent to be thenceforth payable, either party may apply, after the expiration of every period of fourteen years, but not oftener, to the Court to act as arbitrator between himself and the other party;

  3. The tenant shall be deemed to have and shall have a chattel interest in the holding, and he, or his administrators, executors, or other legal representatives, shall have power to sell or otherwise dispose of the interest in such holding as one whole and not otherwise to any individual against whom the landlord shall not establish a reasonable ground of objection to the satisfaction of the tenant or before the Court, but he shall not sub-let or sub-divide such holding without the consent in writing of the landlord or his agent, or the sanction of the Court; and the Court shall not give such sanction until both parties shall have been heard or shall have had an opportunity of being heard before it on the subject. In every case of sale by the tenant or his representative, the landlord shall have a right of pre-emption of the holding at the price bonâ fide offered by any person tendered to him for acceptance by the tenant in occupation or his legal representative as an incoming tenant by purchase;

  4. The tenant shall have no claim whatever against the landlord if he voluntarily surrender his holding;

  5. The landlord cannot disturb the tenant in such holding save for:—Non-payment of rent; sub-letting or sub-dividing without the consent of the landlord or the sanction of the Court; or, such wilful or permissive waste, dilapidation, or injury to the buildings on, or to the corpus of the holding as may be declared by the Court on application for authority to servo an ejectment process, to be such as to render the termination of the tenancy requisite for the protection of the landlord. In all cases in which a decree for giving possession of the holding to the landlord shall be granted by the Court, the tenant about to be evicted may claim and exercise the power to sell his interest in the holding, and the Court shall

  991
  order that he be left in occupation a reasonable time to do so, and shall give to the landlord a formal lien in priority of all other debts, claims, and judgments or other demands whatever on the sum paid or to be paid for such interest for all rent, arrears of rent and taxes due on the holding, and for any damages awarded by the Court for waste or dilapidation. The Court shall, when granting a decree for giving possession to the landlord, ascertain and determine what sum is due to the landlord for rent, arrears or rent and taxes payable but not paid by the tenant, and for damages caused by waste or dilapidation, or both; and the tenant shall, on payment or on tender of the said sum or sums within six calendar months after the execution of the habere be entitled to and be restored to the possession of the holding, unless he may have claimed and exercised his right to sell his interest in the holding;

  6. The absolute owner, subject to such rules as the Court may prescribe for the protection of the interests of mortgagees and other incumbrancers, may agree to accept, and the tenant may agree to give, a fine in lieu of the periodical adjustment of rent above provided for, and thenceforth the tenancy of such holding shall be in accordance with the above rules in all respects save that the rent shall be fixed and not variable;

  7. Any successor in title of the landlord may by agreement with the tenant, purchase the tenant's interest in the holding, and after having satisfied all the claims of the tenant, may proceed in the prescribed form to relieve the holding from being subject to this Clause, and thenceforth the holding shall be subject to the general provisions of this Act, other than those of Clauses 1 and 2.

  Registration—The absolute owner may apply to the Court for authority to register his lands under this Clause, and the Court, on being satisfied that due notice in the prescribed form has been given to each tenant, and that each tenant of a holding on the land has assented to such registration, shall, on being satisfied that the interests of mortgagees or incumbrancers are not injuriously affected thereby, forthwith order such lands to be registered in the Registry of Deeds Office in Dublin, in the prescribed form. Should the tenant not notify his dissent before the expiration of one calendar month from the service of such notice, he shall be deemed to have assented, and the Court shall order the lands to be registered at the expiration of that period. If the tenant notify his dissent, the Court shall proceed to hear the cause assigned for such dissent; and if on such hearing it determine that the dissent is unreasonable, it shall order the land comprising the holding to be registered, but if it should determine that the tenant has reasonable cause for such dissent, the holding of the tenant so dissenting shall not be registered under this Clause, and shall be exempted from such registration.
  Clause (Permissive Parliamentary tenant-right,)—(Sir John Gray,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, he thought the speech as well as the Motion of his hon. Friend (Sir John Gray) showed that the Government had been quite right in adjourning the con-
  992
  sideration of this important proposal to the present occasion. The proposal was evidently one that was totally unfitted to be a mere appendage to a clause of the Bill, being, in fact—though his hon. Friend might not admit it—a substitute for the Bill itself. The desire of the Government had been that, as regarded this proposal and another not very different in principle, which was also upon the Notice Paper, the Government and the Committee should have the fullest opportunity of giving to these propositions that full and respectful consideration which their importance demanded. These clauses were, in name, put forward as optional, and the proposal of his hon. Friend was called a permissive tenant-right; but he felt bound to point out that it was by no means tenant-right, in the sense in which that term was commonly employed. Tenant-right, though differing in degree in various parts of the kingdom, meant a right on the part of the tenant to make certain claims upon a change of tenancy, whether that change was brought about by the act of the landlord or of the tenant himself. To the extent of recognizing and acting upon this principle of tenant-right, the Government had succeeded in carrying the House of Commons with them; but now his hon. Friend, under the name of a permissive tenant-right, proposed to create that which was, in fact, a perpetuity of tenure, subject to the payment of rent to be fixed compulsorily from time to time by a public valuator. His hon. Friend excepted from the operation of the clause the whole tenant-right region of Ireland, and also any portion of the country in which hereafter the Court might find that a tenant-right custom existed. But of that exception the whole tenantry of Ulster, he thought, would have reason to complain, for they would be excluded from the enjoyment of this perpetuity of tenure. The Ulster tenant-right was something very different from that now proposed, for the land there was not to be held at a rent fixed from time to time by compulsory valuation, but subject to certain well-ascertained conditions, upon charge of tenancy, which had been found sufficient for the protection both of landlord and tenant. The proposal of his hon. Friend would certainly be viewed by the Irish tenants as equivalent to perpetuity of tenure,

  993
  subject to periodical revaluation. He proposed, it was true, to attach to it three conditions, under either of which the tenure was to be forfeited—namely, non-payment of rent, subdivision of holding, and serious waste of the farm. But, for his own part, he must declare that he was no believer in the possibility of enforcing these conditions. When once the perpetuity of tenure was acceded which his hon. Friend proposed, it would, in practice, be absolutely impossible to enforce any restriction, and still less any forfeiture, for any cause short of non-payment of rent. His hon. Friend believed that the thing was possible; but he certainly could not agree with him. To suppose that, under such circumstances, the landlord would retain in his hands any practical power of preventing subdivision of the lands was, according to his knowledge and experience of Ireland, an absolute delusion. The hon. Member very laudably had attempted to provide for the case of the limited owner; but he must say that the provisions proposed were far from being satisfactory to his mind. The hon. Member proposed, in the case of the limited owner, to enable him to bring this form of tenancy into existence at first starting, on the same terms as those in the case of the absolute owner; but he did not refrain from exercising very considerable compulsion upon the successor to renew the so-called "permissive tenant-right," because he proposed to enact that if the successor should at any time have recourse to the Court for any readjustment of rent, or accept of any increase of rent from the tenant—by that fact alone he should be deemed to have at once renewed the tenure created by his predecessor. If the successor was in his turn only a limited owner, he would be able to impose the same conditions upon his successor, and the whole process would have to be gone over again; and, therefore, he (Mr. Fortescue) should, if he was a tenant, feel it impossible to say what was the condition of his tenure. He could not conceive anything less satisfactory to the tenants than the position in which they must find themselves placed under those landlords who were limited owners, they being by far the largest proportion of the landlords of Ireland. Irish tenants really knew very little about the title of their landlords, and a tenant
  994
  living under a limited owner would certainly expect to obtain the same conditions as his neighbour, who held under an absolute owner; and as any difference between them would inevitably lead to disappointment, the question of tenure from a limited owner was one very well deserving the serious consideration of the Committee. His hon. Friend had taken considerable pains to show that his proposal was not opposed to any of the clauses in the Bill; but he (Mr. Forteseue) was not convinced that there was anything in the Bill which was at all like his hon. Friend's proposal. The Government had steadily resisted the idea of rent being fixer arbitrarily by a public authority, and, in introducing this Bill, the First Minister of the Crown had exhaustively spoken on that subject; while the cases quoted by his hon. Friend were not cases in which the rent was so to be fixed, but only where the Court would, in determining another matter, find it impossible to exclude the subject of rent from its consideration, which was a different thing. Rents, he believed, would, under the operation of the Bill, be left to fair competition, subject to the conditions specified in the Bill. As to absolute owners, there was no such difficulty as there was with limited owners; in fact, there was no occasion for Parliament to legislate on the subject, because, practically, an absolute owner could in the future make any arrangement he pleased. After all the main question was, whether Parliament was to single out the proposed mode of tenancy for its especial sanction and favour, without venturing to make it compulsory. That was one of the gravest questions which Parliament could have to consider, and the Government, after having given it the most careful consideration, had come to the conclusion that it would not be safe or wise for them to recommend the Committee to make that addition to the Bill. His hon. Friend had proposed to give to the Irish landlords an option, on the ground that they would be anxious to escape from the obligations of the Bill, thereby implying that the Bill was so stringent, for the protection of the tenant against any unfair and improper exercise of the landlord's power, that landlords would be so anxious to escape from the restrictions and penalties of the Bill that they would even confer perpetuity

  995
  on their tenants. How would that option be regarded by other persons? The Irish tenant would, he believed, regard that as a virtual enactment of perpetuity which Parliament had sanctioned, but which would, in many cases, depend upon the will and pleasure of the landlord. In other but similar proposals, which had been made to the House in recent years, the option had been given to the tenant and not to the landlord. Mr. Butt proposed to establish a system of fixity of tenure for 60 years. In the same way the hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Morrison) gave the option to the tenant, and not to the landlord. He thought he knew what would be the Irish tenant's opinion of the alternative plan proposed by the hon. Member for Kilkenny. He would believe, or, at all events, he would be told by a hundred pens and a hundred voices, that this was a system of perpetuity of tenure sanctioned by Parliament, between the enjoyment of which and himself nothing interfered but the will of a selfish and tyrannical landlord. He believed that the adoption of this clause would prevent the settlement of the land question in Ireland, and not only cause pressure on individual landlords to adopt this so-called optional scheme, but would inevitably produce an agitation which would be brought to bear on the whole class of landlords who would be, not untruly, represented as the only obstacles to fixity of tenure. The proposal had received the gravest consideration on the part of the Government, and they regretted to be compelled to differ in opinion from many Irish Members and other Gentlemen, some of whom had given great attention to the subject; but having carried this measure satisfactorily so far, they felt it to be their duty not to run the risk which they believed would result from the creation of an alternative plan of this nature, and not to imperil the settlement of this question by the adoption of a scheme which they believed would not tend to promote peaceful and harmonious relations between landlord and tenant in Ireland, but would be attended by the very contrary effects in that country.
  MR. C. S. READobserved, that some unfriendly critics had said that the Government Bill was a measure for enabling the tenants of Ireland to indulge in the luxury of going to law with their
  996
  landlords; but no more damaging criticisms had been passed on the Bill than that which had proceeded from the hon. Member for Kilkenny, when he showed how the pains and penalties of litigation would be inflicted on the landlords. As it stood, the Bill afforded two escapes for the landlord—the granting of a 31 years' lease, or the agreement with the tenant to purchase under the clauses which were supposed to have emanated from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. If the proposal of the hon. Member for Kilkenny were adopted, it would practically extinguish both those alternatives, for who would take a 31 years' lease if he could get a lease for ever? Or who, if he could obtain all the privileges which attached to a copyholder in England, would avail himself of the purchasing clauses of the Bill? Another result of the hon. Gentleman's proposal would be to alienate the landlord from the land, and thereby stop all landlord's improvements, and he would merely become a rent-charger, and an absentee in a country where his example was wanted more than in any other country. The heir would be placed in a still more unfavourable position, from not being able to get possession of his land until 31 years after he became the nominal landlord. He supported the Bill originally because of the encouragement it gave to leases, and because it did not endeavour to extend the Ulster right. The Bill, as it now stood, would perpetuate that right, and the clauses proposed would extend it to the whole of Ireland; and their effect would be to make every new tenant pay something for nothing, by the creation of a goodwill in every farm throughout Ireland; whereas, by the clauses of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham, the tenant was put in any easy way of purchasing land at a fair price, and was given, moreover, really valuable security for his money. Why should an Irish tenant be always treated as a spoilt child? Why should we violate every law of political economy, overlook the first principles of agriculture, and even try to upset the order of nature by converting what, by soil and climate, was naturally adapted for grass into a lot of potatoe fields, in order to have on them a half-starved peasant population? Believing that the clause of the hon. Gentleman would be

  997
  eventually injurious to the tenant, and would do more than anything else to retard the progress of agriculture in Ireland, and being convinced that, if passed, the other clauses of the Bill would be entirely defeated, he hoped the Committee would not add it to the Bill.
  MR. W. H. GREGORYsaid, he had given the best proof of his desire to advance the progress of the Bill, by not having on any one occasion spoken for more than five minutes at a time since the Bill had gone into Committee. Now, however, that an Amendment of such vital importance had been moved—an Amendment which was nothing less than an alternative Landlord and Tenant Bill—he would ask the House for a little longer indulgence. This was, moreover, a subject on which he had some claim to be heard, as he had suggested it almost totidem verbis in his speech on the second reading of the Bill. He had no fault to find with the hon. Member for Kilkenny (Sir John Gray) for having adopted it and put it into legal form; on the contrary, he had every reason to be satisfied with his courtesy and fairness, for he had pressed him (Mr. Gregory) to bring it on in the first instance. He had declined to do so, preferring that it should be in the hands of the hon. Member for Kilkenny, feeling sure it would attract greater notice and be received with greater favour by the tenant class than if it had come from a landed proprietor. The first objection raised by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, in his reply to the hon. Member for Kilkenny, was to the name of his scheme, "Permissive Tenant-right," because it was not identical with the Ulster custom. But the hon. Member for Kilkenny had not stated that it was the same as the Ulster custom. It was something broader, clearer, and more defined, and the word permissive tenant-right was a generic term implying what was intended, that the tenant should, under the clause, enjoy certain rights. Now he (Mr. W. H. Gregory) had said that this proposal was an alternative Bill. This seemed to create some scandal on the Ministerial Benches. But what was the object of the Bill, or of any Bill, or of any clauses, except to improve the condition of Ireland, to sweeten the relations of landlord and tenant, and to increase the general resources of the country? If
  998
  the clause could effect that, if it could aid the Bill in effecting that, the Government was bound to look on it as a valuable contribution, and not as an act of hostility to their Bill, which the Mover of it never intended it should be. In order to show the feeling with which this proposal was likely to be received in Ireland, he might mention that when the delegates of the different tenant associations came to London to make representations to the Prime Minister, he attended their meeting and submitted these identical proposals to them. They all said, without a single exception, that if the Bill were framed according to them it would be accepted with gratitude, and they would never again hear another word of the land question. Of course, according to those views, the provisions were to be compulsory. The Government, however, at once rejected these proposals. They were met by the Chief Secretary for Ireland with three weighty objections—the first, that you could not create a custom, though you might recognize it when it existed; the second, that it would be an injustice to give the tenant a property in the estate of his landlord, without his having gained it in any way, either by the wish of the landlord or by having compensated him; thirdly, that the provision might be most unfair to the good landlord, who had kept his rents low and who would naturally be debarred from raising them, if he chose so to do, to the ordinary letting scale of the locality. These were, no doubt, grave objections, and it was obvious to everyone that to make these provisions compulsory would not have been agreed to, except by an infinitesimal minority in the House of Commons, and would not have had, in all probability, a Proposer or Seconder in the House of Lords. Still the principle had found so much favour in Ireland not merely among tenants, but among landlords that it had influenced 39 Irish representatives to sign it. These men, representing 23 counties, were not likely to embark in any wild or visionary scheme calculated to cut their own throats, or to be against the interest of the tenant classes they represented. They recognized the force of the Chief Secretary's objection; but they also felt that the moment the adoption of the proposal became permissive the objections fell one by one to the ground. As

  999
  to the first, no doubt, they could not create a custom; but here it was the landlord who of his own free consent created it. Second, they did not give the tenant a property in the estate of his landlord without his leave and without compensation. It was by the landlord's leave they did so, and the compensation he obtained were secure rents, perfect peace about his home, and a relief from all the litigation involved in the Bill. Third, that extension would not be an injustice to the good landlord who had kept his rents low, for he would of course make an amicable arrangement with his tenants on the subject of rents before placing his estate under permissive Parliamentary tenant-right. But then they would be answered that it was a serious matter for private Members to bring forward an alternative plan, as it were, to that of the long-considered and widely-extending Bill of the Government. To that he would reply that, in a case like this, it would be impossible to deal with it save by an alternative plan. No landlord would, of course, adopt willingly any plan to curtail his extreme power unless under some sort of compulsion. The only question was this. Was the plan a good one? If the Amendment would have the additional recommendation of being the means of producing voluntarily the objects that are aimed at throughout the Bill, it ought to be adopted. He thought he might take for granted that one of the main objects of the framers of the Bill was the extension of the Ulster custom, or of customs analogous to it throughout Ireland. He could not suppose for a moment that the Government would refuse this Amendment from any feeling of pique, lest by this alternative being largely adopted, their own enactment should become inoperative. The next objection taken by the Chief Secretary was the fact that the Amendment sanctioned the fixing of rent. But if they considered the numerous cases quoted by the Member for Kilkenny, in which, as the Bill now stood, rent was interfered with, it was impossible to consider this to be an objection. The distinction drawn by the Chief Secretary between fixing of rents and interference with rents was untenable. Directly they touched rent at all they more or less regulated the price of land. There was an old and foolish riddle—"What was that which went round the house, and over
  1000
  the house, and through the house and never touched the house?" The answer was—"Wind." A very stupid answer, because it did touch the house—and here they were asked a similar riddle—what was it that went round the Bill, and over the Bill, and through the Bill, but must never touch the Bill?—interference with rent; but interference with rent, like the wind, touched it everywhere. From that the Chief Secretary, though he tried to evade it, could not escape. If the Bill was to be in any way satisfactory it must touch rent every now and then. The rarer the instances and the less wide the interference of course the better. Now, in this case, the interference would apparently be slight; in fact, there would hardly be any interference at all. At first there would be absolutely none. At the end of 14 years there might be a revision of rent; but it would be based on circumstances easily ascertained—it would be based on the price of agricultural produce, about which there could be no dispute, or on the increased value of land from exceptional circumstances, about which there might be a dispute, but which the Court could readily settle, if, indeed, the case ever came before the Court at all. It was said that it was impossible to base rents on agricultural prices. The simple answer to that was one which would be accepted by his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dublin University (Dr. Ball), who was well aware that College leases were based on this very principle. Then the Chief Secretary waxed warm against the injustice meditated towards incumbrancers and remaindermen. As regarded the first, he (Mr. Gregory) presumed when a man lent money on mortgage he inquired into the rental and the valuation of the property of the mortgagor. Now, as the rental was not to be altered from that on which the money was lent, it certainly did seem strange that the certainty of being paid rent—the certainty of recovering arrears should be considered as invalidating the security of the mortgage. As far as mortgagees were concerned, he thought they would have but small objection to an additional security, and as far as remaindermen were concerned, if the clause were considered carefully they were amply provided for; and it certainly did seem like straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel, for the Minister, who had allowed a limited owner to sell his

  1001
  estate, to object to the provision allowing the same owner to have fixed periods for revision of rent. Now, he (Mr. W. H. Gregory) would turn his remarks to the Conservative Benches. He would ask hon. Members opposite whether it would not be wise for Irish landlords to accept this proposal? There was no force on them to use it. He had always said vigilantibus non dormientibus leges subvenire; that in dealing with Ireland the old maxim should be reversed, and instead of its being vigilantibus it should be dormientibus non vigilantibus leges subvenire. Anything was better than that the landlord and tenant should be ever on the watch against each other. The hon. Member for East Norfolk (Mr. C. S. Read) had said this clause would deprive the landlord of all interest in his land, and produce absenteeism. But what was it produced absenteeism? In too many instances, bad relations between landlord and tenant; and certainly much as absenteeism was to be deplored, it was not to be wondered at that it prevailed among those whose lot was cast in the blood-stained regions of Meath and Westmeath. But this clause would render differences between landlord and tenant almost impossible, while it would enable every kindly relation to continue. Then, again, contrast the plainness and I simplicity of this provision as regarded the tenant himself, with the difficulties he would have to encounter under the Bill. He know if he was a tenant on any property on which this principle should be adopted that he was perfectly secure, except for certain causes. He knew if he fell into arrear he was sure to be able to sell his goodwill. He knew that every improvement he made increased the value of that goodwill. On the other hand, let them look at the uncertainty in which the tenant was placed under the Bill if about to be evicted. He went by the last decision of the Court, and made his calculation—the next decision, perhaps, upset that calculation. He could never tell what weapon the landlord might produce from the armoury of exceptions which the Bill furnished him with. So much for the tenant. Let them look at the advantages it brought with it to the landlord. He was sure to get the natural rise in rents, if such rise took place. But then it was said what was to take place if agricultural prices fell? What would take place was, what always
  1002
  did take place—if prices fell for a long period—if the depression be continued, rents would suffer in consequence. It need hardly be said that the tenant was always able to give up his farm in case of a fall in the value of land for a considerable period, therefore it was impossible to guarantee the landlord against a fall. He was not prepared to go into the debateable region as to the probabilities of the rise and fall of prices of agricultural produce. He himself—and he ventured to say 19 out of 20 of those who had studied the subject—would be of opinion that there was greater probability of a rise than of a fall. It was something, then, to guarantee the landlord for a rise, in case circumstances justified such rise, for he was convinced that as the present Bill stood, few landlords would be able, under any circumstances, to raise their rents. Then, again, this plan would bring with it perfect harmony in the relations of landlord and tenant—none of the litigation apprehended on all sides could take place, for no question could arise on the subject either of improvements or disturbance. He said on account of improvements, because he would be quite ready, now that the tenant was protected, to enact that all improvements should be registered on completion. The great argument, after all—in fact, the whole argument—was that this clause, though permissive, would be, in reality, an instrument of compulsion. His right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary said that if one landlord adopted it, there would be a hundred pens and a hundred tongues to insist on his neighbour doing the same, however unwilling he might be. But there was no more fear of that than in case a landlord let his land extremely low—unduly low—other landlords would have to do the same. The real compulsion would be the sight of a neighbour riding peacefully in the calm haven of permissive tenant-right, while those; around him were being tossed to and fro among the breakers of Assistant Barristers and Quarter Sessions Courts. For these reasons he would vote with the Member for Kilkenny, and he claimed the vote of the right hon. and learned Member for Dublin University (Dr. Ball), who said the other night, in opposing the plan of the Member for Clonmel (Mr. Bagwell) for leases renewable for ever, that those who liked them should have a clause of

  1003
  their own. Now he (Mr. W. H. Gregory) and many other landlords would be quite willing to have this clause for themselves; and he himself could only say that he would readily go hack to Ireland and place his property under this settlement and under such a clause. He regretted that the Chief Secretary had met the proposal with such a stern and peremptory negative. He could only again repeat that the Amendment was not for the subversion of the Bill, for which every one of its supporters gave the Government the fullest credit; but as a supplement and addition, to confer additional strength and efficiency to the Bill, the main object of which was to produce harmony between the owner and occupier of land in Ireland.
  MR. SAUNDERSONsaid, he did not deny that the proposal of the hon. Member for Kilkenny (Sir John Gray) was a popular one in Ireland; and if he sought popularity in his native country he might be disposed to support that proposal; but, as he believed, it was fraught with great danger to all classes in Ireland, he would give to it both now and hereafter his most uncompromising opposition. He was at a loss at one time to know who had invented what he thought was a most ingenious appellation—namely, that of "Permissive Parliamentary tenant-right." The speech of the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. W. H. Gregory) placed it beyond a doubt that he was the author of that appellation, for the hon. Gentleman told them that it was a generic term that sufficiently explained itself. He was asked some time ago to sign the Memorial, as it was called, containing an appeal in favour of the main principle of the clause which the Committee was now discussing. His hon. Friend the Member for Kilkenny asked him whether he would be willing to sign it; but, without any personal disrespect to the hon. Member, he must say that the fact of his being the author of the document induced him to look on it with considerable suspicion. He refused to sign it, and every day that had passed since had increased his satisfaction at having resisted the eloquent and somewhat convincing request of his hon. Friend. There were 39 names to the Memorial, but it was easy to obtain names. When a man of undoubted ability, unflinching perseverance, and considerable cunning undertook to per-
  1004
  suade his friends that a proposition which he was about to bring forward would be very beneficial, some people did not even take the trouble of reading what they signed. But some hon. Members who had signed the Memorial had told him they regretted having done so. ["Name!"] He would not name them, because they had been punished enough by having signed it. But hon. Members had told him that since they had seen it in black and white—which, he presumed, meant since they had come to understand it—they were sorry for having signed it. He was extremely glad he had not done so. With the permission of the Committee he would refer to a speech he had heard made in that House, and from which this was an extract—
  "What the Irish people asked from the Minister and from the House, and what they would continue to ask until they got it, was, that the notices to quit, described in the eloquent words of the Premier us things showered out upon the people and falling over the face of the land like snow-flakes, should be put an end to, and that eviction, except for legitimate causes, as non-payment of rent, subletting, or wasting of the land should altogether cease."—[3 Hansard, cxcix. 1682.]
  [Sir JOHN GRAY: Hear, hear!] That was a passage from a speech of the hon. Member for Kilkenny, on the second reading of the Bill—the best speech he had ever heard him deliver. He asked himself whether there was anything in the proposals now before the Committee which came up to those prophecies for-shadowed by the hon. Member. Under the woolly skin he spied the wolf. There, in all its naked deformity, were fixity of tenure and valuation of rents. He was opposed to fixity of tenure, because he thought it a most unwarrantable interference with the natural laws which regulated the possession of property. He believed it was an attempt to interfere with the laws of social gravitation—with those laws which tended to raise the wise, prudent, thoughtful, and fortunate to the surface of society, and tended to lower the unwise, the imprudent, the thoughtless, and, alas, the unfortunate to its lowest depths. He should like to ask some hon. Gentleman who was in favour of fixity of tenure whether it would be a good thing to stereotype for all time the present condition of many of the farmers in Ireland. Would such, a measure be likely to promote the happiness of that country? Nearly one-third of all the holdings in Ireland were under

  1005
  15 acres. Would it be well for Ireland that such a state of things should remain for all time? If the hon. Member for the city of Cork (Mr. Maguire) were in his place he should ask him whether a farm of 15 acres was a desirable holding. If the House acceded to this proposition of the Member for Kilkenny, was there any hope in our time of seeing any alteration in the condition of Ireland? Men of determination and energy, of whom, he was happy to say, there were not a few in Ireland, would be told that the size of their farms must never be increased. So far from believing that the proposal of the hon. Member for Kilkenny, if adopted, would convert Ireland into a happy country, he felt sure that it would lead to more discontent and misery than at present existed. The hon. Member for Kilkenny said that the Irish people would continue to demand fixity of tenure; and they all knew his determination and tenacity of purpose. He objected to putting in the hon. Gentleman's hand an instrument with which he might keep the cauldron of agitation at seething point, and prevent that peace and quiet which all ought to desire to see prevail in Ireland. He would not go into the details of the measure of his hon. Friend, for a measure he called it, advisedly. He confined himself to its principles. Now, as to the Bill itself, as an Irish landlord, he believed that if it reached Ireland without any material alteration from its present form it would be a great success. He had supported it mainly for the reason which, he believed, had induced Her Majesty's Government to bring it forward. There was an argument against which no one who was wise in his generation could shut his ears; it was a voice which no monarch could pass by with inattention, and to which it would be very foolish for any statesman to turn a deaf ear. That voice was the clearly expressed wish of a united people. That which so seldom occurred in Ireland had occurred in reference to this Bill. All classes had united in demanding legislation on the land question, and this Bill was the echo of their voice. He had no fear whatever of the vast amount of litigation which was apprehended by some. He supported this Bill because he believed it would satisfy the reasonable portion of the Irish people. He supported this Bill for another reason—namely, be-
  1006
  cause he felt convinced that this measure would satisfy the people of England. As long as the ears of England were kept open to the appeals of agitators in Ireland by the belief that justice had not been done, so long would agitation continue in that country. But when the ears of England were stopped to those appeals, by the knowledge that she had done everything that a nation could do to satisfy the claims of justice, he did not believe that Irish agitators would be able to extract from her the injustice that some demanded, and, the trade of the Irish agitator being gone, he would either subside into some other profession, or he would take his wares elsewhere. He had supported this measure in its passage through the House of Commons to the best of his ability, and he intended to support it not only within those walls, but also in his native country. There were others besides himself who intended to show the people of Ireland that this Bill was an honest attempt on the part of the Parliament of Great Britain to build up the future prosperity of Ireland, and if his brother landlords in Ireland would join in those endeavours they would secure the future peace and happiness of that country, which, with all their faults, Irishmen so dearly loved.
  MR. SYNAN, as one of those who had signed the declaration alluded to, desired to make some observations on the Motion before them. The hon. Member who had just sat down (Mr. Saunderson) had founded his argument on two assumptions—first, that those who supported the Motion were opposed to the Bill; and, secondly, that they regretted having signed the document in favour of the proposal before the Committee. He (Mr. Synan) gave the most unqualified denial to both statements. He challenged any hon. Member to deny that he had been unceasing in his support of the Bill, and in his endeavours to amend it so as to make it effective to the purpose in view; nor did he regret having signed the paper in favour of this scheme, for he was there to redeem his pledge by supporting it. He could well understand that the Government were in an embarrassing position. They were in this dilemma—that if they rejected this proposal, they would do an unpopular act; and, if they adopted it, they might expose their Bill to shipwreck in "another place." There were

  1007
  two objections taken to the clause which he desired to notice. The first was, that of the hon. Member for Kilkenny himself, who said, in answer to the Chief Secretary, that mortgagees and incumbrancers were not mentioned in the Amendment at all. But this was a mistake—they were expressly mentioned; but so as not to be injuriously affected, and with a view to the protection of their interests. The other mistake was that of the hon. Member for Galway, who said that the present rents were to remain unaffected for 14 years. No doubt that was so in the declaration; but it had been altered, and the change in rents might be made to-morrow. To that he (Mr. Synan) had no objection, for he regarded it as a step in the right direction. It was said that the proposed Amendment was, first, against the principle of the Bill, and was a direct enactment of fixity of tenure and compulsory valuation of rents; secondly, it was a violation of the rights of limited owners and mortgagees; and, thirdly, that it was a new Bill in itself, and, therefore, substantially a substitution for the Bill of the Government. He considered all these objections to be founded upon a misapprehension of the clauses proposed and of the Bill itself. The Amendment simply proposed to enable a landlord and tenant to contract themselves out of the Bill by entering into an agreement for 31 years' leases, renewable, subject to the settlement of the rents every 14 years, to conditions for the proper cultivation of the land, and against subletting, and subdivision, and eviction only for non-payment of rent. What did the Bill do? It legalized the tenant-right of Ulster, and tenant-right out of Ulster; it gave power to the Court to inquire, so that the tenant might not have his tenant-right destroyed by an arbitrary demand of an exorbitant rack-rent; it gave compensation for disturbance, or for eviction if a rack-rent were refused. Whatever objection was urged to the Amendment was therefore equally applicable to the Bill; and therefore the argument of the clauses being opposed to the principle of the Bill, because they enacted compulsory valuation of rents, had no force. As to the objection that the Amendment enacted fixity of tenure, the answer was, it followed the Bill in that particular; and in his (Mr. Synan's) opinion, the Bill was valuable only so
  1008
  far as it did produce that result indirectly. The legalizing the Ulster custom and other customs, and the Compensation Clause, were indirect ways of enacting fixity of tenure. As to the objection as to limited owners and mortgagees—the Amendment gave the power to the Courts to see that the rights of remaindermen were not injured by the acts of limited owners; and as to mortgagees—the Amendment expressly provided that the Court should look after their rights and interests, and take special means to protect them. He came now to the third class of objections—that this was a new Bill. He frankly admitted that, if this clause were acted upon universally, it would have that effect. It was, in his opinion, the only objection Her Majesty's Government could urge against it. It was hard to ask them—after months of conflict in that House—after they had brought almost to completion a great and broad and liberal scheme for the protection of the Irish tenants—to accept an Amendment which, if acted on universally, would render the rest of the Bill waste paper and rubbish; but their object was to settle the question; and he was certain, that if Her Majesty's Government thought this Amendment would have that effect, they would not reject it on the ground that it had made the labour of months nugatory, or deprived Her Majesty's Government of the crown of victory. But the answer to the objection was simply that the Amendment was permissive—that it was rendered necessary by the 3rd and 4th clauses, which rendered voluntary contracts void as against them, and that it could only operate gradually, and by the operation of free contract. It was however said a new agitation would spring up, and that under the leadership of his hon. Friend (Sir John Gray), to make this permissive law a compulsory law. He could not deny that his hon. Friend had at his command a powerful organ of public opinion; but he denied the power even of his hon. Friend to create an agitation unless there was a grievance, and unless public opinion was agreed that there was a grievance to be remedied. There were two proposals before them—that of the hon. Member for Kilkenny, and that called Judge Longfield's. He gave the preference to the former. He had given his support to the Bill

  1009
  throughout; he had moved and carried many Amendments; and he now, as a true friend to the measure, asked that the Amendment of his hon. Friend should be incorporated with the Bill, as tending, in his opinion, to make the measure more complete, and the foundation of the agricultural prosperity of Ireland more secure.
  MR. G. B. GREGORYsaid, he believed the clause would revive that vampire with which they had been struggling during the last 100 years—the middleman. It was true the clause contained provisions against subletting; but it would not prevent a man taking a partner, or letting to his labourers. The great objection to the clause, however, was that it would be placing the country under two concurrent schemes, instead of leaving it under one, as the Bill at present did.
  MR. O'REILLYsaid, he rejoiced to hear that Irish landlords on the other (the Opposition) side of the House had ceased to fear that the Bill would cause litigation. He was at one time in favour of enabling landlords to enter into voluntary agreements; but his views had since undergone a change. It would be truly wrong and absurd to give to the Assistant Barristers' Court a power to decide to what extent subletting was desirable or prudent in Ireland; that was a question which those interested in property must decide for themselves. But that which weighed most with him in regard to the proposition of his hon. Friend the Member for Kilkenny (Sir John Gray) was the fear lest it should increase the difficulties of the Government, to whom much credit was due for having brought forward so large a measure as the Bill undoubtedly was. If the landlords of Ireland should find themselves involved in troublesome litigation, there would be nothing to prevent them from applying to Parliament in a year or two hence for permission to enter into arrangements with their tenants, in order to escape from the operation of the clauses of the Bill. He could not, however, shut his eyes to the difficulty of embodying two competing schemes, though the present proposal was only permissive, in the same Bill.
  VISCOUNT ST. LAWRENCEsaid, he did not endorse all the details of the proposal before the Committee, though many of the most intelligent and mode-
  1010
  rate Irish Liberals had done so; but he thought by giving landlords and tenants permission to make voluntary contracts it afforded a means of escape from one of the strongest objections which had been urged to the Bill—namely, the prospect of endless litigation. He denied that the Members who had affixed their names to the memorial had done so any expectation that it would give an excuse for agitation, and he hoped the hon. Member for Kilkenny (Sir John Gray) would set their minds at rest by an express assurance upon that subject.
  DR. BALLsaid, he could not allow the Question to be put without expressing his opposition to what he believed to be, even from the point of view of the hon. Member (Sir John Gray), a very undesirable and ill-judged proposal, and only less objectionable than one for absolute perpetuity of tenure. In the Bill, notwithstanding the many improvements which had been made in it, there were several very questionable principles already, and the addition of the clause now proposed would tend very seriously, he believed, to prevent its passing into law. He must say he thought the proposition was nothing less than an incipient fixity of tenure. It had been said that the operation of the clause would be merely permissive. If so, what was to prevent a fee-simple owner, without this clause at all, establishing similar relations between himself and his tenants? He could not, of course, call in the Court as the mode of adjusting a periodical variation of rent; but an arbitrator would furnish just as satisfactory a tribunal in such an event as the Court itself. The hon. Member for Galway (Mr. W. H. Gregory) had referred to the leases under the University of Dublin. Those were leases the rent in which was to be adjusted every 10 years, on the application of either the landlord or the tenant, and in many of those references he himself had acted as arbitrator. The machinery, therefore, was not a judicial tribunal, but an arbitrator appointed by the tenant and landlord. The hon. Member for Kilkenny (Sir John Gray) said that the limited owner would not bind the estate for ever and ever, because what he did was to grant a lease for 30 years, but in reality the scheme was merely one to induce the remainderman to concur in the act of the tenant for life. And he maintained that it would be al-

  1011
  most impossible for the remainderman to resist the pressure and combination of the tenants of an estate, if the tenants combined to force this fixity of tenure. But the pressure would not be confined to the remainderman; for if this perpetuity of tenure with readjustment of rent every 14 years were adopted on an estate, the tenants of the estate adjoining would not rest until they had obtained the same privileges, and it would therefore have the effect of creating quarrelling, discontent, and controversy, in a number of cases, where now perfect contentment and peace prevailed. He agreed, too, with the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Saunderson), that even if this system of perpetual tenure could be introduced all over Ireland, it would not be desirable. If it generally prevailed, it would be impossible to enforce the provisions respecting forfeiture for subdivision and waste. The adoption of this scheme would take away all interest in the land from the landlord; all motive to reside in the country, to interfere in the management of the property, or to exercise supervision over it. The motives and the objects which led great proprietors to attend to the moral supervision, arrangement, and improvement of their estates, irrespective of money considerations, would be totally and entirely destroyed. The Bill as it now stood, though, of course, it contained matters that were objectionable, had this recommendation, that it contained some element of finality. As it stood, it was an announcement by the Government, and he believed a sincere announcement, that they would go no further, and would not yield anything in answer to further agitation. But if the Government yielded on this point, a fresh agitation would spring up, because the people of Ireland would believe that the Government could be induced by pressure to go further, and that larger concessions could be obtained by perseverance. He trusted that the Committee would not waste its time in discussing the Amendment of the hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Morrison) for, though the Amendment might in some respects be superior to that proposed by the hon. Member for Kilkenny, the principle involved in both was the same, and in either case the Government had to consider not a question of detail, but the wisdom of introducing alternative schemes into the Bill. The adop-
  1012
  tion of any alternative scheme would, he felt convinced, only lead to further agitation, and be detrimental to the inteests of the people of Ireland; and he, therefore, trusted the Government would be firm in their refusal to accept this or any similar plan.
  MR. M'MAHONsaid, he hoped the Government would re-consider their resolution, and attend rather to the wishes of their ordinary supporters than to those of their habitual opponents. The Government had yielded far more frequently to propositions coming from the other side of the House than to those coming from that side. ["No, no!"] If the Amendments to the Bill were recapitulated his statement would be found to be correct. This proposition was supported by most of the Liberal Members from Ireland. The objections of the representatives of Ulster should have no weight against the present proposition, because it was not intended to apply to Ulster tenant-right, nor to any custom analogous to that tenant-right. He was surprised to find the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Dr. Ball) opposite, of opinion that this Bill would stop all agitation, or, rather, political movement for further improvement in the relations between landlord and tenant, because it must be remembered that the atrocious Landlord and Tenant Law of 1860 still remained unaffected. What did his hon. Friend (Sir John Gray) propose? The unlimited owner now could enter into covenants far more prejudicial to the remainderman. Hon. Gentlemen opposite forgot that the first principle of political economy was to give to the occupier of the soil the highest possible authority over it in order to secure its perfect cultivation. That principle was laid down by Paley and by Adam Smith, and it was on that principle that the Tithe Commutation Acts and the Act for enfranchising copyholds were based. At present the unlimited owner might give leases for ever without requiring that the rent should vary according to the prices of agricultural produce. But his hon. Friend did not propose any such thing. According to his scheme the rent would vary from time to time, not only according to the prices of agricultural produce, but according to the valuation of the land. And then as to the limited owner. From the reign of Charles I. up to 1856 a limited owner

  1013
  could give a lease in Ireland for three lives or 31 years. What did his hon. Friend propose? Why, that a limited owner who had entered into the proposed arrangement with his tenant might have the rent varied every 14 years, according to the prices of agricultural produce and the valuation of the land, and at the death of the limited owner his successor might come in, and, if he disapproved the arrangement, might enter into a new one, the original agreement not prevailing against him for more than 31 years. In short, his hon. Friend's proposal was a 31 years' lease from the last adjustment of rent. What wrong, then, was done to the remainderman? He was surprised that the Government and those who supported them, as well as Gentlemen on the other side, should not see that the scheme of his hon. Friend only made the Bill more perfect; it was offered in no hostile spirit, but only with the view that landlords and tenants might by agreement release themselves from the complicated conditions of the Bill. Unless some provisions of that kind were introduced into the Bill the measure would go to Ireland, not as a message of peace, but as a cause of irritation; and he hoped the Government would therefore be guided in that matter by their best friends, and those who almost alone represented the tenant-right institutions of Ireland.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)said, he was very much disappointed with the speech of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for New Ross (Mr. M'Mahon). On the part of the Government he thought he had a right to complain of the way in which the hon. Member had spoken of the Bill itself, irrespective of the proposition immediately under the consideration of the House. His hon. and learned Friend had told the Committee that this Bill instead of being a message of peace to Ireland, would lead to litigation—that by the Bill the Government destroyed the tenant-right of Ulster, and afforded incentives to landlords to rob their tenants. The latter assertion appeared to him to be a very extraordinary one, seeing that the Bill made ejectment more difficult by imposing severe penalties on landlords who evicted their tenants. Then his hon. and learned Friend told the Government that they destroyed the tenant-right of
  1014
  Ulster. This statement, if allowed to go uncontradicted, might do much harm in that Province, of which his hon. and learned Friend had no knowledge whatever. He (Mr. Dowse) had some knowledge of Ulster, and he could assure his hon. and learned Friend and the Committee that this Bill took nothing from the tenant-right of that Province; on the contrary, it added largely to it by giving the sanction of law to that which at present was based on morality and justice. Perhaps, however, his hon. and learned Friend's speech had not teen made for this, but for "another place," and every man should have an opportunity of speaking according to his instincts. His hon. and learned Friend said that the Government had treated their friends badly by turning a deaf ear to their representations. If hon. Members who held such opinions as his hon. Friend on this Bill were called their friends the Government might be pardoned for wishing to be saved both from the advice and assistance of such friends. He (Mr. M'Mahon) said, that the Government had made concessions to the demands of their opponents, instead of yielding to the remonstrances of their friends. Now, he found there had been 23 Divisions in Committee on this Bill, of which only three had been brought about by Gentlemen on the Government side of the House who held extreme tenant-right views. In those Divisions, in which the Government had succeeded against their opponents, by arguments, he ventured to think, as well as by numbers, they had frequently been assisted by his hon. and learned Friend who had just spoken. Now, as to the clauses proposed by the hon. Member for Kilkenny (Sir John Gray) he objected to them, first, on this ground—that they did not deal with the Province of Ulster at all. If they were made law, that important Province should also have the benefit of them. He also objected to them on the ground that if Parliament thought it right and proper to do what the hon. Member would give the landlords a permissive power to do, it ought to do it itself by legislative enactment. He could understand the position taken up by the delegates who had come over from Ireland. There might be something to be said for fixity of tenure, while certainly there was a good deal to be said against it; but, at all events,

  1015
  the delegates asked Parliament to exercise an undoubted right; but the hon. Member for Kilkenny proposed that Parliament should ask the landlord to do what, if it were wise and right, Parliament ought to have the courage to do for itself. For the landlord who held in fee simple the proposal could not be by any means necessary, because already he had power to give a lease for 999 years, with power to revise the rent every 14 years, and to settle by arbitration any dispute with the tenant. There was one purpose which, if adopted, it might serve, though he did not say that those who advocated it had that purpose in view. It would afford a means of holding up to hostile criticism the landlord who did not avail himself of the provisions of the proposed clause. There was no species of coercion which would not be used to induce unwilling landlords to deal with their tenants in accordance with those provisions. That was a reason why he said that this proposal should not be assented to, as far as fee-simple owners were concerned. Then how did it propose to affect limited owners? All that the tenants would get under the clause in the case of limited owners was a 31 years' lease. The tenant doubtless would imagine he was getting perpetuity of tenure, at a fixed rent; but he would find out to his disgust that he got nothing more than a 31 years' lease. It was worse than a 31 years' lease, because it had all the disadvantages of a fluctuating tenure. He had, therefore, two objections to make to the proposal—the first was, that the first part of it was bad, and the second was, that the second part was bad, and as it consisted of those two parts only, it was bad altogether. A more fatal objection to the clause, however, was that it would introduce an alternative scheme into the Bill. If they were agreed to the Irish tenant would at once jump to the conclusion that, after debating this Bill for so many nights, the House had been unable to make up its mind which of the two schemes it would adopt, and had consequently left to the Irish people to decide which it would prefer. This in itself would injure the Bill, and deprive its provisions of all weight as a final settlement of the land question. It had been suggested that the objections to the clause were merely on matters of detail that might be smoothed over by
  1016
  the exercise of a little care. But an examination into those details would show their formidable nature. The hon. Member (Sir John Gray) had lauded the clauses on the ground that they would prevent litigation, but in his (Mr. Dowse's) opinion, they would be, on the contrary, a most fertile source of litigation. In the first place, everything was to be done through the medium of the Court,—the clause not informing the House what that Court was to be—and the best way to foment litigation was—never to be able to do anything without the intervention of a Court. The first thing that the Court was to do was to investigate the title of the owner—a proceeding occasionally long, elaborate, and expensive; then the Court must be satisfied that the interests of the mortgagees would not suffer, and of course the mortgagees must be heard upon the point, and a second elaborate investigation entered into, and then the Court might direct the estate to be registered, provided that no tenant objected to his particular holding being registered. In the event of any tenants raising such objection, the Court—again the Court—was to hear the particular case of each objecting tenant, and was to determine whether or not such objections were valid, or ought to be set aside, and the holdings registered. And what then? Why, the rent was to be fixed, in the first place, by mutual agreement, and resettled after the expiration of every 14 years by the Court. And then even in cases of gross misconduct on the part of the tenant the landlord would not be able to serve an ejectment upon the former without first obtaining the sanction of the Court. A measure more completely subversive of all the relations between landlord and tenant he never saw. If the Government or the Committee were to yield to the propositions of the hon. Member, they would not open a door to litigation, because that word would be a very inadequate description of the facilities afforded for legal contention, but would cause a flood of litigation all over Ireland. Both on principle and on common-sense considerations the Government could not consent to send to that country an alternative scheme which they did not believe to be better or so good as their own, and, therefore, he hoped the Committee would reject this clause.
  MR. MORRISONsaid, that as allusion had frequently been made to what was known as the Longfield plan, by several hon. Gentlemen, some of whom had expressed their preference for it over the scheme of his hon. Friend (Sir John Gray), he would venture to claim the indulgence of the Committee in explaining why he preferred it to the plan of his hon. Friend, and to do this he must explain what the Longfield plan was; and this course would be convenient both to the Government, in saving them from a second debate on a plan having many features similar to that under discussion, and also to those hon Gentlemen who would follow him, and who might also wish to compare the comparative merits of the two plans. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Dr. Ball) had objected that both schemes would lead to fixity of tenure without any periodical adjustment of rent, and the chief objection raised by the Government against his hon. Friend's clauses was, that they involved Government valuation of rent. But the plan of Judge Longfield certainly was not open to the last objection, while, as regarded the former, he was prepared to contend that the Government Bill gave virtual fixity of tenure, in the sense that no landlord would be able to resume possession of a holding without paying about as large a price as he would have to pay under the Longfield plan, and even under that of his hon. Friend. After explaining the reasons of the alterations made in the form of his clauses, in the hope of making them more acceptable to the Government, he said that Judge Longfield's plan providing for a re-adjustment of rent was this—that any landlord and tenant having agreed to come under statutory tenant-right would mutually agree on a rent which should be binding on both sides for seven years. At the end of that term, in the month of November, the landlord might give 12 months' notice of his intention to raise the rent, and the tenant would have until the following 10th of May to consider the matter. If he objected, the landlord must buy him out by a seven years' purchase, calculated on the basis of his own increased demand, or else let him remain at the old rent for seven more years, and the possibility of having the demand made would prevent the landlord asking an
  1018
  exorbitant rent. If owing to a reduction in the price of agricultural produce, or from other causes, the tenant should conceive that the price of his land ought to be lowered, he, in like manner, would have to serve notice upon his landlord, and the landlord would then have five or six months to consider the equity of the proposition. At the end of that time, if he thought the tenant's demand unreasonable, the landlord would be entitled to buy out the tenant and to resume possession on paying seven years' rent, calculated upon the tenant's own appraisement. Future re-adjustments of rent would take place at intervals of at least seven years. Thus availing themselves of the ordinary motives and reasonable selfishness by which men were actuated and governed, it would be possible to impose restraint upon exorbitant demands at either side, and to enable something like a fair valuation to be arrived at between the two conflicting interests. The Government Bill, on the other hand, bristled with references to the Court for the purpose of ascertaining what was a fair and proper rent, thereby contrasting unfavourably with the Longfield plan. The only case in which it would be necessary for the purposes of his Amendment that the Court should be appealed, to with a view of determining questions of value, would be where it became necessary to determine the value of improvements effected by the tenant after each adjustment of rent. Thus, it was plain that litigation must be largely avoided. The fair rights of the landlord would be respected; for, as the land increased in value, he would be able, by a self-adjusting process, to obtain for it exactly that amount of increased value which was clue to circumstances, apart from the labour and expenditure of capital by the tenant. This plan would have the effect of preserving and extending throughout the country the best features of the Ulster custom, while avoiding many of its disadvantages. In the course of the visits which he paid to Ireland during the Recess, he heard the greatest anxiety expressed lest the effect of the Government Bill might be to allow the tenant's interest in the holding to be frittered away by undue increase of rent, and he was glad that his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary (Mr. Chichester Fortescue) had effectually dissipated that apprehension. Under

  1019
  the Longfield plan, however, there was no such danger that the Ulster custom would be annihilated. To the clause providing that the tenant, who quitted his holding voluntarily, should be at liberty to sell it to the highest bidder, an addition might be fairly made, providing that the landlord should have the right of pre-emption at a price fixed; and the only reason why he himself had not inserted such words was, that he did not wish to make the clause too complicated. Other minor points were incorporated with his scheme as with the Government Bill. He maintained that all they need take care of in considering the limited owner was not to injure the position of the remainderman, as to rent, and the security of the remainderman for his rent would be considerably increased by his going under such a system as the Longfield system, for it was a notorious fact that in no part of Ireland were rents so punctually paid or so steadily increasing as they were in Ulster. But it might be asked how far they could expect the landlords and tenants to agree to go under any form of permissive Parliamentary tenant-right. He apprehended that, if either the clauses which stood in the name of his hon. Friend, or those which stood in his own name, were carried, advantage would not be taken of them for some years, because landlords and tenants alike would wait to see the working of the Government measure and to watch the decisions of the assistant barristers of their own particular county. Each then would make his own calculation as to the probable sum for which, in the event of disturbance in his holding when notice to quit had been served, with a view to increase of rent or otherwise, the landlord would be liable. They would consider, from the decisions of the barrister, what amount he would give under Clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill, and any difference either way from seven years' purchase of the existing rent would be made up probably by a money payment, or equivalent alteration of the rent, by any sum paid being probably agreed to be spent on the holding. If a tenant under the Ulster custom was entitled by the custom of the estate to ten years' purchase, he would bargain with his landlord that the difference between seven and ten years' purchase should be laid out by the landlord on his holding; if only en-
  1020
  titled to five years' purchase of the rent, he would agree to lay out two years' purchase on his holding; and so both parties would start fair, the existing value of all tenant's improvements being allowed for at a time when, both landlord and tenant being on friendly terms, a fair value would be agreed upon, neither party looking to any determination of the tenancy. Under the Government Bill, improvements would have to be valued after notice to quit had been served, when both parties were at arms' length, inclined to fight out the valuation of each paltry item to the bitter end. Under both the Government Bill and the Longfield plan a visitation like the potatoe famine or the rinderpest would put the tenant at the mercy of the landlord; but landlords would not be hard in such a case, and if, under the Government Bill, the tenant would then get the value of his improvements, the Longfield plan allowed him to sell his tenant-right for what it would fetch. Nor need landlords fear that tenants would combine against a needy landlord. He understood that, in practice, no cash would have to be provided by the landlord, who would always be able to find other tenants to provide the money required to buy out the old tenants, at the lower rate to which, by their own demand for a reduced rent, they would alone be entitled. Now, there was no substantial difference between the plan of the Government and that of Judge Longfield with reference to the right on the part of the landlord to demand an increase of rent. But the only mode in which that demand could be made under the Government Bill was, that the landlord should serve a notice to quit, and so determine the tenancy. So that a landlord of a holding not under the Ulster custom could not increase his rent without putting himself in a position by which the tenant would be able to claim compensation for disturbance, to say nothing of the indefinite item for tenants' improvements. Practically, the effect of what he proposed would be to establish a form of Ulster tenant-right, applicable to the whole of Ireland, which, among several other advantages, would have that of establishing a system of uniformity throughout the country. One of the advantages from this plan would be that the tenant would be able to calculate some six months before the ter-

  1021
  mination of his tenancy the exact amount which he would have in his pocket to start afresh with. Now, one blot in the Government Bill was this—that, in all probability, in case the matter came to a fight about the sum to be awarded as compensation for disturbance, the landlord would have all the machinery ready for immediately evicting a tenant. He might have the Sheriff's officers at hand find the money in his pocket ready to pay over directly they left the Court, and though the Bill provided that the tenant was not to be evicted until the exact amount awarded had been paid, the decision made on Monday might be followed by payment on the Monday evening and eviction on Tuesday morning. In drawing up these clauses, it had been his object, and the object of those with whom he had been associated in this matter, to reconcile the scheme with the principle of the Bill, because they felt it would be quite impossible for the Government to accept any proposal which, in principle, was antagonistic to their own measure, and in this they believed they had succeeded. But, he would ask, under the Government Bill, what chance was there of the assistant barrister coming to a satisfactory conclusion with reference to the valuation for improvements? There would be hard swearing on both sides, and there would, he feared, spring up a class of landlord valuers and a class of tenant valuers, whose valuations would be full of discrepancies, and almost impossible to reconcile. Both the Government plan and the Longfield plan contemplated the imposition of a fine upon the landlord in the case of eviction, but with this advantage on the side of the latter, that the fine was limited to a certain amount. With reference to the question of mortgagees, they would be in a better position than under the Government plan, and as to the objection of the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Dr. Ball) that his proposal was fixity of tenure, it was only fixity of tenure in appearance. If the landlord, under the Government Bill, wished to resume possession of any particular field, he could only obtain it by paying a considerable fine. Under the Longfield plan, he would have also to pay a fine; but, if the tenant stood out for an unreasonable sum, he would have to pay a heavy rent for seven years, and, there-
  1022
  fore, the landlord would have much less difficulty in obtaining the field than he would under the Ulster custom. He claimed for his scheme the attentive consideration of the House. He could vindicate its right to discussion, because it fairly embodied the opinion of a man who might be regarded as high an authority on the Irish land question as any man living. Judge Longfield's position must, for many years, have brought him into contact with relations of every description between landlord and tenant. This was no scheme of a doctrinaire student. Judge Longfield and his colleagues had been called upon to administer an Act of Parliament which was passed to cut a Gordian knot when the Irish land question was almost as hopeless and tangled as it was when taken up by Her Majesty's Government. It was, at the time to which he referred, a question for the owners, and not for the tenants. There was scarcely any principle to guide Judge Longfield and his colleagues, and yet they built up a code, founded in a long series of decisions, which all men praised, by sheer sagacity and good sense, just as Lord Mansfield had built up our commercial law. As far as he was aware, the Irish people regarded the scheme with extraordinary favour. The Dublin Press had expressed their approval. Saunder's News Letter said that public opinion in Ireland had pronounced with singular unanimity in favour of Judge Longfield's scheme. He hoped that the Government would see their way to adopt those proposals in some form or other, and he intimated that he would support the Motion of the hon. Member for Kilkenny (Sir John Gray), as there was sufficient agreement in principle, at least, between them to justify him in taking that course.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, at the time when the important subject involved in the clauses of the hon. Member for Kilkenny (Sir John Gray) was previously under discussion, I expressed a desire to give the fullest consideration to so weighty a proposition, partly on account of its great scope and range, partly on account of the evident care that had been bestowed on its preparation and development, and partly also because a large number of Irish representatives were understood to have declared their approval of it. It was, therefore, in perfect good faith that we asked my

  1023
  hon. Friend, in lieu of proposing to add it to the 3rd clause, already sufficiently weighted, to bring forward his clause as an independent proposition; and I hope that in the arrangements that have been made he will admit that we have redeemed our pledge, and that he has had an ample opportunity for laying his view before the Committee. The result of that, I must confess, has been that we have not found the conditions fulfilled which alone would have warranted us in assuming the very grave responsibility of accepting his plan. We have before us in a certain sense two propositions, and with great fairness my hon. Friend who last addressed us (Mr. Morrison) has been allowed to explain the alternative plan which he thinks is preferable to that of the hon. Member for Kilkenny. On that alternative project of Judge Longfield, as the hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Morrison) called it, I would say this—either it is a substitute for the plan of the Government with respect to evictions, resting on the same basis, or else it is a plan for granting fixity of tenure. If we are to regard it as a plan for granting fixity of tenure, it comes in all senses within the same category as that of the hon. Member for Kilkenny. If, on the other hand, we look upon it as a simple alternative to the plan of the Government, of giving damages for eviction and thereby restraining the capricious exercise of the landlord's power, I am prepared to contend for the plan which the Committee has adopted in preference to it. It is quite plain that the whole of the elasticity given to the plan of the Government by the Equities Clause is excluded by the plan of my hon. Friend. There is only the one rigid measure of seven years' rent which is to be on the one side claimed, and on the other side paid, entirely irrespective of all questions of convenience or inconvenience, of reasonable or unreasonable conduct, of greatness or smallness of loss. Supposing, for example, that a landlord, in order to effect an improvement in the arrangement of his estate, desires to get a particular holding into his hands for his own purposes, but which would inflict, under some circumstances, a hardship upon the tenant, and supposing he points out to the tenant a better holding on his estate as at the service of that occupier, still, according to the plan of
  1024
  my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, as I understand it, the landlord must go through what I must call the comedy of demanding an increase of rent which he does not want in order to get possession of land which he does want; and although he is not proposing to inflict an injury on the tenant, but is offering him a better farm on his own property, he cannot get hold of the land if the tenant refuses without giving him seven years of the augmented rent. But my hon. Friend is going to vote with the hon. Member for Kilkenny. He has shown, I will not say, the cloven foot, but the angel's wings. He admits the identity, in principle at least, of the two plans; and he used an expression which, I think, was condemnatory of his scheme, when he said—
  "As to the objection of the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Dr. Ball) that his proposal was fixity of tenure, it was only fixity of tenure in appearance."
  Does he then really think it is wise for us to give to Ireland fixity of tenure in appearance? I am irreconcilably opposed to granting fixity of tenure; but I must say, if it is to be granted at all, it ought to be granted in reality and not in appearance only. I should not like to be responsible for working on the passions and susceptibilities of the Irish nation by holding out to them a promise which undoubtedly has much attraction for them, with the reserve in my own mind of my own conviction that that which we offer was to be redeemed from the danger that might otherwise accompany it by our knowledge that it was not the thing it professed to be, but that while it promised fixity of tenure it was something essentially different. Therefore, practically considering it impossible to discuss the two schemes conjointly in detail, I now turn to the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Kilkenny, which is to be supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth. On the former occasion I made this demand on my hon. Friend the Member for Kilkenny as a sine quâ non to enable us in any measure to entertain such a project—namely, that he should produce to us evidence of at least a sensible and considerable amount of adhesion to it on the part of Irish landlords—evidence of a promise that if this plan were adopted it would be acted upon by a considerable number of proprietors of land. I

  1025
  am not by any means able to say, even if that had been produced, that it would have removed my objections to the plan; but it was a preliminary condition, on which alone it could have been entertained. It is, I think, almost self-evident that an elaborate alternative scheme of this kind, trenching on subjects of the utmost delicacy and no inconsiderable danger, ought not to be introduced into the Bill, except for a practical purpose; and if it is not to be acted upon by a body of landlords sensible in number, it could not be introduced into the Bill for any practical, useful purpose, and would lead to no practical, good, result. Well, has my hon. Friend fulfilled that preliminary condition? I affirm boldly that he has not. True, the hon. Member for the county of Gal way (Mr. W. H. Gregory) has given the plan his frank and cordial support. My hon. Friend the Member for Galway is well known as a worthy representative of an admirable class of landlords; but he stands alone in supporting this clause and in saying—"Pass it and I will act upon it." One swallow does not make a summer, and my hon. Friend the Member for Galway's adhesion does not suffice by itself to fulfil the indispensable condition to which I have referred. Well, my hon. Friend the Member for Kilkenny has this advantage, that his plan, I admit, on the face of it bears the appearance of free contract; and I frankly allow that the limitation of the freedom of contract—although we are obliged to adopt and adhere to it, and maintain it firmly, for the sake of the purposes of the Act—is a choice of evils. We are sorry that it is necessary to interfere with freedom of contract, and my hon. Friend has the advantage of appearing to return to freedom of contract; but is the freedom of contract which the plan bears on the face of it a real freedom? He cannot himself but have been struck with the singular fact that in this House, where so many Irish landlords sit, and where so many Gentlemen on both sides are well qualified to assist the House by their weight, by their sense, and their experience, there has been an extreme paucity of witness borne in favour of his project. It is true, I believe, that 39 non. Members signed a Memorial recommending the consideration of a plan of this kind; but permit me to say it is one thing to sign a Memorial in the
  1026
  early stages of a discussion of this sort, when the Bill produced by the Government was a speculation not as regards the convictions of the Government themselves, but as regards its acceptance by this House: it is one thing to sign a Memorial recommending a plan for consideration, at a time when it only comes into competition with another scheme that has not received the stamp of Parliamentary approval, and entirely another thing to hold yourself bound to adhere to that provisional assent, given at a preliminary stage, after this House has deliberately and upon full discussion and I consideration affirmed by large majorities its sanction and approval of the plan I embodied in the Bill. Well, Sir, but is this plan really founded on freedom of contract? If it is to be incorporated in the Bill, which I hope is shortly to be an Act of Parliament, one of two things will happen. Either it will be a dead letter or it will be acted on. If it is to be a dead letter, then I think we shall all agree it would be better that the Act should not be encumbered with it, because it will assume the character of a promise unfulfilled, and a promise unfulfilled is always an evil in dealings between the Legislature and the people. But if acted on, will it be acted on freely? Is the position in which my hon. Friend proposes we should place the landlord a fair one, either as regards the landlord class or the individual landlord? Now, let us see what our plan is—the plan in what was the Bill of the Government and what may now be called the Bill of the Committee. In framing this Bill, we were fully aware that it was not a plan which would create a great amount of hilarity in Ireland. Had our object been merely to solicit favour for the hour we should have adopted, no doubt, some plan of absolute tenant-right, of valuation of rents, and in one form or other, of perpetuity of tenure; but on looking carefully through those plans, we thought they were fraught with danger, we thought they involved mischief to every class concerned in the ultimate working of a Land Bill, and, therefore, we founded our Bill on other bases. We resolved to recognize the right of the tenant to improvements made by him, and to sanction custom where established. With the view of checking arbitrary evictions, we framed provisions which impose a payment in the

  1027
  nature of a fine for such evictions. But in doing this we carefully put aside everything that promised, or seemed to promise, fixity of tenure, and everything in the way of what may be described as valuation of rents. It is said by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilkenny that valuation of rents is in the Bill. I do not deny that, under the Ulster custom, the claims of the landlord and the claims of the tenant may to a certain extent come into conflict. Though there is no valuation of rents, that collision may be said in certain cases to exist. But the Ulster custom is no creation of ours; we only ask Parliament to give its sanction to that which is a custom; and in the most rigid language we prevent the Ulster custom being adopted in other parts of Ireland, unless it is in all respects the Ulster custom. In other words, we have been careful not to allow currency to what may be called a spurious Ulster custom; but outside that custom, what is said about valuation of rents? Future rent is not fixed by the Bill. It is not brought under the cognizance of any authority. A positive charge, limited in its character, is a totally different thing from a valuation of rents. Except in a single retrospective provision, there is nothing to fix the amount of rent which the landlord shall charge the tenant. We shall leave the parties free as to the amount of rent; but in certain cases of eviction we say that the tenant shall be entitled to compensation in respect of the amount of rent. Everyone will admit that, whether it be right or wrong, this division is strictly limited. It is retrospective. Where contracts have been recklessly formed we have asked that eviction for non-payment of rent shall, if the Court think fit, be deemed a disturbance of the tenant. But that is not to enable the Court to see what rent shall be paid hereafter or what shall be paid now. It is merely a declaration that where an extravagant bargain has been made which the tenant is not able to fulfil, he shall not lose his claim to compensation on being turned out of his holding. My hon. Friend has taken and put together all those ideas most fascinating to the Irish mind, susceptible as it is on this land question; and when we consider what this land question is, we can account for the excitable temper of the Irish people being stirred, bewitched, led away by the pre-
  1028
  sentation of ideas as to fixity of tenure and valuation of rents, which, like so many flowers of fragrant scent and brilliant hues, he has gathered and bound together. If Parliament sanctions what he proposes, he would present them to the Irish tenant, and say—"Valuation of rents and perpetuity of tenure have received the sanction of Parliament, and there is nothing wanted to prevent you from enjoying them but the will of that individual man, your landlord." If we believed that the provisions which my hon. Friend proposes would be beneficial to the country, it would be our duty to give them compulsory force by legislative enactments, and to consider from what sources we ought to provide compensation to the landlord for the deprivation of rights which he now enjoys. We do not believe that the adoption of my hon. Friend's proposition would be for the advantage of the Irish tenant; and I do not think my hon. Friend will be surprised that, feeling it to be our duty to conduct this measure through the House in a spirit of perfect impartiality towards every class, we are unable to accede to a proposition which would place such a strain on one class, and not only on one class, but on every member of that class. I cannot admit for a moment that the principle of my hon. Friend's proposition is reconcilable with the principle of this Bill, while I gratefully admit the value of the support we have received from my hon. Friend in the progress of this measure through the House, and entirely accept his assurance, which is borne out by the course he has hitherto adopted, that he does not intend that his clauses should interfere with the working of the Bill. I am relieved from going into the details of those clauses by the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General for Ireland, who explained the position of mortgagees and other encumbrancers, who, if the clauses of my hon. Friend the Member for Kilkenny were adopted, would find, in 10, 15, or 20 years, claims of which they had never heard or dreamt taking precedence of theirs. If we went into Committee on these clauses we should find insurmountable difficulties of detail in the way of their adoption. But I am about to make an objection of a more general kind. The Government has, at

  1029
  every stage of the Bill, endeavoured to place this one feature full in the notice of the House—namely, that the Bill has been studiously framed in the spirit described by my hon. Friend the Member for Cavan (Mr. Saunderson), who said, as an Irish landlord, he hoped that, upon the passing of the Bill, it would not be his duty to take any step whatever. The object of the Government has been so to frame the Bill that it shall not entail upon any landlord or any occupier the necessity of taking any positive step whatever—that it shall descend upon Ireland as a vessel well launched descends into the sea, without shock or perturbation of any kind, and only find its existence in increased confidence, goodwill, industry, and outlay, and in greater cheerfulness and activity in daily operations, and not by its occasioning the resorting to formal proceedings for the inauguration of the new state of things. But how does the plan of the hon. Member stand that test? He states that the object of his plan is to avoid litigation. But he begins in a Court, and he requires that every landlord shall, through the medium of that Court, challenge his tenants to enter into a new state of things in order to carry out a preliminary, without which his plan can never take effect and must remain a dead letter. That is a mode of procedure so entirely at variance with the principles of the Bill that Her Majesty's Government have felt that it would be impossible for them to accede to it, even had the hon. Member shown that a great body of the Irish landowners were prepared to accept it. The hon. Member has, however, not shown that there is the slightest probability of even a handful of the landlords being prepared to act upon his plan; and although, no doubt, it has been benevolently, carefully, and ably drawn, it is not such a plan as, in the judgment of the Government, has a claim on the assent of Parliament. The Government, holding these views, would not be discharging their duty to the Irish people were they to encourage the hon. Gentleman to believe that it would be possible for them to assent to his plan being incorporated in the Bill; but, on the contrary, they would be rendering themselves liable to the charge of having endeavoured to bewilder and delude him.
  MR. PIMsaid, he hoped his hon.
  1030
  Friend the Member for Kilkenny (Sir John Gray) would be satisfied with the discussion, without pressing the clause to a Division. He was one of those to whom the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Saunderson) had referred as having signed the document which had been so frequently referred to in the course of the debate, and having afterwards changed his opinion; and he knew that he did not stand alone in this respect. [Laughter.] Hon. Members might laugh, and any hon. Member who had never signed a document which he afterwards regretted having signed, was fully entiled to laugh. The objections which had been urged against the proposal by the Government appeared to him to have such weight that, if the hon. Member determined to divide the Committee, he could not vote with him; but he thought these objections had much less force if applied to the other plan which had been proposed by Judge Longfield, and which he felt strongly inclined to support.
  MR. MURPHYsaid, he rose to explain the causes that had led him to sign the document. He might observe that he had only recently returned from Ireland, and that he had found that the Irish people were becoming more satisfied with the Land Bill every day. They believed that if it was honestly carried into effect it would prove a great boon to their country. They said it was a better Bill than they had reason to expect, and that they had never dreamt that they should live to see it carried into effect. He had signed the document not because he approved the principles it set forth before any others, but because he thought it worthy the consideration of the Government. He had, in fact, signed the document, desiring the Government to consider the scheme, and to ascertain whether the Government would consent to it; and not for the purpose of binding himself to the hon. Member's (Sir John Gray's) clauses.
  SIR JOHN ESMONDEsaid, he was in a somewhat different position from several hon. Members who had addressed; the House. He had declined to sign the document referred to; and he stated at the time as a reason for so declining, that the effect of the principle therein advocated would interfere with existing settlements of property, especially as regarded limited owners and encumbered estates.
  SIR JOHN GRAYsaid, he had had no communication with the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Murphy), as to the policy of his clause; but he received a letter from the hon. Gentleman stating that the Member for Galway (Mr. W. H. Gregory) was authorized to place his name to the requisition.
  MR. MURPHY: Does the hon. Member mean to say that I did not expressly state to him that care should be taken to provide for limited owners?
  SIR JOHN GRAYreplied that on several occasions he had taken the liberty of asking his hon. Friend (Mr. Murphy), as a legal man of great experience, if he could suggest any plan of getting over the difficulty suggested by the hon. Member for Waterford (Sir John Esmonde), but in vain. He was bound to say that the Government had strictly kept their promise to allow an opportunity for the discussion of this proposition; but he was not satisfied with the answers which had been given to the arguments used in its support. Nothing could be clearer than that the Bill embodied the principle of adjustment and valuation of rent; but the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had overlooked the 6th clause, which dealt with the matter. There was no ground for the imputation that this proposition had been made for the purpose of promoting agitation. It was intended to have precisely the opposite effect.
  MR. MORRISONsaid, he regretted that Judge Longfield's plan had not been more fully considered; but, as it was essentially an Irish question, he thought it would be for Irish Gentlemen to decide what course they would take with regard to it.
  MR. COGANsaid, that he rose as one of those who had pressed the consideration of this proposition on the Government some weeks ago. He did not regret that he had done so; but he would now suggest to the hon. Member for Kilkenny (Sir John Gray), whether it would not be consistent with the object he had in view to be satisfied with the discussion which he had evoked? A Division would probably place some Members in a position of some difficulty. Many were in favour of the hon. Member's proposition, while others preferred Judge Longfield's plan. Having regard to the course taken by the Government, and the views of hon. Members opposite,
  1032
  there could be no donbt as to what would be the result, if the Committee divided; and he thought it would be better to abstain from a Division, which might tend to lessen the moral effect of the Bill.
  Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 29; Noes 317: Majority 288.
  MR. MORRISONsaid, that after the position in which his proposal was left by the Division, he would not put the House to the trouble of again dividing, but would consider whether it was desirable to raise the question in another form.
  THE O'CONOR DONsaid, he begged to move that the Chairman report Progress, only for the purpose of expressing his regret that the proposition of the hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Morrison) had not been discussed but had simply been dismissed by the Prime Minister in a few words. He hoped the hon. Member would avail himself of another opportunity to have the matter discussed.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR HERVEY BRUCEproposed, after Clause 11, to insert the following clause:—
  (Lettings in con-acre.)
  "For the purposes of this Act the letting by con-acre shall be deemed a subletting where the same land is let oftener than once in four years, or is let for the planting of any crop but potatoes or other green crop."
  He said that though he could not agree in the extreme approval which had been expressed of the Bill yet when it became law he should go to Ireland with a firm determination to carry out its provisions and make it work as well as possible. He must express his regret that the Judges were to be paid by results, for he feared that such a system would cause protracted litigation.
  Clause (Lettings in con-acre,)—(Sir Hervey Bruce,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, no notice was taken in the Bill of the con-acre system, and it was better to leave the matter to be settled between the landlord and tenant.
  SIR HERVEY BRUCEsaid, that Clause 11, sub-section (3) noticed it.
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGsaid, it was desirable that the labourer should be assisted in obtaining a piece of land for sowing his potatoes in, and he trusted the Chief Secretary for Ireland would reconsider the matter.
  MR. BRUENsaid, he must express his surprise that the Government did not accept this clause. He had understood that they would do so.
  MR. BRODRICKsaid, he believed that the con-acre system would be destructive to the best interests of Ireland.
  Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 90; Noes 177: Majority 87.
  MR. W. H. GREGORYsaid, he had an important clause to move. It related to the conditions for the erection of labourers' cottages; but, at that late hour of the night, it would be hardly possible to do justice to it.
  MR. BRUCEmoved that the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he would submit that in the case of a very great measure like this, when there had been prolonged discussion, the Committee should make some special effort when they came near the close, not by abridging discussion—no Government had a right to demand that—but by submitting to personal inconvenience as to hours of attendance. It was essential to finish during this week the Committee on the Bill, in order that it might be reprinted and circulated, and he, therefore, hoped that if Progress were reported now, the Bill would be disposed of in Committee to-morrow night.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.
  House adjourned at half-after One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Ecclesiastical Titles Act Repeal* (105); Petty Customs (Scotland) Abolition* (106).
Second Reading—Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister (76).

MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL—(No. 76.)
(The Lord Houghton.)
MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL—(No. 76.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD HOUGHTON, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, he believed he had taken a somewhat unusual course in privately requesting the attendance of those Members of I the House whom he believed to be I friendly to the measure. Whether the same course had been pursued on the other side he did not know; but he trusted it would not be implied that this was regarded as a party question, for, in common with the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Richmond), he strongly deprecated such a view of it. He had now the honour of presenting to their Lordships the first measure of importance which had come up from the House of Commons during the present Session. It had passed that House by a large majority, composed of Members sitting on both sides of the House; and last year the majority in its favour was still larger, and nothing but the lateness of the Session prevented it then coming before their Lordships. The House would, he was sure, give due though not excessive weight to the fact that the Bill had been approved by a very large majority of the House of Commons, as also, to the circumstance that the signatures of the Petitions presented to the House of Commons in its favour exceeded 25,000, while in this House there had also been a considerable number of such Petitions. It was now many years ago that he had had the honour of bringing forward in the House of Commons and of carrying on the second reading a Bill with the same object, and he had long given much attention to the subject. Hence it was, he presumed, that he had been requested to take charge
  896
  of the present measure—though he thought the task would better have devolved on some noble Lord who could have approached the question as a new one, and could have regarded it with more distinct reference to present circumstances. Now there was, at starting a feature which distinguished this from questions which ordinarily came under the consideration of their Lordships—namely, the fact that part of the opposition to the measure was founded on a deep religious conviction in the minds of many persons that marriage with the sister of a deceased wife was wrong in the sight of God. Such a conviction he could not but respect, nor could he hope to shake it by any eloquence or arguments at his command; but he had a right to demand that such a doctrine should not rest on inference or deduction, but on an utterance as distinct as I that which pronounced the Decalogue on Mount Sinai. The religious objection ought to be proved clearly and distinctly, and if their Lordships believed that marriage with a deceased wife's sister was emphatically and unmistakably forbidden, they would, of course, be bound to vote against the Bill; but if they had no such profound conviction, he would remind them that constructive sins were no better than constructive treasons. No just man would impose disability and misery on other men if he merely thought a thing to be right; it was necessary that he should know it to be right on absolute and unshakable authority. He did not, in saying this, imply that the Levitical law was in no way binding, for that great code was in harmony with the convictions of universal morality, but it must be taken with the limitations of circumstances, time, and place; it did not pretend to speak to the whole of mankind, and if construed in a vulgar and literal sense, it lost all its real beauty and meaning. On this question nature was indifferent, and custom was variable and arbitrary. Nature was surely indifferent, for who professed to regard this union as one from which the general nature of mankind recoiled? There lingered, indeed, the notion that, man and wife being "one flesh" the position of the husband and wife was such that all the relationships of the one were the relationships of the other. To extend this notion, however, to the connections of the wife after her

  897
  death, and when the tie—whatever it might be—was broken, seemed to him to be the very extravagance of analogy. That theory, no doubt, once had considerable power; but their Lordships would be much more imaginative than he expected if they allowed themselves to be guided by it. As to custom, it would be impossible to find a case where it was more amusingly at variance than the custom of marriage. He was authorized by one of the highest authorities among the Hebrew community in this country, a scholar and a doctor, to assure their Lordships that up to the time of the coming of our Lord there was never the slightest dispute or doubt in Jewish tradition as to the interpretation of the verse in Leviticus so often cited; that the interpretation which had been put upon the words "during her lifetime" was inadmissible; and that the prohibition of marriage with a wife's sister had always been regarded by the Jews as limited to the wife's life, marriage with a deceased wife's sister having always been, and still being, allowed among the entire Jewish community wherever they were spread over the face of the globe. With regard to the Christian dispensation, he was not inclined to lay much stress upon the circumstance that little or nothing was heard of the matter for the first three or four centuries. He did not think the supporters of the Bill were entitled to infer that there was any definite opinion on the subject, nor had its opponents the right to infer that there was any absolute custom. One opinion on which much stress was laid was a letter of St. Basil, of great interest even from an antiquarian point of view, and the date of which, according to the best authority, was A.D. 370. St. Basil there went fully into the question, and condemned these marriages. But their Lordships must remember the spirit and temper which had grown up in the Church with regard to marriage at that period. At that time the view taken of marriage in the Christian Church had become very much disturbed and distorted from the original Christian idea of marriage. The letter of St. Basil, indeed, was subsequent to the decree of the Council of 305, which absolutely prohibited the marriage of the clergy, and sought by every means to control and discourage the sacred state of mar-
  898
  riage, marriage with a deceased wife's sister being placed under penance. St. Basil's letter, therefore, was merely a symptom of the temper of the Church, which led it from one absurdity to another, until the Emperor Theodosius decreed that cousins german who married should be burnt alive, while the Emperor Justinian issued a decree inhibiting the marriage of a godfather and godmother or godson and goddaughter, and even of two persons who had stood in these spiritual relationships to the same child. When this fanaticism against marriage possessed the Church, and it went from one extravagance to another, what was the consequence? Dispensations had to be resorted to as the only way of mitigating them; and when once that custom had been established it was felt to be one too comfortable and profitable to be readily given up. The restrictions therefore continued, dispensations becoming more and more frequent, and the fruits of them greater and greater, till the abuse reached such a height that it conduced in a great measure to the success of the Reformation. Then occurred that peculiar incident which made marriage with a brother's wife one of the turning points in the history of our country. During the first 20 years of the reign of that determined Sovereign Henry VIII., if any of their Lordships had held that opinion on marriages of affinity which some of them would by their votes against this Bill express to-night, he feared that even the wisest and best head among them would not have been secure on his shoulders. Subsequently, no doubt, that opinion became one which might be safely held—it became the law of the land, and marriages of affinity were declared as illegal as those of consanguinity afterwards, during the reign of Philip and Mary. The law against marriages of affinity was abrogated, and these marriages were declared to be legal. Did their Lordships suppose that had there been issue of the marriage of Henry and Catherine of Arragon or, at a later date, of the marriage of Philip and Mary, any doubt would at this moment have been entertained of the validity of marriages of affinity? But history took another course. Elizabeth came to the throne—that great Queen was the daughter of Anne Boleyn—and the whole current of legislation on this question was changed and ran

  899
  dead against the validity of marriages of affinity. Hence the source, and the only source, of the present state of our law. He would not rest much weight on the question whether these marriages were voidable or void, for he believed they were absolutely illegal, though the peculiar constitution of the Ecclesiastical Courts, to which they were submitted, was such that no suit could be instituted, after the death of any of the parties; so that, if no suit was instituted during their lifetime, it was supposed that these marriages were legal, and the issue legitimate. He did not attach any value to that view; but why was it that, while all other relationships of consanguinity or affinity were held so sacred by the English people that no advantage was generally taken of this loophole in the Ecclesiastical Courts, such advantage was largely taken in the case of marriage with a wife's sister? The obvious reason was that the latter was not repugnant to the minds of the people of England. The time ultimately came when precise legislation appeared necessary, and Lord Lyndhurst's Act was passed, which provided that if within two years no proceedings were taken existing unions of this kind should be deemed valid, but absolutely prohibiting such marriages for the future. He was aware that it was frequently said—and he was sorry to say believed by many, that the motive of that Act was to decide the succession of one of the most distinguished families in their Lordships' House. He did not think that this was the case; at any rate, too much was made of that circumstance, for the subject operated much more widely than for one family. But the very fact that one of the greatest families in the land, distinguished for the purity of the life of its members, shewed that these marriages were not repugnant to the religious or social feeling of the people; for it could not be supposed that this family, holding so high and conspicuous a position, would take a course entirely exceptional to the feelings of the people on the subject—in fact, they were actuated by the same feeling as the poorest and humblest citizens. But if that was their Lordships' decision on a Bill that was purely retroactive in its character—that legalized all marriages of this nature for two years before its passing and rendered them illegal for all time to come—a measure
  900
  so opposed to all principles of justice and religion—could they for one moment pretend to doubt that the Bill which he then had the honour to bring before their Lordships did more than to confirm, extend, and apply that Act to the desires and hopes of the British people? Lord Lyndhurst's Act, however, unreasonable as it was, did nothing whatever to check these marriages. They went on just as much as ever; and he could bring before their Lordships hundreds of cases which he had seen with his own eyes, some in connection with his own property, and in his own neighbourhood in the North of England, where the law was inoperative to prevent marriages, or where, if marriages did not take place, something worse occurred. That was the ordinary state of matters; it was going on to the present day, and it would continue to go on till they altered the legislation of the country. Nothing that their Lordships could do in the way of prohibition would prevent, it would only aggravate the evil. He asked their Lordships to picture to themselves the case of a person in their own rank, and with their own education, who desired to form an alliance of this kind. He has lost his wife—he found the society of his wife's sister most agreeable—perhaps all the more agreeable because they were bound together by the ties of a common sorrow and a common love for her they had lost. He knew, from his long knowledge and intimacy with her, that there was every prospect of their marriage forming a happy union. He goes to his clergyman for advice—to a learned divine of the Church of England, or, if he be a Dissenter, to a theologian so distinguished as the late Dr. Adam Clarke—and he is told by them that neither see the slightest difficulty to the marriage as a matter of religion, but that he must not do it according to law. Perhaps he goes to some still higher authority—to some member of the Episcopal Bench following the traditions of Hoadley and Whateley, and they tell him that there is no religious objection—that no reasonable man would think there is any objection—but that he must not do it on account of the law. He goes to his neighbour, perhaps to one so high in rank as the Lord Lieutenant of his (Lord Houghton's) county, who he trusted, would be found among the supporters of the Bill, or to any one of their Lordships, and there, too, he found no

  901
  objection other than the legal one—that there would be no social scandal in such a marriage, that he would not be worse received in society on account of it—but that he must not do it because the law forbade it. Now was that the position in which an English citizen ought to be placed—a position of animosity and hatred towards the law, in which he was backed not only by his own conscience, but by the conscientious opinion of the minister of his own Church—of the neighbour he most respected, and of the man he most reverenced? Was not that enough to make his blood boil, and make him wish that he were a Prussian, or, at least, an American, that he might not be subject to such oppressive legislation? Now, if such were the feeling of the man, he would show what the woman thought of this matter by reading a passage from a letter written by a lady, which was far more eloquent than anything he could utter—
  "At the discussion on the 19th, the result of which is so anxiously anticipated as bringing life or death, happiness or misery to so many in our land, statistics will no doubt be read as to the hundreds who have married in spite of the present prohibition; but statistics cannot tell of the many who, like myself, have not found that prohibition a protection in any sense, but who have banished themselves from their only home, and the children dearer to them than all this world, rather than act contrary to the law which forbade that home to them."
  Whatever might be their opinions, their Lordships must certainly regard this letter as the utterance of a broken heart. This being the position of a man and woman in England, what was it in relation to our great colonial Empire? Our Colonies had passed Act after Act legalizing these marriages; but the Colonial Office had been obliged by the law of this country to disallow them. In South Australia last February the Standing Orders were suspended in order that such a measure might be carried before the Assembly was dissolved; but his noble Friend (Earl Granville) would have to exercise a veto on that Bill if the present Bill were rejected by their Lordships. Our dependencies—for a reason he could not exactly understand?—were better off than our Colonies, for such marriages had been legalized in Ceylon by an Act which the Colonial Office had not disallowed. When people were driven from all other objections to
  902
  this Bill they usually fell back on the "social" argument, and, among other pleasantries to which the Bill had given rise, a humorous Friend of his called it a Bill for the abolition of aunts. Now, he highly respected that social relationship, but he did not believe any injury would arise from transforming many an affectionate aunt into a still more affectionate stepmother. He would not refer to foreign countries, for it might be said that they had different manners from ours, but he would point to the New England States. Where was there a society better representing all that was purest and most religious in this country than the higher classes in New England? Now persons well entitled to speak on this point would assure them that, so far from any social inconvenience or disorder accruing in New England from a union of this kind, it was deemed one of the most healthful, one of the wisest, and one of the most pious unions that a man could contract; while, in cases where it was not contracted, there was not the slightest difficulty in the wife's sister remaining in the house, provided the gentleman were sufficiently respectable. That, of course, was at the bottom of the question; and, where a man and woman could be trusted, there was no more difficulty in social intercourse than at present existed with regard to cousins, or persons otherwise connected, as to whose relation there was never a thought of the slightest impropriety. This, however, was not so much a question for the higher class, among whom such unions were rare and might, perhaps, be numbered on the fingers; but for the middle, and above all the lower class, where they were frequent. It was difficult to obtain statistics; but they were undoubtedly frequent in certain portions of the country, while through some singular variety of custom there were portions where they were rare. In the North of England they were so frequent and habitual that the House would be inflicting a very serious injury upon the morality of the country if it allowed those hundreds of persons every year to go on in this relationship, breaking at once the laws of God and of man. The Bill itself was of the simplest character, for it did not touch on the religious question, and merely provided that such marriages celebrated or contracted in the office of any registrar should be

  903
  legal. He perfectly concurred in that limitation, for as long as the least religious difficulty was felt by any Bishop or priest it should be respected. While, however, religious convictions should be respected, their Lordships' peculiar notions of what was deemed proper and advisable should not be thrust on others in a matter which affected the domestic happiness of thousands below them in social rank. The question was not whether their Lordships regarded these marriages as wise or expedient, but whether they had any right to prevent this large number of persons, mostly of a social class lower than their own, from contracting them. If they rejected the Bill they would prolong this uncertain state of the law, and would to a great degree sanction the concubinage which resulted from it, while they would not in the slightest degree arrest what they deemed an evil. On the other hand, if their Lordships should see the slightest weight in his arguments, if they would allow themselves to be influenced, by the arguments of those of much greater authority than himself who would afterwards address them, and pass this Act, they would restore a harmony between the law and the conscience of many exemplary citizens; they would restore a fair fame to many honest women, and peace and happiness to many homes.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Houghton.)
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH, in rising to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, said he could assure the noble Lord (Lord Houghton), who had deprecated that this should be made "a party question," that no sort of endeavour had been made on his side of the House to give this debate any such character. It was well known, indeed, that the noble Lord was privately using the best means he could to make known to his Friends the nature of his Motion, and that the Division would be taken that night, and on this (the Opposition) side steps were simply taken to notify the date when the Bill would be discussed, unaccompanied by any solicitation to come up and vote or any attempt to influence votes accompanying that intimation. He was glad to be able to feel that this was not made a party question, for the issues it involved were too numerous and too important to be merged
  904
  in the turmoil of party politics, or treated in other than the calmest spirit. The Bill, of which the noble Lord had just moved the second reading, was, he must admit, a great improvement in one respect from that introduced by the noble Lord in 1859, than which none would have been more fatal in its consequences, the operation of that Bill being confined to England, so that it would have allowed a man two wives in Scotland and Ireland and only one in England. He did not regard this as a question for deep religious research, nor would this be the fitting place to discuss the various interpretations of the Divine law. He (the Duke of Marlborough) was unwilling to follow him at any great length into that region of controversy. It was not the occasion to discuss the various interpretations that had been, or might be, put upon certain passages in Leviticus; and in the brief reference that he should make to these points his only object would be to prove that not one sect or denomination only, but all branches and sects of Christian denomination had held the same opinion on this subject since the foundation of Christianity. But he wished, in passing, to point out a fallacy in what had recently teen said by the First Lord of the Treasury, in giving in his adhesion to this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman's opinion had changed on this, as on so many other questions, and in announcing that change he had put this difficulty, as one among other causes that had induced him to reconsider the matter—namely, that the difficulty of enforcing the law of one denomination upon the members of other denominations who deny its authority is very great. Now, he (the Duke of Marlborough) wished particularly to point out that this was not, and never had been, the law of one particular denomination only. It was admitted by all that the laws of this country had, from the earliest times, been based upon Christianity, and so far the law of the Church and the law of the land went hand in hand; but the union that existed between them sprang from their common foundation in the Christian faith. Now, in all ages, the opinion of the Church on the question of marriage with a deceased wife's sister had been explicit and unmistakable. The Canons of Basil were clear in their opposition to it. The 78th canon, referring to penalties, said—

  905
  "Let the same form be observed in those also who marry two sisters, although at different times."
  The noble Lord (Lord Houghton) had urged that, in the days of Basil, the most absurd notions as to marriage and the celibacy of the clergy were being adopted, and that this unsettlement of opinion gave his judgment but little weight. Were not men's minds, however, unsettled now, and did we not see extraordinary licence in Prussia and America? The same argument, therefore, which shook the authority of that Father of the Church would make the opinions of worthies of our own day equally untrustworthy. The noble Lord had treated this as a doctrine peculiar to the Roman Catholic Church; but at that time such a Church could hardly be said to have existed, though the Church was, no doubt, lapsing into some of the doctrines now distinctive of Roman Catholicism. He would proceed, however, to quote the opinion of a Church which set itself up as one of the purest and most reformed Churches on the Continent—that of the Waldenses. The Rev. Dr. Revel, Moderator of that Church, said—
  "As to the principles maintained by our Church respecting marriages between brothers and sisters-in-law they are those which we find in the Holy Scriptures on marriages between relations. Our Ecclesiastical Discipline, reviewed in 1839, says—'Marriages between brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law, uncles and nieces, aunts and nephews, and between relations at one degree more nearer are forbidden.' I find this same prohibition in the acts of the Synods of 1833, 1828, 1801, and 1879. Our civil law does not permit alliances between a brother-in-law and sister-in-law—that is to say, between a widower and the sister of the deceased wife, no more than between a widow and the brother of the dead husband."
  Turning to the Church of Geneva, he found that the 9th decree of the Synod of Vertueil, held in 1567, and drawn up by Calvin, put the question—"What are those cases of affinity which hinder marriage?" The answer was—
  "Let no man marry his brother's widow, nor any woman him who was her sister's husband."
  The Lutheran divines of Germany, in reply to the inquiry of Henry VIII., said—
  "It is manifest and cannot be denied that the law of Leviticus xviii. prohibits a marriage with a sister-in-law. This is to be considered as a Divine, a natural, and a moral law, against which no other law may be enacted or established. Agreeably to this, the whole Church has always retained this law and judged such marriages incestuous."
  906
  As to Holland, the translators appointed by the Synod of Dort in 1618–19 inserted this marginal note to Leviticus xviii., 16—
  "From this law it necessarily follows that a woman who has been married with one brother may not, after his death, marry with another brother; and, upon the same principle, a man who has been married to one sister may not, after her death, marry the other sister."
  That Church, according to Dr. Livingstone, had never deviated from this rule. The ninth canon of the Book of Discipline of the Reformed Church of France, adopted in 1559 and revised by 23 succeeding synods, stated—
  "It is not lawful for any man to marry the sister of his deceased wife; for such marriages are prohibited, not only by the laws of the land, but by the Word of God."
  The law of the Church of Scotland was equally distinct. Its Confession of Faith, drawn up in 1645, said—
  "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 those 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."
  These extracts were important as showing that it was not merely the Roman Catholic Church, or the Church of the early ages, or the Jewish Church, which placed this interpretation on the law of Leviticus; but the universal consensus of the whole Christian Church was that there was a Divine prohibition against these marriages. Having noticed these authorities he turned to the arguments used by his noble Friend. The noble Lord (Lord Houghton) made some rather severe comments on the Act of 1835, and gave rather a curious interpretation of it. If he understood the arguments of the noble Lord it amounted to this—that the Act of 1835 sanctioned what was now proposed. The noble Lord drew the picture of a family remarkable for high position, great integrity, and virtue, and he said that the Act of 1835 was passed to legalize a marriage contracted by the head of that family. Now, he did not think his noble Friend was altogether correct in the history he gave of the Act of 1835. In the first place, if the marriage to which he alluded had not been questioned in the lifetime of the parties, the Act of 1835 would not have been required. Then

  907
  the noble Lord used rather a stock-in-trade argument—for he had heard it before—when he turned to the right rev. Bench, and asked whether any of its Members who had supported that Act believed they had sanctioned the gross immorality of these marriages. But the Act merely said that those marriages which had been solemnized before the Act should not be questioned, for the sake of the issue of them; and the Act declared its own intention and effect—that for the future all marriages of that kind should thenceforward be illegal and void. What were the arguments the noble Lord used in favour of his measure? He confessed he had scarcely been able to follow them. He had listened with pleasure to the well-rounded periods of his noble Friend, but failed to discover in his eloquent address any cogent reasons for the measure proposed. The noble Lord said the poorer classes desired these marriages; and he committed a rather remarkable slip upon this point—for he adjured their Lordships to pass this Bill rather than compel the poorer classes to continue "to break the laws of God and man." He certainly thanked the noble Lord for that admission. But he must observe that if they were to legislate to prevent immorality among the poorer classes, he feared they must go a good deal further than the measure of the noble Lord. He did not desire to throw any stigma upon the whole body of the poorer classes, because he was convinced that there were among them as high intelligence and honour as were to be found in the higher classes; but from the education of the former, their associations, their circumstances, and, perhaps, the narrowness of their dwellings, their ideas of morality were more lax, and if legislation was to be conducted with a special regard to them it would have to be of a very different stamp from this Bill. But was it the case that the poorer classes did require this measure? The Commission which sat on this subject in 1847 reported that there were 1,608 cases of these marriages, that only 40 were among the poorer, while the remainder were among the richer classes. The origin of this measure was well known. It did not originate with the poorer classes, but with a small body of rich individuals who had knowingly violated the law, and were now asking not only
  908
  that the past should be condoned, but that these marriages should be declared legal prospectively. His noble Friend had paused very slightly on the social aspect of the question; and he had shown great discretion in doing so, because it was to the social consequences of the Bill that the most serious attention must be directed. Viewed in this respect, he could not but feel that this Bill was a bold and most dangerous stroke of legislation. Since the first attempt had been made to legalize marriage with a deceased wife's sister, it should be remembered that a great change had taken place in the law of divorce in this country, and, instead of being confined to the wealthy classes, the very humblest persons were now able to obtain release from the marriage tie; and if divorce, which was previously within the reach of only a few, had now become, as it were, a legalized institution, why might a man not marry the sister of his divorced wife? Would there be no shock to public morality if that occurred? If a man might marry his deceased wife's sister, why should he not marry seven sisters in succession? Men had all kinds of tastes; but it would not be a pleasant spectacle to see a man taking sister after sister, having got rid of the former ones either by death or divorce. Again, if a man might marry his deceased wife's sister, why might he not marry the mother of his deceased wife? Why might not a man marry the daughter of his wife by a former husband? It was not unusual for two brothers to marry two sisters; but then suppose that one of the brothers became a widower and one of the sisters a widow; then the existing brother might marry his dead brother's wife, and thus do that very thing against which there was a strong and special prohibition in Holy Scripture? His noble Friend might say that no one now asked for legislative sanction for such alliances, nor ever would ask for it; but he (the Duke of Marlborough) said in reply that the reason they were not asked for was, that the tone of public opinion had been kept pure by the legislative prohibition that had hitherto existed; but that, if any exception were now to be made, no one had the right to conclude that the first success obtained by the movement would not be made the standing point for further innovations. If

  909
  this Bill should be passed, a few Sessions only would elapse when other Bills would be introduced to extend still further marriages between persons of other degrees of affinity. What was the state of things in Prussia? Why, in Prussia, marriage between an aunt and a nephew was permissible, and the divorces in Prussia in three years numbered 7,800. Then there was that remarkable country on the other side of the Atlantic, which Members of the other House were so fond of quoting when they desired any radical change to be made in our home institutions. A strange state of things had grown up there in consequence of the prevalent lax notions of marriage. He found in a pamphlet, published by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack some years ago, a letter from a clergyman in America, stating that the law and usages of the different States were exceedingly diverse, and in many States divorces were common on account of the most trivial causes. The writer of the letter went on to relate a story of four couples in a dance, and of each man seeing before him a woman who had been his wife, but who had become the wife of another. But "our American cousins" had rather a ludicrous way of putting things, and he had fallen in with an extract showing the effect of the lax notions respecting marriage in America. He believed the extract was taken from an American newspaper, and it was as follows:—
  "I married a widow, who had a grown-up daughter; my father visited our house very often, fell in love with my stepdaughter, and married her. So my father became my son-in-law, and my stepdaughter my mother, because she was my father's wife. Some time afterwards my wife had a son; he was my father's brother-in-law and my uncle, for he was the brother of my stepmother. My father's wife—i. e., my stepdaughter—had also a son; he was of course my brother, and in the meantime my grandson, for he was the son of my daughter. My wife was my grandmother, because she was my mother's mother. I was my wife's husband and grandchild at the same time. And, as the husband of a person's grandmother is his grandfather, I was my own grandfather."
  It was added that the man destroyed himself, and the verdict was justifiable suicide. There was one point in the Bill deserving their Lordships' most serious consideration, and on which his noble Friend laid particular stress, stating that he did not desire to violate the religious feelings or scruples of any body of clergymen who might object to per-
  910
  form the marriages which it was the purpose of the Bill to legalize. Their Lordships were aware that marriages were performed in two ways in this country; one way was by civil contract before a registrar, and the other was by a religious service in a church or chapel. The Bill before the House adopted the former method—that was to say, that marriage with a deceased wife's sister should be by civil contract. He thought their Lordships would agree with him that that was one of the most objectionable provisions in the Bill. If the particular marriage in question was deemed a proper one, it ought to be legalized; and if legalized, it ought to be legalized in such a way as to make it compulsory on the clergy to solemnize them. But if the present Bill were adopted, the effect would be that the character of those marriages which had hitherto been entered into by civil contract, would be lowered in a most objectionable manner, and a slur, from which they had hitherto been free, would be cast on them. He had a communication from the Registrar General, whose feelings on this subject, he believed, were strong, and who affirmed that about 8,000 marriages were contracted annually before the registrars, and that up to the present time no slur had been cast on them. He believed, but he was not quite certain, that in the formation of the Divorce Court an endeavour was made to provide that marriages of divorced persons should take place before the registrar; but it was abandoned, because it was thought it would have the effect of degrading marriages by civil contract. The operation of the present Bill, if passed into a law, would, there could be no doubt, tend seriously to depreciate the character of those marriages, and he repeated that he regarded the particular provision of the Bill to which he had referred as most objectionable. He earnestly hoped that their Lordships would not give their sanction to this measure; for whatever might be said in its favour—and the arguments for it were few—there were hundreds and thousands of persons in the country who would view the change in the law now proposed with the greatest possible regret and repugnance. If they once opened the door to such changes in the law they would bring down the morality of the country from that high and

  911
  exalted position which it had hitherto occupied in the scale of nations. He moved that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
  Amendment moved to leave out ("now") and insert ("this day six months.")—(The Duke of Marlborough.)
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid, he hoped their Lordships would allow him to state briefly his reasons for supporting the present Bill. The arguments applied to the principle of the Bill now before their Lordships were drawn from religion, from history, and from natural laws. He did not mean to enter at length upon the religious argument; but would content himself with saying that those who opposed the Bill on religious grounds rested, their objections mainly on a disputed text. The reading of that text was anything but clear; but were it ever so well ascertained, he should object to an appeal to its authority, upon such a question as that now before the House, from the belief that a large section of the community would, where such issues were at stake, be reluctant to admit that they were tied and bound by the merely literal interpretation of the Levitical law. With regard to the historic argument, he did not believe that any rule could be drawn from such ancient periods as the early ages of Christianity in legislating for the 19th century. With regard to what were called natural laws, he would certainly not propose that marriages between men and women were to be regulated solely by the laws and demands of physiology; but he felt that, while on physiological grounds there was a strong objection to marriages of consanguinity, such as those of first cousins, that objection could not be applied to the relation of brother-in-law and sister-in-law. It was not, however, upon these grounds so much as upon moral grounds that the measure was opposed, and it was the social argument with which they had to deal. It was said that if we were to alter the existing Marriage Law we should so disturb the relations which now existed within the family as to alter the position which the sister-in-law now occupied, and render her no longer useful, in the sense in which she hitherto had been useful in the family. He did not think this had been at all satisfactorily made out.
  912
  He would ask their Lordships to consider to what extent the position of the sister-in-law was really affected by this Bill. The passing of an Act of Parliament could not alter public opinion; and if a large section of society honestly believed that marriage with a deceased wife's sister was wrong, they would still continue to believe that it was wrong, and would therefore be unaffected by this Bill, which was merely permissive. They were told that it would be impossible for the sister-in-law to remain in the house of her sister without exposing herself to obloquy; but he thought the feeling referred to was largely based on ungenerous prejudice, and he conceived that it was not for Parliament to consider or to legislate in favour of such narrow feelings or petty animosities. As to the argument that the proposal contained in the Bill was inconsistent or dangerous, or both, and that this was the thin end of the wedge, which would be pushed further in future Sessions, to the legalizing of marriage between other relations, he had to observe that, while the number of Petitions presented to Parliament showed that there was a great desire that this Bill should become law, there had not been Petitions in favour of the marriage of other relations. The desire which existed for the legalization of the particular marriages sanctioned by this Bill had not been manifested in favour of other marriages between persons related by affinity; and it was by this fact that the apparent inconsistency of the Bill, in not legalizing all marriages, except those between blood-relations, was to be explained; there could, at all events, be no reason for refusing to pass this Bill upon the ground that it did not ask enough, unless upon the assumption that it was fair to refuse a man bread because he asked for a half a loaf instead of a whole one. The noble Duke (the Duke of Marlborough) had said that the passing of this Bill would lower the character of civil marriages; but he (the Marquess of Lansdowne) could see no reason whatever for supposing that such would be the result. The objections urged against the Bill were not such as to justify their Lordships in rejecting it; and, looking to the slight disturbance which it would occasion on the one hand, and to the fact that, on the other hand, it would place wives in a satisfactory position, legiti-

  913
  mize their children, and promote the happiness of families, he should vote for the second reading.
  THE BISHOP OF ELY*said, he must crave the indulgence of the House if he entered somewhat at length into the religious principle of this Bill. He admitted that the Bill came before the House in a form different from that in which it had come before it hitherto. It did not propose to compel a clergyman or any minister of religion to solemnize these marriages. He was glad that this was therefore no longer a Church of England question; but still it was a great moral and a great national question. And the very fact that he himself was in this House—the fact that, from the earliest times of the nation, Prelates had in great numbers sat in this House, and even in those earliest times had sat side by side with the Earl or Ealderman in the Courts of Justice of the land, was a symbol and a proof that English legislation in moral questions was intended to rest upon Christian and Scriptural principles. On these grounds he ventured to place before their Lordships the religious view of the question, and he thought it the more needful to do so, because, in the many pamphlets which had been circulated by the advocates of this Bill, it had been quietly assumed that the religious argument had been entirely abandoned by its opponents. Now, the Church of Christ in all ages had held that the moral law of the Old Testament was the moral law of the New Testament, and still the moral law of the Christian dispensation. It was a great mistake to suppose that Christianity had relaxed any portion of the moral law. On the contrary, the whole teaching of the New Testament, and especially of Him whose name he scarcely ventured to mention there, was not to relax but to raise and spiritualize and intensify the moral law. It had been said by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne) that the objections to the Bill rested on the interpretation of one or two doubtful texts. But he (the Bishop of Ely) contended that the existing law rested on the general tenor of the law of the Old Testament, confirmed and re-enacted in the New, and that the arguments for the repeal of that law were those which were really deduced from two doubtful texts. With regard to the famous 18th chapter of
  914
  Leviticus, its principle was to forbid certain marriages which were common among the Canaanites, and which are condemned as defiling the land. The interpretation of that chapter must, in some cases, inevitably be inferential, as all the degrees of consanguinity and affinity within which it is unlawful to marry are not enumerated, but interpreters have uniformly agreed that parity of reasoning must govern our understanding of it. For instance, there is no prohibition of marriage between a father and daughter, nor between an uncle and niece; but as there is prohibition of the marriage of a son with his mother and of a nephew with his aunt, it is inferred, as a matter of course, that the parallel cases of father and daughter, uncle and niece, are by parity of reasoning included in the prohibition. The same is the case with regard to a wife's sister. The prohibition is inferential, not direct. In verse 16 it is forbidden to marry a brother's widow, and in verse 14 it is forbidden to marry an uncle's widow, because "she is thine aunt." It is therefore incontrovertibly concluded that a wife's sister, being the same relation as a brother's wife, and a still nearer relation than an uncle's wife, is comprehended in the prohibitions of verses 14 and 16. It equally follows, that if thine uncle's wife "is thine aunt," thy wife's sister must be thy sister. The re-affirmation of this general principle in the New Testament is familiar to every one in the words of John the Baptist to Herod—"It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother's wife." These, then, are the general principles of the Mosaic law, and on these, not on one or two disputed passages, the Christian Church in all ages has founded its table of prohibited degrees. Now, the objections which are thought fatal to this principle by the advocates of this Bill are really founded on two passages, which are doubtful at the best, but which, rightly interpreted, have nothing to do with the question. The one is the passage in Deuteronomy xxv. 5, which is commonly known as the lex leviratus, the law of brothers-in-law, and is supposed by some to be a formal repeal, as regards at least a particular case, of the law in Leviticus xviii. 16. It is said that "if brethren dwell together and one of them die and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry a stranger, but

  915
  her husband's brother shall take her to wife." Now, first of all, let it be observed that this, which is often treated as a later law of Moses superseding and virtually repealing the law of Leviticus xviii. 16, is in propriety no law of Moses at all. So far from, being a later law, the custom prevailed centuries before Moses was born. In all probability it was a custom either among the Chaldees or the Canaanites, and was not so much enjoined as permitted to the Israelites—just as facility of divorce was permitted, not because it was good, but, as we have infallible authority for saying, on account of the hardness of their hearts. We are told by Diodorus Siculus that it prevailed among the Indian, Persian, African, and some Italian races; and we first meet with it many hundred years before Moses, in the family of Judah, who had married a Canaanitish woman (Genesis xxxviii.). Moreover, even this concession is by no means certainly a concession that a brother, in our sense of the word, might marry his own brother's widow. The word "brother" in Hebrew is of very wide meaning, and the translators of the Bible have put as the marginal rendering "next kinsman." "Brother" in Hebrew is continually used for kinsman, and "sister" for kinswoman. The words, "If brethren dwell together," would, indeed, more naturally be understood of a family of kinsmen as distinguished from the "strangers" with whom it was forbidden to the Israelites to intermarry. In a very able and learned pamphlet, on The Marriage of Brother and Sister in Law, by Mr. Galloway, it is shown that the ancient Jews did not consider this lex leviratus as over-riding the prohibitions of Leviticus xviii, and that, in fact, the next of kin, to whom the widow was given, was not the brother, but some relation not so near to the deceased husband. This, then, is one of the disputed texts. Rightly understood it makes nothing for the advocates of the Bill. And be it observed that its disputed character does not shake our position at all, for we do not claim it, but simply refuse to concede it to our adversaries. The other disputed text by which our opponents strive to shake the testimony of Leviticus against marriage with a wife's sister is the famous 18th verse of the 18th chapter, the words of which in the common translation are,
  916
  "Thou shalt not take a wife to her sister to vex her, beside the other, in her lifetime." From this it has been inferred that after her lifetime a man might take his wife's sister to wife. Besides other objections to this interpretation, it may be observed that the words rendered "wife to her sister," or more correctly "woman to her sister," occur over and over again in the Old Testament, as does the parallel phrase "man to his brother," according as the antecedent is masculine or feminine, and that wherever else they occur they are, and must be, rendered simply "one to another." It is used sometimes of animated, sometimes of inanimate beings. Thus, in Exodus xxvi. 3, it is said five curtains "shall be coupled one to another," literally "woman to her sister." In Ezekiel i. 9; iii. 13, the wings of the living creatures are joined one to another, literally "woman to her sister." In Exodus xxv. 20 the faces of the cherubim were one towards another, literally ("face" being masculine) "man to his brother." So in Genesis xiii. 11, where human beings are spoken of, they are said to separate one from the other, literally "man from his brother." This was, then, an idiomatic expression of constant occurrence; and our translators, who were ripe scholars and who often put their most important renderings in the margin, have placed in the margin here "one wife to another," and have referred, in vindication of this translation, to Exodus xxvi. 3, where the same words must be rendered "one to another." The passage, therefore, is either prohibitory of polygamy, or else is to be joined to the verse immediately before it in explanation and amplification of that. At all events, then, the two passages from Scripture by which it is proposed to pull down the great Levitical fortress are at the best of doubtful interpretation. This being so, their Lordships will surely be slow to make an alteration in the law, which for centuries has been the law of universal Christendom. It is true that some stress is laid now on the dissent of certain bodies of Christians. The noble Duke who spoke second in this debate has shown pretty clearly how great consent there was in former times. It may perhaps be startling that now the Roman Catholics have come forward in advocacy of the measure which shall give civil sanction, to

  917
  these marriages of affinity. Probably most of us have seen an extract from, a letter signed by distinguished Roman Catholic Prelates to this effect. But surely oven their words may be claimed as against the lawfulness of these marriages. These words arc—"With us the impediment is diriment of marriage." It is therefore conceded at once that there is an unlawfulness in these unions. But then the principle on which the Roman Church goes is this—It is only in the direct line of descent that marriages are contrary to the primary law of nature, and eternally wrong. Other marriages, even of close consanguinity, must have been permitted in the earliest times, or mankind could not have been perpetuated from a single pair; and though afterwards not only marriages of consanguinity, as between brothers and sisters, but of affinity too, are forbidden by positive laws, yet where there is not an eternal moral principle involved, the Church can give dispensation. Still the admission, that generally the affinity between brother and sister-in-law is "diriment of marriage," is an admission of the normal unlawfulness of such marriages. Without presuming to argue with Roman Catholic Prelates on their view of dispensing power, we may fairly say, a marriage cannot be unlawful unless it be contrary to the law of God. In such a case there is no power to bind what has not been bound in heaven. And, on the other hand, if it be contrary to a Divine law, whether natural and eternal or positive and commanded, then we cannot believe that there is any power on earth which can lawfully dispense with it. It had been stated by the noble Lord who opened the debate, that the marriages which the Bill proposed to legalize were very numerous among the poor. In his experience, however, as having formerly worked much among the poor in very I large parishes—though he regretted to say that many descriptions of wickedness and other unlawful marriages, such as between uncle and niece, had often come to his knowledge—he had never met with one marriage with a deceased wife's sister among the poor. He was aware that in the public papers a hope had been expressed that their Lordships would give the Bill their assent, inasmuch as in doing so they would be only yielding to the judgment of the nation. He must,
  918
  however, deny that the nation had pronounced itself in favour of this Bill. There was, no doubt, a very rich and powerful minority which took great interest in the question, and which made itself loudly heard; but he must confess he had never seen anything of that general feeling which was said to exist. There was, at all events, one portion of the community to whose voice in such a case great weight ought to be attached, and the great majority of whom were strongly opposed to this Bill. He meant the women of England. No doubt some women of high character and refined feelings might be in favour of it; but he himself had never yet heard a woman advocate it. As for the hardship on the poor, he doubted its existence. It was comparatively very seldom that a poor man was tempted to marry his sister-in-law. In the humbler ranks of life women married very young, and generally a widower would have great difficulty in finding a sister-in-law unmarried. He would only say, in conclusion, that in no nation had homes been more sacred than in this country. There was a sacredness in the relation of husband and wife, of brother and sister, and of brother-in-law and sister-in-law, which could not be disturbed now without serious danger. He entreated their Lordships not to sanction a measure which would strike a blow at the purity and sacredness of English homes, and which would in the end not tend to produce happiness and comfort, but discomfort and trouble and sorrow.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYhoped the House would permit him to say a very few words on the present occasion, being himself one who had formerly had charge of a similar Bill which had failed to pass its second reading, although it was lost by a majority of only 10. He was very unwilling and, indeed, quite unable to follow the right rev. Prelate who had just sat down (the Bishop of Ely) into his elaborate argument as to the interpretation to be put on the Scriptural texts which bore upon the subject. That the true interpretation of these texts was doubtful might, he thought, be very fairly inferred from the variety of opinions on the point, and he was sure the right rev. Prelate, high though his authority unquestionably was, would have the candour to admit that he did not regard his own interpretation as abso-

  919
  lutely correct. But, be that as it might, he (the Earl of Kimberley) was prepared in supporting the Bill to take his stand on broader grounds. He for one could not conceive how the code of law laid down in Leviticus could be considered as containing a moral law binding on men for all time. Let him take a case involving the highest considerations of morality by way of illustration of the absurdity of maintaining the contrary view. In Leviticus it was laid down that the adulterer and the adultress were to be put to death; but did any Christian country, he would ask, regard itself at the present day as being bound by that precept? The truth was, that there were certain things in the Mosaic law which were only applicable to the times in which they were enunciated. But passing over, without further comment, the religious aspect of the question, he would briefly advert to the arguments which were urged against the Bill, on social grounds, which constituted fair matter for discussion, and which might be stated without the slighest passion either on one side or the other. For his own part, he could not regard a Marriage Law as being founded on any safe basis unless it had the sanction of the general opinion of the people of the country in which it existed. In that vital respect it seemed to him our Marriage Law was deficient, seeing that there were so many persons who did not look upon it in respect to the point dealt with in the Bill as binding upon their consciences. It seemed to him that it was rather a question of social expediency than of moral law. He never, he might add, could see any great force in the argument derived from what the right rev. Prelate had termed "the sanctity of the home," in the case of a husband and his sister-in-law. Different persons naturally took different views of the subject; and for himself, notwithstanding what had fallen from the right rev. Prelate, he must contend that no man, at all events occupying the social position of their Lordships, could have a sister-in-law of his own age to live in his house after his wife's death without giving rise to scandal; nor did he think he would be able to continue such a relation for any considerable time. That being the fact he thought those who were in favour of the change had the best of the argument. It was contended
  920
  by the noble Duke opposite that if the present measure were to pass into law other and more objectionable marriages would in course of time have to be sanctioned. But he (the Earl of Kimberley) entirely denied that any such consequences must necessarily follow. As to the Bill being supported by a mere clique, as had been suggested by the right rev. Prelate, to promote their own personal objects, he would simply observe that it was far more likely that a measure which had so frequently been brought before the House of Commons, and which had so often been passed by that House, was one on which a large number of people throughout the country took a deep interest. There might be a small minority active in urging it forward, because no movement could be successful unless it had energetic leaders; but the Bill, he believed, was generally acceptable to the community at large, and he should greatly regret seeing it again rejected in their Lordships' House.
  THE BISHOP OF RIPONsaid, he must ask for the indulgence of their Lordships while he stated the grounds on which he should support the Bill; and he asked for it the more earnestly because it was his misfortune to differ from a majority of his right rev. Brethren, and also from many others whose opinions he greatly respected, and to whose judgment, if it were possible for him to do so, he would gladly bow. The first question which presented itself to his mind in connection with the particular class of marriages which the Bill proposed to legalize was—"What is the voice of Scripture with regard to these marriages?" If that voice had clearly and definitely spoken, if the "Word of God had prohibited these marriages, no human enactment could possibly make them lawful. Indeed, the mere attempt to do so would be wholly unjustifiable. After a most patient investigation of the subject, he was entirely unable to arrive at the conclusion expressed by his right rev. Brother who had just addressed the House, that Scripture prohibited these marriages—on the contrary, he believed that tacitly and by implication the law of God permitted them. He would not attempt to follow his right rev. Brother into the intricacies of that verbal criticism which he had made of different texts of Scripture; but he wished to quote the testimony of some who were

  921
  admitted to be able and learned theologians, whose attention had been specially directed to this particular question, and whose opinions coincided with his own as to the lawfulness, according to Scripture, of these marriages. First of all, he would cite the opinion of a right rev. Brother, whose absence on this occasion, and the reason for that absence, their Lordships must all deplore. The Bishop of St. David's (Dr. Thirlwall), in the course of his speech against the Marriages Bill in 1851, said—
  "The view which he had heard taken in that House respecting the operation of Scripture must, after all, be a mere matter of inference and construction, and, applying himself to that view of the subject, he would only say such marriages as the Bill was intended to legalize were not prohibited, but were tacitly by implication permitted by the words of the chapter which had been so often quoted. He protested against the opinions expressed by those who contended that there existed any Divine prohibition."—[See 3 Hansard, cxiv.]
  Again, the Rev. Dr. Alexander M'Caul, Professor of Divinity and Hebrew Literature in King's College, London, said—
  "Having again carefully examined the question, and consulted some of the highest authorities in Hebrew literature as to the meaning of the Scripture passages, I am confirmed in the opinion formerly expressed, that marriage with a deceased wife's sister is not only not prohibited, either expressly or by implication, but that, according to Leviticus xviii. 18, (concerning the translation of which there is not the least uncertainty), such marriage is plainly allowed. I confess that when I entered upon this inquiry I had not an idea that the case of those who wish a change in the present Marriage Law was so strong. I had thought that the opinions of grave and learned students of the Bible were more equally divided, and that, as authorities were pretty evenly balanced, they who had contracted such marriages must bear the inconveniences arising from doubtful interpretation. But I do not think so now. Confirmed by the testimony of antiquity and the judgment of the most considerable interpreters at the Reformation, and since the Reformation, I now believe that there is no reasonable room for doubt—that there is no verse in the Bible of which the interpretation is more sure than that of Leviticus xviii., 18; and I think it a case of great hardship that they should, by the civil law, be punished as transgressors, whose marriage, according to Divine law, is permitted and valid; and harder still that the children of such marriage, legitimate in the sight of the infallible Judge, should be visited with civil disabilities."
  No one would dispute the Biblical learning of Dr. Tregelles, who said—
  "I fully accord with Dr. M'Caul in his criticisms." …. "It is futile to set aside the definite permission given in the Word of God
  922
  (Leviticus xviii., 18) by considerations drawn from analogy, whether scriptural or unscriptural." …. "That such a restriction is wrong on Scriptural grounds, I feel no doubt at all."
  If he (the Bishop of Ripon) stood alone in his opinion that the Word of God was not opposed to such marriages, he should be ready to suspect the soundness of his judgment; but when he found that his opinion was confirmed by some of the ablest and most diligent students and interpreters of sacred Scripture, he felt strengthened in the conviction that the restriction on such marriages as this Bill proposed to legalize was not founded upon any authority of Scripture. If, then, Scripture did not support the existing law, was it wise or right to make by human enactment that to be a sin which the Word of God did not declare to be a sin? Of coure, if the Scriptural argument against such marriages were abandoned those who objected to them were, as everyone acknowledged, thrown at once upon the consideration of this question under its social aspect. Now, it seemed strange to assume that the various social evils which had been referred to would certainly arise in this country, if these marriages were legalized, although in countries where these marriages had always been permitted by law no such evils were found to exist. He believed this was almost the only country in the world in which a marriage with a deceased wife's sister was illegal, and he had not heard that any of the social evils which existed in countries where such unions were lawful could be directly traced to the state of the law. Bishop M'Ilwaine stated that in America, although these marriages were celebrated without disapprobation, he was not conscious of any evils having arisen from, them. But it was said that the sanctity and purity of domestic life would be imperilled if this Bill were allowed to pass. He confessed that he had a far higher opinion of the sanctity and purity of domestic life in this country, than to believe that it rested on so weak a foundation as a restriction which was not sanctioned by the Word of God. He believed the sanctity and purity of domestic life would remain unaffected if this Bill became law, as he sincerely trusted it would. All the arguments employed with respect to the social aspect of the question seemed directed against certain imaginary evils which it was assumed would arise if the law were altered;

  923
  but there had been no allusion during this debate to the great social evils which, existed at the present time, and which might be directly traced to the operation of the law. Was it no evil that we should have a law which it was found in practice utterly impossible to maintain, and which was broken and violated continually? Was it no evil that there should exist among a large class of the population a sense of wrong and oppression, because it was felt that the law of the land hindered them from doing that which by the law of God they were permitted to do? Or was it no evil that the existing state of the law was in many instances directly provocative of crime? He wished to adduce some testimony on this point. His right rev. Brother who last addressed the House (the Bishop of Ely) had stated that he had been stationed in many different parishes with large populations, but that he had seen no evils resulting from the operation of the law as it now stood. The right rev. Prelate's experience had been singularly fortunate. He had himself had the care of parishes with large populations, and he had seen great evils result from the operation of the law. He would not, however, quote his own authority, but would take the testimony of one who was revered by a large number of Christians in this country, and who to the regret of a large circle of friends had been recently removed from among them. The late very rev. Dr. Dale, Dean of Rochester, who for a long period of his life had charge of large parishes, said—
  "So far as my parochial experience extends, the prohibition of marriage with a deceased wife's sister operates far more to the promotion than to the prevention of crime. Among the lower classes cohabitation without marriage is almost invariably the result, while the few conscientious persons who are deterred by the law from forming such a connection are precisely those to whom it would be a benefit. Were the prohibitions founded on Scripture we ought at whatever sacrifice to obey God rather than man; but I cannot see the expediency of a law which, having no such sanction, is observed only by the scrupulous, evaded by the wealthy, and defied or disregarded by the poor."
  He would also cite the testimony of another divine whose name was never mentioned without honour. He alluded to the very rev. Dr. Hook, Dean of Chichester, who had, perhaps, had a larger experience than any living man in the charge of large parishes. Dean Hook said—
  924
  "People in general do not consider such marriages improper, They cannot be proved to be improper by Scripture. The question is, therefore, one of expediency, and my experience as a parochial minister induces me to think the measure expedient."
  Again, the very rev. the Dean of Carlisle, Dr. Close said—
  "I believe such marriages as you wish to make lawful are already lawful, according to the letter and spirit of Holy Scripture, and I hope the civil and ecclesiastical law will speedily be made conformable to the Divine."
  He might also cite the testimony of the Dean of Lichfield, better known as Canon Champneys, who said—
  "It appears to me, therefore, that first, as Scripture shows that there is nothing immoral in such a connection, and, secondly, as it is obvious that much evil would be prevented, many poor children saved from misery and ruin by having that person over them who, in a majority of instances, would be the next best substitute for a mother, my own mind is led to believe that the law of man ought to tally in this respect with the law of God."
  Such were the opinions of eminently practical and Christian men who had had wide experience in dealing with large parishes. This Bill would affect a class of cases involving a great hardship which ought to be removed by the Legislature. After the passing of the Act of 1835, commonly called Lord Lyndhurst's Act, there was a general impression—whether a right one or not he would not say—that persons who wished to contract such marriages as were now under discussion might legally do so in a foreign country where such marriages were lawful. It was believed that marriages so celebrated were lawful even according to the law of this land. In numerous instances persons had acted in that belief; they had gone abroad and had complied with all the conditions which they supposed necessary to make their marriage valid; and it was not until a decision to the contrary was recently given in one of the Superior Courts that, for the first time, they learned that they had acted under a mistake, and that their marriage could not be recognized by the law of this country. Such persons had to endure a great hardship in no legal remedy being provided to render valid marriages which had been so contracted. This Bill would have that effect, and for that, among other reasons, he most earnestly hoped that it would pass into law. Believing, as he did, that the re-

  925
  strictions which were sought to be removed were not founded upon any authority of Scripture; that, on the contrary, the Word of God tacitly sanctioned such marriages; that the existing restrictions imposed a burden on men's consciences, and were in many cases provocative of crime; and believing that the alteration of the law would be a great relief to many who justly deserved to receive it, although it was with the deepest regret that he found himself at variance with the opinions of so many for whom he had a profound respect, he must vote in favour of the Bill.
  LORD LYVEDENsaid, he was anxious to address the House, as, although the Mover of this Bill and Her Majesty's Government had disclaimed all party motives, the Liberal Press had tried to make the support of this measure a test of Liberality. He protested against the assumption that Liberals should be advocates of every bold innovation without considering its advantages. He rested his objection to this Bill entirely upon what would be the social effects of its passing, in considering which their Lordships must proceed entirely upon their own views, for they could not bring to bear any experience, while there were very few facts on which they could rely. Why alter a system which, had, according to the Lord Chancellor, existed since the 6th century "and the conversion of Ethelbert?" He denied that this Bill was so universally popular. His noble Friend (Lord Houghton) had truly said it had passed the House of Commons by a large majority; yet, without wishing to depreciate that expression of opinion, he could not refrain from pointing out that, in some cases, the votes of Members of the House of Commons were dependent on the ideas of a handful of their constituents. Let their Lordships look to the number of Petitions that were presented in favour of the admission of Mr. Newdegate into nunneries—[Laughter]—he meant his Motion for an inquiry into conventual establishments. For that scheme there were 249,637 signatures—for this only 26,230! Public opinion, in this form, had not shown itself in favour of this measure to anything like the extent to which it was provoked by the other proposal, now generally rejected. The issue raised by the Bill was an extremely narrow one. Why was it con-
  926
  fined to one degree of affinity? Why was the aunt to become the best stepmother? All women were naturally fond of children, and kind to them; but, if they had any of their own, jealous of their husband's children by another woman, even if that woman was their sister; and why did not the Bill include wives' nieces, or daughters by former husbands? It was well to suppose the tenderness of a wife's sister; but of what much greater value to a widow would be the assistance of a husband's brother. Yet this marriage was never proposed for the advancement in life of the children. How did this agitation arise? Not from those who wished to alter the law, but from those who had already violated it; who, in their amorous maturity, could not control their passions, and now sought to be put on a footing with those whose modesty or morality had induced them to obey the law. This proposal would be almost compulsory. If a man might marry his wife's sister, he must marry her; for society would never tolerate their residence together unmarried. It was all very well for the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Ripon) to say that it was a libel on English women to state that, if these sisters were marriageable, they could not live in their married sister's house; but opportunity assisted immorality, and the permitted familiarity would not be checked by the dreadful notion of an incestuous intercourse as now. This was so felt, that he had heard a comical reason given in favour of the Bill by a gentleman who had three wife's sisters, whom he was desired to retain in his house, and said, if he would deny they were his sisters, as he might marry them, he would get rid of them at once. He would now read to the House a beautiful passage from the memoirs of Mr. Gibbon, setting forth the charms of the relation of brother and sister—
  "The relation of a brother and sister, especially if they do not marry, appears to me of a very singular nature. It is a familiar and tender friendship with a female much about your own age, an affection perhaps softened by the secret influence of sex, but pure from any mixture of sensual desire—the sole species of Platonic love which can be indulged with truth and without danger."
  He contended that the further you could spread such pure intimacies between the sexes the greater the advantage you con-

  927
  fer on society. The progress of civilization has always been tested by the respect a nation shows to women; and if you find that for centuries past, whether by usage or by Act of Parliament, the wife's sisters have been considered the own sisters, admitted to familiar intercourse and the unrestrained company as such—if you invade this acknowledged rule, you tend to trespass upon domestic comfort and happiness in a way of which you cannot calculate the lamentable results. You say this is only a sentiment. Well, what are half our virtues, and all the graces of them, but sentiments? The love of children is a duty; but what is it without its sentiments? The love of parents the same; but all the pleasure of it is in its sentiments! At least, he hoped the House would not adopt the retrospective part of this Bill which was, however, the most valued by the promoters. Such a mode of legislation would be a most vicious precedent. Surely if the Game Laws were altered all poachers would not be released; or, in the change of any other law, those who had already transgressed it acquitted. He agreed with Mr. Gladstone, who said—
  "These were questions not to be opened, except in great necessity, for they should not tamper from year to year with the Marriage Laws."
  It was a large subject. Six years ago a Commission was issued to inquire into the Laws of Marriage, on which sat some of the greatest lawyers of the day in England, Scotland, and Ireland. It was presided over by the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Chelmsford). The Report was drawn up by Sir Roundell Palmer—it was laid on the Table three years ago—and he would say had been shelved ever since. There was no reason, with all this mass of opinion and information before them, why they should not legislate on the whole question next Session; but against this particular measure he should vote, from a decided conviction that it would lead to marriages which, if not incestuous, were most immoral connections.
  THE BISHOP OF LINCOLNsaid, he did not hesitate to avow his opinion that the marriages which they were now seeking to legalize were prohibited by the Divine law. In the Divine law, both of the Old and New Testament, it was declared that "man and wife are one flesh;" and, therefore, to endeavour to legalize a man's marriage with his wife's
  928
  sister is very like an endeavour to legalize his marriage with his own sister. The marriage with a deceased's wife's sister, was forbidden by the Divine law in the book of Leviticus. The Marriage Law in that Book was not the law peculiar to the Jews—it was a law of universal humanity. If their Lordships would look at the 18th chapter of Leviticus, they would see that the nations of the land of Canaan were to be cast out, because they had defiled themselves with the abominations denounced in that chapter. And who were the nations so devoted to destruction? Were they under the Levitical law? Certainly they were not. They were nations before the promulgation of the Levitical law, and where there was no law there was no transgression. Consequently, the law which they were denounced in Leviticus as having broken was no other than the moral code of universal humanity—as the Hebrews themselves said, dating from the Flood itself. Now, in that common law—that law of universal humanity—there were two prohibitions—that a man should not marry his wife's mother, and that he should not marry his wife's daughter. It followed by logical inference that a man should not marry his wife's sister. There might be some who would object to inferences of this kind; but if they were to be given up they would lose some of the highest methods of interpretation of Scripture itself. Our blessed Saviour proved the resurrection of the dead by inference when He deduced it from God's words—"I am the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob; "and He added—"because ye know not the Scriptures"—because ye cannot deduce logical inferences from the Scriptures—"ye do greatly err." It was because of this law—which he could not call the Levitical code, but the code of universal humanity—and by action of his reason upon it, he had come to the conclusion that the marriages now proposed to be legalized were prohibited by the law of God. He would remind their Lordships that the true interpretation of the Bible was the Bible—a false interpretation of the Bible was not the Bible. One of his right rev. Brethren (the Bishop of Ripon) had referred to various authorities in support of these marriages. He respected these authorities; but, after all, they were only the authorities of men; they could not be brought

  929
  into competition with the consistent opinion of 15 centuries of the Catholic Church of Christ—which he held to be the divinely appointed and constituted interpreter of the Bible—and which declared that these marriages were prohibited by the Divine law. To the authorities which his right rev. Brother quoted he would add one more. The first who sanctioned these marriages—an authority not likely to be referred to by his right rev. Friend—was Pope Alexander the Sixth—the infamous Borgia. Their Lordships were, no doubt, familiar with the epitaph composed in reference to him and his daughter, Lucretia Borgia—
  "Hoc jacet in tumulo Lucretia nomine, sed re
  Thais, Alexandri, filia, spousa, nurus."
  Were their Lordships prepared to follow in the steps of such a man—a man whose name had been consigned to infamy as one of the worst of the Popes? They were asked to respect the feelings of those who had broken the law; but he called upon their Lordships to respect the feelings of 17,000 of the clergy of the Church of England, whose consciences would be affected by the passing of this Bill. It was very well to say that these marriages were to be solemnized by the registrar; but if that were so, he asked their Lordships to consider what a conflict would arise between the civil and the ecclesiastical power. The Bill was nominally to legalize marriage with a deceased wife's sister; but in reality it was a Bill to sever the connection between the Church and the State. Let their Lordships consider that this law which they were now asked to abrogate was the unbroken law of the Church for the first 15 centuries of the Christian era; that it was not of Papal origin but of purely Apostolic times; that it was contained in all the canons ecclesiastical; that it was renewed and invigorated at the time of the Protestant Reformation, and by the martyrs who shed their blood for the emancipation of truth; that it was the law of the Church of England, and embodied in that table of degrees of consanguinity which they were required to present to the people in their charge. Were they to have respect to the people who violated this law, and were they to have none for those who observed it and wished it to remain unbroken? He entreated their Lordships to consider what would be the position
  930
  of the clergy under the operation of this measure. Were they to allow parties living in what they regarded as sin to partake of the Holy Communion, and thus to profane the most solemn mysteries of the Church; or were they to set themselves against the law of the land, which it was their desire to teach others to obey? He trusted their Lordships would avert these conflicts by refusing to sanction the second reading of this Bill.
  LORD WESTBURYsaid, he was at a loss to know on what grounds their Lordships were asked to reject this Bill. Were they to take the responsibility of restraining marriage, which was a part of man's natural independence, upon a critical interpretation of a passage of the Old Testament? Were they—were the right rev. Bench—so confident that their interpretation of that passage was correct? Were they the more confident of that because all Christendom disagreed with them? Were they so confident that the knowledge of the truth was confined to their own Church—nay, to one section of their own Church—that they were resolved to found upon it a prohibition by Act of Parliament—a law nothing corresponding to which could be found in any part of the Christian world? He was by no means one of those who was so proud of the condition of this country that he could go to the House of God and give thanks that we were not as other men were. He saw nothing in the social condition of this country to warrant this excessive amount of self-gratulation. When he looked on the condition of society in England, Scotland, and Ireland—when he looked to our great towns, and to the general condition of our pauper population, he felt that they were not in a condition to regard themselves as the special favourites of Providence or the chosen depositories of Divine truth. He entreated their Lordships to approach this subject in another and a humbler spirit—a spirit that might make them inquire whether there might not be a doubt in the correctness of the interpretations they now enunciated so positively. Let them remember that the interpretation sought to be placed on this passage, as forbidding those marriages which this Bill proposed to legalize, was an interpretation in which the whole Christian world did not agree. It was one in which the Roman Catholics did not join

  931
  —which, the great body of Protestants on the Continent did not give their assent to—in which the Wesleyans were not with them—in which the Independents did not concur—which the Baptists altogether repudiated—and which the Quaker lifted up his testimony against. Therefore, the opposition to these marriages was confined to themselves, and to those who had been indoctrinated into it by the penalties of an Act of Parliament. Was the Legislature, then, warranted, when it framed a law on marriage—the natural right of all persons—to found that law upon a particular interpretation of Scripture which rendered it inconsistent with the great principles of civil and religious liberty? What right had they to say to the Jews that they should not marry unless they conformed to the English Marriage Law, or to say to the Roman Catholics they should not marry according to their own Church's interpretation of Scripture, but should be bound by ours? Was this law consistent with the universal rights of human nature? He thought not—he thought it stood in direct opposition to great and important principles—principles as important as those which were laid down in Scripture. He was content to take the Articles of our Church upon the subject. Now, the 7th Article of the English Church declared that they were bound by the moral law, but not by the ceremonial law. Applying that to the law of Moses, let them try to discover what was the universal moral law, what the ceremonial; for from the moment they had reached this point of distinction they ceased to be bound by the law as an abstract law. There could be no doubt that the Levitical law, viewed in a judicial sense, was a most barbarous and savage code. In former times their Lordships' predecessors were accustomed to hear from the right rev. Bench appeals to the Levitical law, which they were now exhorted to treat with such reverence, to justify and enforce the drowning or burning of witches. The Bishops of that day spoke in the same solemn and earnest tones of the impiety of those who did not recognize the authority of the written Law of God, of doubts as to the Christian character of those who doubted the existence of witchery, or who did not recognize the duty of drowning or burning them. Their Lordships would also remember
  932
  that what they now heard, and had probably heard 50 times before was nothing but a rechauffée of the solemn indignation with which the first proposal for allowing marriages between first cousins was treated. There was, no doubt, some reason for the prohibition of the marriage of cousins; because, by an extension of the terms used in Leviticus, such marriages could be brought within the prohibition given. Having adverted to these matters for the purpose of inducing some diffidence and modesty in dealing with the matter, he would proceed to look at the history of the question. The fact could not be doubted that the contemporaneous exposition of the Jews was in conformity with the interpretation now sought to be put upon the Levitical law by the promoters of this Bill. He did not mean to expose himself to the reply that we were not bound to accept the Jews' version of the Scriptures; but he might appeal to the custom and practice of the Jewish people, and to their institutions and observances, as a comment upon, and an interpretation of their own laws. It was impossible to believe that they could have continued in deliberate non-observance and violation of that law, if it had borne with them an interpretation, which some with the superior knowledge of the present generation desired to put upon it. The Jewish law never contemplated prohibiting the marriage with the sister after the death of the wife, and the testimony upon that point was beyond dispute. The evidence of the Chief Rabbi before the Commission was on record. He was examined not upon matters of interpretation, but upon the customs of his people; and he stated that from all time it had been the practice of the Jews not only to approve these marriages, but to facilitate them; for whereas it was required, in any case, that a certain time should interpose between the termination of the first marriage and the contracting of a second marriage, the time was shortened in the case in which the widower left with children desired to marry the sister of his deceased wife. Ought we not to take this fact into account when we interpreted Leviticus, embodied our interpretation in an Act of Parliament, and pronounced that interpretation to be a holy, rightful, and moral law? Let him go a little further. The law and practice of the Jews being

  933
  what he had described, what were the habits of the people existing in the civilized world when Christianity was introduced? He had already shown what was the practice of the Jews, and it was the same at that time; the law of the Roman Republic was the same; and the Roman law down to the time of Constantius not only permitted these marriages, but approved them. Christianity, therefore, was planted among people who, whether they were Jews, Hebrews, or Romans, adopted these marriages, and regarded them, not merely as legal, but as worthy of commendation. Such, also, was the rule of Christianity itself during the first ages; and it was not until they reached the period when numerous sects had arisen, warring with each other, and perverting the truth among themselves, set themselves up for teachers rather than interpreters of the Divine word, that the Gnostics and others set aside the authority of the Mosaic laws, especially in regard to marriages, until some of the greatest Fathers of the Church denounced marriage altogether, and laid down rules regulating that and kindred subjects in language not always too decent. When the prohibition of these marriages was once introduced, it was gradually adopted by the Western Church, and by the Eastern Church also. But the Roman Catholic Church had acted in this respect much more wisely than our own, for the Roman Catholics never regarded this Levitical rule as a law of God, but regarded it as an ecclesiastical regulation, and assumed the right to dispense with it for a consideration. It was not until the time of Henry VIII. that a new light burst upon England concerning these marriages. In his reign an Act of Parliament was passed which, for the first time, defined the prohibited degrees, and the degree of wife's sister was included in the prohibition. An Act, which passed at the same time, declared the marriage of Henry with Katherine of Arragon most unholy; and the real object of the table of prohibited degrees was to declare that marriage invalid. Three months after the decree of separation Queen Elizabeth was born. The 25 Henry VIII. was repealed by the 28 Henry VIII., and in the meantime Anne Boleyn had had her head cut off, and Harry married Jane Seymour—a marriage which, was pronounced to be
  934
  holy and right. A little further we came to the statute of the 1 Mary, which declared that the marriage between Henry VIII. and Katherine of Arragon was most holy and pious, and in strict accordance with the rightful interpretation of God's Word. But that and the former statute of Henry are to this day unrepealed. Thus we have upon our statute book two Acts, one declaring a marriage to be consistent, and the other declaring it to be inconsistent with the rightful interpretation of God's Word. It seems to me a melancholy and humiliating retrospect, and by no means conducive to our national self-laudation and gratulation. Nothing was more certain in law, or more consistent with common sense, than this proposition—that, where a matter had not been made a subject of express declaration, it was not possible to derive from any part of the law a conclusion in the way of inference, if you found that inference repelled and excluded by some other part of the law. Turning now to what had been said by the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Ely), respecting the interpretation of the 16th verse of the 18th chapter of Leviticus, he (Lord Westbury) was astonished to hear the right rev. Prelate profess his preference for the marginal rendering of the verse in Leviticus which was found in some editions of the Septuagint, and which had the effect of reducing this verse, from being a regulation on the subject of marriage with a deceased wife's sister into a simple prohibition of polygamy. Everybody knew that the marginal reading had been ascertained to be the interpolation of a certain sect among the Jews who were themselves opposed to polygamy, and who, therefore, desired to convert this verse into a prohibition of polygamy. If it had the meaning contended for, why was it not followed? Was there not a direct contradiction of it in the practice of the Jews? Was it not the unquestionable fact that polygamy was familiarly practised among the Jews? Solomon certainly never restricted himself in its observance; and was it not one of the rewards of David, for his faithful adherence to the Divine cause, that he received the wives of Saul in a lump? Could it really have occurred seriously to anybody that the original meaning and intent of this verse was to prohibit polygamy? It was a long time since he

  935
  had construed a Greek author; but he ventured to say, without fear of contradiction—because his interpretation was borne out by the greatest authorities—that the meaning of the verse was plain—"You shall not marry as a wife a sister to your present wife, in rivalry with her." The only fault he found with the authorized version was that, instead of the expression "in rivalry with her," the interpretation given was, "to vex her." The real meaning probably was the taking of one in addition to the other—they were not to be rival wives. And then came the words "during the life of the first wife," the reason of which plainly was to prevent a man from giving the first wife a letter of divorce and sending her away. In order to prevent that evasion the words were added forbidding the man to marry the wife's sister in addition to the wife during her lifetime. Unless any man could prove beyond the possibility of doubt that the text in Leviticus did not refer to the marriage of the wife's sister, it formed a rule which prohibited any inference to the contrary, and plainly laid down the Scriptural law on which our statutes should rest. The right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Ely) had argued that marriage with a wife's sister was prohibited on the ground that she was "near of kin" to the husband. But this inference he (Lord Westbury) entirely denied—it was utterly absurd and inadmissible. It was, no doubt, the universal rule that the wife was absorbed in the individuality of the husband—became "one flesh" with him; but it had never been held that the husband became "of kin"—proximus sanguinis—to the kindred of the wife, neither was it added in the verse which contained this prohibition—whatever it was—as was added to other prohibitions in the same chapter, "for she is thy near kinswoman." He hoped their Lordships would now, almost at the eleventh hour, do that which ought to have been done before, and recall the prohibition of these marriages contained in the statute book. If their Lordships would look at the records of what had occurred in the House of Commons when the existing law was being passed, they would find that it was proposed to prohibit the marriages in question for the future by making them utterly void. It required, however, all the influence of
  936
  those who supported the Bill on that occasion to pass it in that form, and they were only able to do so on the understanding that the subject should be reconsidered in the next Session. Thus it was that a proposal which had been sanctioned without due deliberation was placed on the statute book, where it continued to remain, because the promise to re-consider the matter had never been fulfilled. The existing law, therefore, had its origin in an erroneous interpretation of a single passage; it had grown up in variance with every principle of civil and religious liberty; it had been made binding on the whole people, although one-half of them protested against the interpretation of Scripture on which it had been based. Such a statute ought, he contended, to be offered up on the altar of civil and religious liberty. The subject was one, he might add, which it was impossible to examine without feeling strongly upon it, and, feeling strongly, one naturally expressed oneself in a corresponding manner. But if, in the course of the observations which he had made, a single word had fallen from him which was calculated to give pain, he begged leave to retract it. He must, at the same time, be permitted to state, in the strongest form of language which was consistent with respect for their Lordships, the conviction which he entertained—a conviction arrived at after much examination of the subject—that the existing Act was founded altogether on a misapprehension, upon an undue assumption of the right to bind the consciences of others, and that it ought as soon as possible to be expunged from the statute book in obedience to those high principles of civil and religious liberty to which he had already adverted.
  THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGH: My Lords, I had not intended to trouble your Lordships with any reasons of mine for the silent vote which I meant to give against the Bill now before you; but, after listening to the speech of the noble and learned Lord who has just sat down, I cannot refrain from offering a few observations, if only as a matter of mere politeness and gratitude, for I cannot but feel that some acknowledgment is due to him from the occupants of these Benches for the homily which he has had the kindness and consideration to address us in the early part of his very able and interesting speech. The noble and learned

  937
  Lord was good enough to lecture, with a tone of severe solemnity, these who sit on the Episcopal Bench as to the necessity of observing caution in the interpretation of Scripture. I was happy, however, to find that the noble and learned Lord, before he reached the close of his remarks, felt himself entirely free from any of those restraints which he seemed to be so desirous of imposing upon others; because it certainly struck me as savouring somewhat of confidence in his own interpretation of the text, and his acquaintance with the original, not only in the Greek, but the Hebrew, that he should have addressed himself in such a tone to answer the speech of the right rev. Prelate who presides over the diocese of Ely. I confess that, knowing, as I do, the high reputation of that right rev. Prelate for thorough acquintance with the original, I should have felt some diffidence in venturing to make any remarks in reply to him; but the noble and learned Lord has not hesitated to favour us with an outpouring of Biblical and Greek learning, erring—if I may return, in some measure, his lecture to the Episcopal Bench—perhaps a little on the side of levity. I am, I may add, qualified to approach the interpretation of the words in Leviticus, at least in this respect—that I do so with that diffidence to which the noble and learned Lord has exhorted us. After a very great deal of consideration I do not feel certain beyond doubt as to the meaning of the passage of Leviticus; but I would remind the noble and learned Lord that whoever gives a vote on this question to-night must give it in favour of one side or the other of the Scriptural enactments on the whole subject. The noble and learned Lord—great lawyer as he is—knows that the law of England, professes in the matter of marriage to be founded on the Word of God. Whether, therefore, we affirm or repeal existing restrictions, we must act in conformity with the principles of the law of England by affirming on one side or the other a distinct interpretation of the Word of God, and imposing it in the form of law on the consciences of those who take a different view. The noble and learned Lord has, therefore, fallen into the same error as that of which he accuses us—the error of first affirming his own view of the Word of God and then imposing it in the form of law on other men. For myself, I confess I am
  938
  not able to see my way to that distinct I interpretion on the passage in Leviticus which has been put upon it by some of my right rev. Brethren. I would venture to add that, even assuming the prohibition there against the marriages of which we are speaking to be as distinct as it seems to me to be doubtful, that would not, in my opinion, be conclusive of the question—because I am unable to say that we, as a Christian Church and a Christian State, are bound in all our legislation by the Book of Leviticus. I hold those words to be divinely inspired, I and therefore specially adapted to the needs of the people to whom they were delivered; but for that very reason, and because of their special and divine adaptation to the needs of the Jews, I think we have the highest ground for believing that they do not necessarily meet the needs of a Christian population or a Christian State in the present day. I do not, therefore, lay so much stress as some do upon this particular passage. But there is another Scriptural argument on which I do lay some stress. I allude to the words of Him whom we all acknowledge to be the Supreme Lawgiver, who, while He in some degree set aside the Levitical enactments, affirmed the broad principle on which they were based. He did lay down distinctly the principle that when a man marries a woman the twain are "one flesh." From that I deduce the principle of the law for bidding marriages of affinity—namely, the principle that the relations of the wife are the relations of the husband, and that the relations of the husband are the relations of the wife: a man cannot, therefore, marry a relation of his wife in the same degree as that in which he is forbidden to marry his relation in blood. This, indeed, appears to be a definite and distinct principle on which we can found our legislation. It has a finality. If you do not maintain this principle, you put another and an opposite one in its place—namely, the principle that the relations of the wife are no relations of the husband. Well, supposing you do this, you must, if you wish to be consistent, go on and abolish the whole of the prohibited degrees in the table of affinity. The noble Earl the Lord Privy Seal, said with reference to the Book of Leviticus—"You are not free to take out this or that passage and use it in your own

  939
  way." In the same way I maintain that you are not free to adopt this or that principle and then conveniently forget that the principle is applicable equally to all the degrees of affinity. My Lords, I am aware that I am doing what is somewhat rash and presumptuous in venturing to allude to a principle in reference to any measure under the consideration of Parliament—for it has been laid down lately, on rather high authority, that if those who oppose any measure do so on the ground that it embodies a principle which may be dangerous and capable of wider application than in the particular measure under consideration they, and they alone, are responsible for the evil consequences of that principle. That is a very convenient doctrine for those who are charged with the responsibility and risk of introducing measures to the consideration of Parliament, because it simply does away altogether with the discussion of the principle of any measure whatsoever. If the principle is a good one, discussion upon it would be superfluous; but if it is false and dangerous, discussion upon it would be purely mischievous. Therefore, we must not presume to discuss the principle of any measure, but must be content to offer humble criticisms on its details. With all due diffidence, then, I maintain that the present Law of Marriage affirms a certain principle, and that the proposed law would be based on another and an opposite one. Nay, I go further, and say that principles embodied in legislation are forces which are not under our control. It does not rest with us to say, when we introduce a principle into any measure—"Thus far shall it go and no farther." We can no more do that with the principles of law than we can with the forces of nature; and when we once set free a new and distinct principle in any act of legislation, it is certain to work itself out to its necessary conclusion by the logic of events, or by the logic, still more powerful, of human passion and human feeling. What I want to know is this—if the principle embodied in the proposed change of the law is to be affirmed, are your Lordships prepared to go on and abolish the whole table of affinity? If not, at what point are we to stop, and what law are we to fall back upon? The noble and learned Lord who just spoke (Lord Westbury)
  940
  appealed to the law of nature, and seemed disposed to substitute it for the law of the land and the law of the Church. With all due deference to the noble and learned Lord, I should like to ask him what nature, or, rather, whose nature it is that he means? Does he refer to the law of the nature of the man who wishes to marry his brother's widow? Is that the law of nature which is to be followed? It seems to be natural that some men should desire to marry their brothers' widows; but is that a valid reason why the table of affinity should be altered in their favour? Other men desire to marry their deceased wives' nieces; is that circumstance to be adduced in favour of an alteration of the law in their favour. What law, I again ask, are we to fall back upon? I lately saw an account of a man who, in another country which is less troubled than ours by canonical law, married on one and the same day a mother and her daughter, her niece, and three other persons. Now, such a man would tell your Lordships that he only acted in accordance with the law of his nature, and would exclaim against the cruel tyranny of imposing on him the law of the nature of the noble and learned Lord. How, I ask, are we to legislate on anything so vague as this reference to the law of nature? We require something more sure and certain, less shifty, and less liable to be swept away by the tides of human passion and of human error than this vague shadow of "a law of nature." While speaking on this subject, let me add a word as to a reason which does not actuate me in voting against this Bill. In voting against it I have no desire to maintain the rule of the Church of England over the members of other communions. Indeed, it was with deep regret that I heard this argumentum ad invidiam used by a very high authority. I protest against inflicting on other religious communities the law of the Church of England. The principle, however, appears to be laid down, that whenever the law of the land happens to coincide with the law of the Church, whenever you find the same law in the statute book and in the prayer book, you are bound in deference to the consciences of Nonconformists to repeal the law of the land, because it has the deadly taint of agreement with the law of the prayer book. No one, as far as I am aware,

  941
  wishes to inflict the law of England on other communions; but this Bill would inflict the law of other communions on the Church of England. It is true that the Bill does not touch the consciences of the clergy by compelling them to celebrate the marriages sanctioned by it; nevertheless, a clergyman would be under the necessity of administering the Holy Communion and the rite of burial to persons whom he believed to have been living in direct transgression of the laws of his Church. I do not put this forward as a reason for rejecting this measure; but because it seems to me a very strange argument in favour of a measure which directly affects the consciences of the whole body of the clergy, to demand that it shall be passed on the score of promoting freedom of conscience. I shall vote against this measure, because it seems to be fraught not only with the political danger of putting the Church in direct antagonism with the State—which in itself is an evil of no small magnitude—but also because it is fraught with most serious and dangerous social evils. This appears to be a Bill for the needless banishment from many a quiet home of a sister-in-law who now calmly fulfils, in all purity and faithfulness, the duties of a mother to the children of her deceased sister. I am told, however, by the advocates of the measure that it is a very unworthy argument thus to libel the social purity of English homes; but, in almost the same breath, they insist on the grievous hardship inflicted by the present Marriage Law on the poor man, who is often obliged to have his sister-in-law to reside with him, and thus exposes her to fearful temptations. These two arguments, I maintain, cannot be both used with consistency by the advocates of the Bill. I believe that this measure embodies a very dangerous principle; that it unsettles, with no prospect of settling, the existing law, in which the great, and, as I believe, the immense majority of Englishwomen thankfully acquiesce; that it unsettles that law for no real gain, but with the risk of very real mischief; and that it does real social hurt and evil for a problematic good. The only argument of any weight that I have heard urged is that public opinion is in favour of it: I question it. That public opinion has never yet been fairly tested. Has one
  942
  seat been won or lost on this matter? Has this question in any one instance been made a test at the hustings? [Lord HOUGHTON interposed a remark.] The noble Lord corrects me, but the instances must be very rare. If we appeal to public opinion, let us do so distinctly, formally, and definitely; for it seems to me that the duty of Parliament is not to indulge in mere vague guessings or even calculations as to what public opinion is—that its duty and the duty of its Members is not to count opinions, but to weigh them; and that if we are simply to discuss not whether a measure be right or wrong, but whether public opinion is in its favour, the sooner you do away with Parliamentary debates the better, and the sooner you fall into the way of governing this country as another country is now from time to time being governed—by plébiscites and appeals to the people—the sooner you have questions not discussed by Parliament but settled by popular vote the better; because in that case we should at least have a distinct and definite utterance of public opinion; and I venture to say that in that case this Bill would never be passed, or, at all events, not passed for years to come.
  VISCOUNT LIFFORDsaid, that neither our Lord nor His Apostles had anywhere condemned marriages of this kind; and some of the best and most learned men in ancient and modern times—including in the latter Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and Roman Catholics—had been in their favour; and he had received a letter from the Roman Catholic clergy of Dublin bogging him to support this Bill. He had heard it argued that this was not a poor man's question: he (Viscount Lifford) contended that it was every man's question. Since he last addressed their Lordships on this subject he had received a communication from a gentleman, living not far from London, who lost his wife and was left with several young children. Her youngest sister had been living with them for a length of time, and on her death-bed the wife said she should die happy in the certainty that her sister would, be the future mother of her children, and begged of her husband to cultivate the friendship of a neighbouring clergyman who had married the sister of his deceased wife. Another correspondent said he was desirous of marry-

  943
  ing his deceased wife's sister from sincere and prudent motives, he having been left a widower with eight children, and he added that he had felt no interest in this subject until he lost his wife, whose request it was that he should marry her sister, and that she alone should have the care of the children. Persons connected with some of their Lordships had married under similar circumstances. The question therefore was, were their Lordships to refuse to give the sanction of law to marriages of this character, which were desired, and practised by all classes of the community, except a small number of dissentients connected with the Church of England? He supported this Bill because he believed that the Levitical law permitted such marriages, while Jewish tradition and other historical evidence was in their favour, and he asked their Lordships not to reject this Bill, but to have mercy on those who had suffered from unfortunate and inconsistent legislation.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: My Lords, last week I presented a Petition purporting to be signed by the Roman Catholic Archbishop and, I believe, all his clergy, and by upwards of 12,000 inhabitants of Glasgow in favour of this Bill. The purport of it was correctly stated in the principal London journal; but in the Scotch journals the Petition is stated to have been against the Bill, and I have this morning received an urgent request that I should explain that the Petition was in favour of the Bill now before your Lordships. I do not know why I had the honour of being charged with that Petition. I apprehend that those who sent it to me thought I also was in favour of the Bill. I have never hitherto taken any part in the discussions on this subject; but this circumstance, and some other circumstances, make me feel it a duty to state, as shortly as I can, the grounds on which I shall vote against the Bill. I have endeavoured to look at the question uninfluenced by mere popular prejudice—as some noble Lords may think it—and not more than duly influenced by the public feeling of the country with which I am particularly connected. It is the great privilege of Members of this House that we are free at least from that bond which unites Members of the House of Commons with their constituents, and makes them in many cases feel bound to vote with
  944
  them, even if they do not agree with the opinions which their constituents hold. On the other hand, I believe that the Members of this House feel they are bound to consider the public feeling of the country and to act not merely as independent individuals, but to consider the general feeling of the great community with which they are connected as intimately, as really, and as truly as representative men as the Members of the House of Commons. And therefore I am not ashamed to say that I should attach some weight to the feeling of my country—I mean of the great mass of the people of Scotland—in giving the vote I shall give to-night. But, I repeat, I have endeavoured to look at this question in the coldest light of reason—and I am the more bound to do so because I am convinced that mere feeling is no safe guide in these matters. I have been astonished at the language held by some noble Lords who have supported this Bill, and which has been so well commented upon by the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Peterborough) who recently addressed your Lordships with his usual eloquence and power. They have talked of the light of reason and the light of nature; but I say, with the right rev. Prelate, that in such matters as these, reason and nature require guidance from a higher source, and we cannot trust our reason or feelings alone in these matters. Well, then, the first proposition I venture to lay down is this—that the State has a voice in this matter; that the Parliaments of the country have not only a right, but it is a necessary part of their duty, to make up their minds as to the legitimate limits of the prohibitions of marriage. Noble Lords may call that a mere truism—they may say that nobody denies that proposition; but it does away with a great many arguments which have been used in favour of this Bill. It has been argued as if it were a matter of tyranny to prohibit men from marrying those whom their own conscience, and the religious body to which they belong, justify them in marrying. But if that doctrine be admitted by Parliament, Parliament will be obliged to adopt from year to year the fluctuating opinions and conscience of the various religious sects. And what are those sects? At the present moment the United States are about to send an army to deal with

  945
  the community which has sprung up among them and which has professed not only to legalize, but to dignify and sanctify the practice of polygamy; and remember, the United States have a right to reproach Europe with the Mormon population, because it has been recruited not from the old inhabitants of the United States, but from the Christian communities of the Old World. You find men of high education, of great ability, who, having laid aside the restraints of Christian feeling and law, have declared that polygamy ought to be allowed and practised. I say, then, it is the duty and function of the State to adopt some principle in regard to the limit to be placed on the prohibition of marriage, and that it cannot allow each sect, as it arises, to judge of this matter. The State must, lay down the Law of Marriage—and not only lay it down, but enforce it with the heaviest of all penalties—that of pronouncing bastardy against the children who are the issue of those marriages; which it prohibits. Your Lordships must, therefore, set aside this accusation of tyranny, and the reproaches that have been raised against the existing law, because of the severe consequences visited upon those who break it. The first proposition, therefore, which I have to submit to your Lordships is, that the State must determine the principle of the Marriage Law, and that the State must enforce its enactment by the severest of penalties. Well, then, it being the duty and necessary function of the State to lay down the Law of Marriage, my second proposition is that it is desirable, above all things, that that law should rest upon a clear, definite, and distinct principle. And here I must say I agree in every word that fell from the right rev. Prelate on the Bench behind me. I will not attempt a reply to the lay Lords who, in this debate, have dabbled in theology, and who, I must say, have thrown fresh light upon the necessity of scientific treatment in theological matters. I will not go into the minutiæ of texts; but I say that the law of England professes to be a Christian law; it professes to be founded upon the laws of Christianity: and if you can find a principle which has been acknowledged in ancient times by the Jewish Church, and by the general voice and consent of the Christian Church in later times, and if you are in search of some principle
  946
  on which you are to found your legislation, surely I put it on the lowest ground when I say that it is not unreasonable that you should take that general principle, which has been sanctified by the Divine law, and which is, at least, consonant and consistent with the higher and purer principles of Christianity. Whatever cavil you may have about individual passages of that famous chapter of Leviticus—and into this subject I will not enter—I defy any man to deny that the general principle of the Jewish law was this—first, that no man should marry his near of kin, and, secondly, that the near of kin of his wife should count as near of kin to himself. That unquestionably was the general principle of the Jewish law, and I maintain that it is sanctified and raised to the higher pitch of authority by the general precepts of Christianity. Now, when I contrast such a clear and definite law and principle on which we may safely stand with the language of our opponents, I am utterly at a loss to find any clear or definite principle on their side on which our law is to be based. I was rather amused to hear my noble Friend who has just sat down apparently adopt the doctrine that the State is not entitled to prohibit anything not specifically and in words prohibited under the Christian dispensation. If we are to go on that principle—if we are to demand chapter and verse for every prohibition—we have no right to prohibit polygamy—we have no right to prohibit or denounce slavery—or many other of the worst forms of error into which men have fallen and may hereafter fall. We must go to the general principles of Christianity; and surely it is not too much to say we may be guided in this matter by the general assent and consent of the Christian Church ever since it was founded. I do not use that as a mere argument in debate. I am fully convinced of this truth—that if we pass this Bill we must go much further and break down the general principle of prohibitions under the table of affinity. It may be perfectly true that there are not so many cases in which men may desire to marry other relations of their wife than her sister; but there are other cases by no means impossible, and the possibility of which it is almost disgusting to contemplate—such as marriage with the daughter of a wife by a former

  947
  husband; and precisely the same arguments of social convenience might be used in regard to such marriages as with regard to the case now before us. Who so natural a guardian to your children as their own half-sister? Oh, but it is said there is a natural repugnance to such marriages. So there is, and God be thanked for it! but change the law, and that feeling will be altered. When people talk of natural feelings and natural repugnancies, they speak entirely unconscious that they were built on the long habits of Christian legislation; and I say that you have no security whatever, when the prohibition is broken down in respect to this particular marriage, that you will not be obliged to legalize those other marriages against which, at present, you revolt. These are formidable consequences—consequences which we should face; and I object to the suggestion that we are not to mind what might come afterwards, but should leave others to deal with cases as they arise. Your Lordships are bound to consider the principles you adopt in legislation and the consequences to which they may lead. Many noble Lords will admit that I am no pedant in matters of general principle. I am of opinion that abstract principles are to be treated like fire and water—as excellent servants but bad masters. I admit also that in matters of legislation you must consider the feelings of the people you legislate for; but I am not convinced that at the present moment the general feeling of this country, or of Scotland, or of Ireland, is in favour of legalizing these marriages. I wish to say a word with regard to an argument used by a powerful section of the community—our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects—and I will refer more particularly to a document professing to contain the opinion and advice of the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland. Having now the honour to address some noble Lords belonging to the Roman Catholic Church, I can assure them that no one can be more desirous than myself to speak respectfully of the religious opinions of other men, however widely I may differ from them; and I fully feel the inexpediency and want of taste which would be shown in discussing in their presence purely theological questions on which disagreements might arise. But in re-
  948
  gard to the relations of the Roman Church with the civil law, and in regard to the pretensions now put forward by the Roman Catholic priesthood to deal as they please with the law of nations and with their relations to the civil law, I not only desire but am determined to maintain absolute freedom of language in debate; and I cannot help stating that I look with extreme jealousy and dislike—I will use a stronger word, and say with some indignation at the language used on this subject by Roman Catholics. The document to which I wish to refer states—
  "I beg, also, to state that 88 of our clergy here, which include our vicars general and parish priests, have signed a Petition for presentation to the House of Peers, and we are extremely anxious that such marriages"—(and I particularly wish your Lordships to observe what follows)—"when they have received the sanction of the Church, by dispensation granted, should be valid for all civil purposes."
  Now, the Roman Catholic Church holds with the Church of England, that such marriages are illegal. I will not quibble as to the sense in which illegality is asserted; but I will assume that the Roman Catholic Church forbids such marriages for some good reason; either because they are inconsistent with the principles of Divine law, or else because they are inexpedient on social considerations. If, then, the Roman Catholics will come forward and say that they have been wrong in these prohibitions—that they have a new light on the nature of the Christian law, and on this ground desire a change—it will be quite a different thing; but I am not willing to be told by them that the laws of England must be altered not because they thought them wrong, but in order that their special exceptions and their priestly dispensations may no longer be checkmated by the civil laws of the land. That is language which the Roman Catholics have no right to make use of, and I, for one, will never support any change demanded on such grounds. I only know of one argument of any force in favour of the Bill, and that is not an argument of principle. The Bill rests upon no principle whatever. The present law does rest upon a principle; but when we depart from it, we can have no principle whatever except that of sweeping away all the prohibitions of affinity. There is, however, some force in the argument founded upon the general

  949
  failure in those feelings of the people, which are the foundation of all legislation. I believe that the extent to which that argument applies has been greatly exaggerated; but I cannot conceal from myself that when we have eminent right rev. Prelates, great theologians, some of the most distinguished Members of this House, and large majorities in the other House affirming the legitimacy of these marriages, I do not deny the probability that public feeling may be changing, and that ultimately we may be unable to maintain this law. But I am not yet convinced of the change. Certainly the vast majority of the people of Scotland still hold this measure in abhorrence, and I join in the request and suggestion thrown out by my noble Friend behind me that this matter should be considered not in parts, but as a whole; that we shall not be invited first to give our assent to one step and then to another; but that we shall deal with these prohibitions as a whole, and in the full light of the investigation which ought to precede such a change. If such a general change as the abandonment of the whole table of affinity were to be proposed, however, I believe that the moral feeling of the country would be revolted at many of the consequences which would ensue; and until that inquiry has been made, and until the public feeling has been tested in such a manner, I shall, without the shadow of a doubt, say "Not-Content" to the passing of this Bill.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, it was of the highest importance, as far as it was possible, especially in such a question as marriage, in which it was desirable to attach a religious sanction to the bond of union, to have religion and the State go together, and it would be a great evil if on such a matter Parliament permitted what almost all Churches had forbidden. What would be the effect of the change on the poorer classes? A case might arise where a poor man wanted to marry his deceased wife's sister, and he went to the clergyman, who told him not to do so, and, perhaps, might, if he solemnized the marriage, refuse to administer the Sacrament to him. Was, then, the man to set the law of the State against the advice of his religious teacher? He saw the extreme evil of bringing these two consciences into conflict, and on this ground,
  950
  apart from other considerations, he wished to keep the Law of Marriage such as it had hitherto been maintained by all Christian Churches.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am thankful for an opportunity of expressing my gratitude to the noble Lord who moved the second reading of this Bill (Lord Houghton) for the tone in which he discussed the subject, which was very different from that assumed on other occasions, when a Bill with this object has been brought forward. I have been accustomed to hear that those who opposed the Bill were bigots and Puseyists; and when the use of these terms was found to be inconvenient, because there happened to be a number of right rev. Prelates, including the late Archbishop Sumner, among the opponents of the measure, we were accused of being irreclaimable Tories. It was, therefore, a great satisfaction to my mind to be told by the noble Lord who I opened this debate that he considered the question entirely free from all party I bias. In that light I have always regarded it; I have always considered it a subject elevated far above the atmosphere of party: but if this were a matter of party alone, I would never have shrunk, from any supposed religious prejudice, which I confess to—if prejudice it be—from assisting my fellow-men of every faith and persuasion, Roman Catholic or Jewish, in obtaining those rights which I think to be their due. But this is not a question of party. It is a question which concerns mankind and our own great country; and, to my mind, upon its determination depends either the beginning of the decadence of England or the maintenance, in some degree, of the high moral position which we have hitherto held among the nations of the world. It is from that point of view I cannot bring my mind to say "Content" to any Bill to alter that law under which the intercourse between man and woman has been maintained ever since this became a Christian country. Without fear of the retort which I may expect from the noble Lord who opened, the debate, I say I am one of those whom it is hopeless to attempt to convince—one of those having a religious view whom the noble Lord said he could I not expect to shake. I do not disavow the impression on my own mind—but I do not therefore feel incapacitated from

  951
  arguing this as a question affecting the welfare of the country and the happiness of all parties concerned, including, I say, most especially those unhappy women who, in a manner which I can hardly characterize with indignation adequate to my feelings, have been betrayed into placing themselves in a position in which men ought never to have placed them. Taking the line I have always done in political matters, I proceed to explain why I advocate the rejection of this measure, when it has been adopted in the other House by so large a majority. If I believed, however repugnant the Bill might be to my own feelings, that it had been calmly and deliberately discussed there, and carefully examined; if the whole subject had been deliberately discussed at public meetings, in the ordinary way in which great political questions are discussed in order to obtain the opinions of the country; if you had had a General Election which had given the constituencies an opportunity of expressing their opinions freely and decidedly; if the organs of public opinion, even on one side of polities, had supported this measure—instead of which the newspaper that is most read and that generally takes the Liberal side in politics advocates the rejection of it, while others take a similar course—if all these had concurred, and if the promoters of the Bill had knocked at the door of this House supported in that way—though I could not have supported the Bill, it would have been a different thing whether I should have exhorted your Lordships—as I now most earnestly do—to reject it. But nothing of the kind has occurred, and I will endeavour to show your Lordships, very briefly and very plainly, what amount of proper consideration the Bill has received, by whom it is promoted, and on what grounds they have proceeded. I have watched this measure for a long while. I had occasion to discuss and oppose it in "another place" in 1848. On that occasion I had the support of Mr. Roebuck and of Mr. Shiel, a Roman Catholic. The state of the case was really this—A certain number of persons, well knowing the state of the law, had induced those whom they ought to have protected with a brother's love to place themselves in the position which has evoked the cry of distress read to us by the noble Lord. That cry of distress is
  952
  not the only one which has reached my ears. I am very far from wishing to utter a single word which should seem to indicate a want of sympathy with the writer of that letter; but I have also heard expressions of the deepest agony from those who, if this Bill be passed, must be banished from their homes and from their nephews and nieces to whom they are attached. It has been said that this argument is ungenerous and indelicate; but is it, or is it not, the custom in England for a woman to live in the same house with a man who may marry her, and without any other woman? I say, fearlessly, that English society has not tolerated a gentleman living in the same house with a lady whom he might marry—excepting, of course, cases in which there was great disparity of age; and I say that is the natural sense and feeling of English society at this time. In such matters as these it may specially be said—"Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall," and it is with the view of keeping the home pure that society has laid down those rules and regulations which constitute its security. I believe you propose to make a change in no way favourable to the objects you propose to benefit, which is deeply distressing to a much larger section of the community, and which is wholly uncalled for by any real need. One of the arguments used in support of a change of the law is, that the sister-in-law is the best guardian and protector of her nephews and nieces. But if, as I believe you will, you drive out 99 sisters-in-law from bereaved families and give a stepmother to the hundreth, I do not think you do much for the protection of the children you commiserate. We have been told that the relief proposed by this Bill is a real and serious want of the poor. Of all the hypocrisy I have ever heard on this subject there is nothing so monstrous as that this is a poor man's question. I know something about the poor, and I am confident they will be the class least affected by the Bill. The poor marry early, and it is very seldom among the poor that the widower finds a sister of his wife unmarried. I am told that in the northern manufacturing districts, owing to accidents and the unhealthiness of employment, husbands die more rapidly than in the agricultural or ordinary town districts; and it may happen in these manufacturing districts in one

  953
  case in a hundred that the wife may die while a sister is unmarried. But it is interesting to get at facts. Everybody has a right to make philanthropic statements, and no one likes to be cross-examined upon such statements. The first time I opposed this Bill "elsewhere" a clergyman wrote to me saying that—"You have ventured to say that the poor do not desire this Bill. I know 20 or 30 cases in which widowers were ready to marry their deceased wives' sisters." I replied that I would recant all I had said if he would state, on his own authority, that he was prepared to furnish names and addresses so that I might inquire into the facts. I never heard anything more from him. I now come to the reports got up—I can use no other expression—by the persons who favour those marriages. A Royal Commission was appointed, which took the information presented to them; but, of course, had not the means of seeking out for information on the other side, while two able solicitors were regularly retained, and furnished information which supported their view in an elaborate form. In this way we got the numbers—1,608 of these marriages among the rich, and 40 among the poor—a proportion of Kid to 4, or 1 in 40. I believe that is something near the proportion among these classes; for I myself, several years ago, took some little pains to inquire in my own neighbourhood, in two parishes containing 60,000 people and 40,000 poor, and, after employing a very active person to search, I could only hear of one such marriage. However, one of the newspapers, which objected very strongly to my view, said that a City missionary, who had made inquiry in the same district, had found two more. So after scouring the whole field we found three such marriages among 40,000 poor. But then the anonymous gentleman, who is chiefly concerned in this agitation, published a statement in which he thinks he has got me completely, for he says that in these parishes of St. Margaret and St. John he has found 102 such marriages. He does not say among the poor, and as there are 60,000 residents, of whom 40,000 are poor persons, I think it is likely he is right; for your Lordships will see that the proportion of 100 to 3, or 1 in 33, is not very different from the proportion ascertained by the Royal Commission. In the face
  954
  of facts like this it is idle to talk of this being a poor man's question. But I will tell your Lordships what is a poor man's question, and that is, the sort of house in which poor men usually live. Considering how miserable are their abodes, and how serious are the temptations to which they are exposed there, I am astonished that there has not I been more intercourse of this description. I am sorry to say I have found as many cases of actual intercourse with their own sisters as with their wives' sisters. Such evils arise entirely from our not taking care that poor people should be better housed. But it supplies no argument in favour of this Bill. I come now to the origin of the Bill, and the reasons which induce me—acting, as I believe, in perfect consistency with the views I have always expressed respecting the position of this to the other House of Parliament—which induce me to ask your Lordships to stay this Bill in order that it may be further considered. The noble Marquess who spoke early in the debate (the Marquess of Lansdowne) said he did not care whether the Bill were carried in the House of Commons by agitation or not. Well, the fact that a Bill is carried by agitation is nothing against it, for the Corn Laws were repealed, and the Reform Bill was carried, by agitation; and if we had heard Mr. Bright, who made such splendid speeches on both those topics, addressing large sympathizing public meetings on the grievous wrongs caused by prohibiting marriage with a deceased wife's sister, we should, perhaps, be guided to the conclusion that the people wished for a change in the law. But I have known no public meetings of the sort, though I have attended some on the other side. Lecturers, indeed, there have been, I believe, sent by the society which has set all this in motion. And now a word or two about this society. There were two or three very wealthy men who got themselves into this scrape, and they formed what was called "a Committee" for improving the Marriage Law. That Committee had existed for 24 or 25 years. Rather late in the day—I think after the last time this Bill was thrown out by a narrow majority—we thought it time to see whether we could not diffuse some information on the other side. We got hold of the publications of this body. They were always anonymous, and still

  955
  are; but we put out our names—some 80 of them, and among them was the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of St. David's, who has been quoted this evening as being opposed to the Scriptural prohibition of these marriages. No doubt, the quotation by the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Ripon) was a perfectly accurate one; but the fact remains that the Bishop of St. David's, taking the ground of social expediency, actively opposed this measure. My Lords, we found a systematic misrepresentation of the law by this society, which declared that these marriages were lawful in 1835, when Lord Lyndhurst's Bill was introduced, at the instance of some noble Lord—that was the form in which it was generally put—and then they were for the first time made illegal. Now, this was a gross misrepresentation. From the year 600 to the present time there has never been a period in the law of England in which it was more lawful to marry a wife's sister than a man's own sister or mother. These are not my words; they are the words of Lord Wensleydale in giving the decision of this House in a well-known case. The facts are these—The ecclesiastical Courts in this country administered the law with reference to the matrimonial contract. The lay Courts were naturally jealous of the power of the ecclesiastical Courts in so serious a matter. They felt that their privileges were in jeopardy, because the ecclesiastical Courts, by these means, had the power of bastardizing children and putting inheritances in jeopardy, and therefore they said that they would never allow ecclesiastical Courts to question the validity of marriages made in facie ecclesiœ, after the death of the parents. There thus existed no means of bastardizing the children and of declaring such a marriage void. But the marriage was void, and Lord Wensleydale's opinion was correct. I now come to the exceptions made by Lord Lyndhurst's Act. It is no part of my duty to justify Lord Lyndhurst's Act, nor have I on my conscience any concern with the passing of it; but I may inform your Lordships that that Bill did not render valid any past marriages of this nature. No such thing is said by the Bill. The title of it, being a Bill to render valid certain marriages, may mislead; but there is nothing in the Bill on the subject. This is done—For the future all mar-
  956
  riages are made ipso facto void within the prohibited degrees; and then there is a clause—and in every way it is a curious clause—which says, as regards the past, that no marriages within the degrees of affinity shall be questioned, though the parties may both be living—it does not say that such marriages are lawful, but that they shall not be questioned, except where a suit is pending. The result is, that if a man had married his wife's niece, or his stepmother, or, as in a case which a clergyman communicated to me, his own son's widow—and he had a child by her—all these marriages would have been protected by Lord Lyndhurst's Bill. The next thing which the anonymous society did justifies the indignation that I cannot help feeling at their conduct. They asserted that it was lawful to contract this marriage abroad, and that such a marriage would be valid here. The only right rev. Prelate who has spoken in favour of this Bill (the Bishop of Ripon) said that somehow or other, after Lord Lyndhurst's Bill, these marriages abroad became much more frequent. I can tell him that this "somehow" was the result of the scandalous conduct of this society. They quoted a dictum of Lord Stowell, that a marriage which was good in one country was good everywhere; and, as a general proposition of law, that is incontrovertible. In the interval, however, which elapsed between Lord Stowell's having said that and these pamphlets being circulated, a decision was pronounced in the Duke of Sussex's case, and there it was clearly laid down that, although the law, as stated by Lord Stowell, was, as a general proposition, correct, yet that it was subject to the exception that a marriage was void if it was opposed to the law of the country from which the contracting parties proceeded with the intention to evade it. Notwithstanding, however, that the law had been clearly laid down in that case, the society still continued to issue these advertisements, although our society had sent to them a statement as to the falsehood and impropriety of that which they circulated. I look upon all this, therefore, as being little less than a conspiracy so far as the poor unhappy woman is concerned who is imposed upon by such proceedings. The man who takes a woman to a country for such a purpose has much to answer for; but this society

  957
  has much more. The society, however, has large funds, and has been very active. The members of the society have, we have been informed, been meeting everywhere, attending elections, and turning the scale at some of those elections, which they have been able to do by exerting themselves to procure some eight or 10 votes, when the numbers on each side have been pretty nearly balanced. I may say that Lord Campbell and Lord Cranworth, took the same view as myself, and belonged to our society; we were not idle, for we, too, did a little electioneering when we could. But, then, our proceedings were perfectly legitimate and above-board; while these other gentlemen, with their anonymous pamphlets, continued their agitation in the dark: the result being that they at last succeeded in getting a majority of the House of Commons to send up a Bill to this House in 1859. It was thrown out in this House—and this affords a reason for asking your Lordships to follow the same course now: for after this rejection the Bill was not brought forward at all in 1860. In 1861, however, the information afforded by our society produced its effect, and the Bill was rejected by a majority of 5 votes in the House of Commons. In 1862 we had a majority of 148 against 116. And is it merely because there is a majority in favour of the Bill in the present House of Commons that you are to assume that the people of England generally are in its favour? Last year that majority was 99; but this year it was only 70. These are matters which it is well to inquire into; but I shall not now pursue them any further. As to the religious difficulty, I do not think it necessary to enter into it on the present occasion. If we turn to heathen nations, which have no Bibles, we find that their traditions have stood them in good stead as to what was proper and right in these cases. My noble and learned Friend (Lord Westbury) has said that we are laying a heavy yoke on the people of England; but I contend that it is imposing no yoke on a man to tell him where he is in danger, where it is right he should be protected and the home fenced and guarded. It is only when he has the peculiar tendency for which this Bill is intended to provide that he need have any occasion to suffer. But, on the other hand, as matters now stand, the vast majority of the homes of England
  958
  are fenced and protected by the law. Every country in the world has fenced its homes. The fences may be of different kinds; but, whether by revealed religion or traditional religion, they have been so guarded. Which are the great tragedies of the Greek stage? Œdipus and Phœdra—and do they not turn on the incestuous violation of the home? St. Paul tells us that the case of a man having his father's wife, which is a marriage of affinity, was unheard of among the heathens. The Romans did not allow a man to marry his niece; and when a Roman Emperor (Claudius) unhappily desired to contract a marriage of that kind, he set about it by getting one of his flatterers to use arguments almost identical with those which are urged in support of this Bill. The flatterer said—
  "At enim, nova nobis iu fratrum filias conjugia: sed aliis gentibus sollennia nec lege ullâ prohibita. Morem accommodari prout conducat, et tore hoc quoque in his quæ mox usurpentur."
  This is exactly what is said in favour of this Bill—it is new to us; but other nations have adopted it, and it is necessary to accommodate our manners to theirs. Now, I do not wish to assert that we are a perfect and pure nation; but I do think that we value the sanctity of home—and that is a great thing. We are somewhat in the habit of washing our dirty linen in the face of all the world; but we need not be afraid of comparing the sanctity of our domestic relations with any other country. In Spain the Roman Catholic Church allows an uncle to marry his niece; but here, in England, such a thing is not sanctioned. It was under Alexander Borgia that the dispensation for a man to marry his deceased wife's sister was first introduced in Portugal; but the Parliament of Paris, as to France, subsequently decided that it was beyond the Pope's power to grant such a dispensation. In the Code Napoléon this particular kind of marriage was prohibited; but, afterwards, a clause was introduced under the Orleans dynasty allowing it to be contracted if a dispensation were previously obtained. As the noble Duke (the Duke of Maiiborough) had said—with regard to degrees of consanguinity and affinity it is obvious that you must draw the line somewhere; and why should we disturb the line which has been laid down for 1,200 years? It is obvious that there is great danger in disturbing the ex-

  959
  isting restrictions, unless we are prepared to substitute something better in their place; but this Bill would unsettle everything and settle nothing, and it would not give satisfaction to the poor, but only to a comparatively small number of rich persons, who have entered into these engagements with their eyes open, by the advice of an anonymous society which has thought proper to mislead them. At any rate, if the question is to be opened, let it be done thoroughly, so that we may arrive at a settlement upon it that will be likely to last for a century at least. The passage of the present Bill will not effect such a settlement. I think it most necessary that a Select Committee—which has hitherto been refused in the House of Commons—should take the whole subject into consideration. By rejecting the Bill on this occasion your Lordships will enable the subject to be thoroughly reviewed, in all its branches, next year, and I therefore hope that the Amendment of the noble Duke will be carried.
  EARL GRANVILLE: Your Lordships will readily believe that it is not an agreeable thing for me to address you on this occasion, since I must speak in support of a measure with respect to which two of my Colleagues have expressed themselves in language of such emphatic disapprobation. I do not wish to intrude myself upon your Lordships; but having frequently voted in favour of this measure, I do not like to give—as I have done on previous occasions—a perfectly silent vote. Without travelling over the arguments which have already been so ably discussed during this debate, I desire to say a few words of protest against some of the reasons which have been brought forward this evening to induce your Lordships to reject the Bill. It is necessary, I think, that we should have those reasons placed very clearly before us, when it is proposed to reject a measure which is ardently desired by a not inconsiderable section of our fellow-subjects, and which has been twice approved by the House of Commons as the representatives of the people. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has, indeed, made some remarks on the fluctuating character of the Divisions in the House of Commons. I am afraid I cannot agree on this point with my noble and learned Colleague, and still less with the right rev.
  960
  Prelate who asked your Lordships not to think that the House of Commons was the representative of the people on a question like this. Now, I must point out to my noble and learned Friend that, although it is true that the majority on the Division List this year was absolutely smaller than it was last year, yet it was relatively larger compared with the numbers in the House, and that the majority will be found to represent an enormously larger number of constituents than the minority. In the absence of other tests, I am old-fashioned enough to think that the opinion of the country is, on the whole, very faithfully reflected by the House of Commons. My right rev. Friend (the Bishop of Peterborough) thought that taking its opinion too blindly would lead us to have recourse to a plébiscite; but I believe, on the contrary, that our confidence in Parliament will enable us to avoid such a violent measure as that. All sorts of arguments have been employed against this Bill. It has been objected to, first, on a religious ground, that it is contrary to the Word of God; secondly, because it is alleged to be contrary to the law of the Church; and, thirdly, because it is inexpedient in itself. In regard to the first objection, I am bound to say it appears to me that this debate has entirely destroyed every vestige of the argument. It is impossible, indeed, to adduce that argument, considering that 35 years ago the whole Bench of Bishops voted in favour of legalizing marriages which we are now told are contrary to the law of God. My right rev. Friend—a Prelate of great learning and moderation—tells us that the Levitical law denounces these marriages; but another right rev. Prelate declares that that law is in favour of such marriages; while a third stated that, after a careful study of the subject, he could not come to any conclusion with regard to it. He said that, putting aside the Old Testament altogether, he thought the words of our Saviour, as recorded in the New Testament, respecting a man and his wife being one flesh, gave a sanction to his own view of the question: he consequently argued that a man who married his deceased wife's sister would actually marry his own sister. I wish, however, to put this case to him. If the wife's sister be the husband's sister she must also be the sister to the hus-

  961
  band's brother, and therefore it is not competent for the husband's brother to marry her—that is, two brothers may not marry two sisters; although this is permitted by the existing law. The right rev. Prelate did not admit that we were to be so much afraid of imposing the principles of the Church of England upon the other communities in this country, but said it would be very hard if we inflicted injustice and hardship upon that Church. He said that if we pass this Bill we shall oblige a clergyman to hurt his conscience, by his not being able to refuse the rites of the Church to those who wish to contract a marriage that in his opinion is not lawful. I imagine that the consciences of clergymen have been tried in other ways, and once, when the law was passed to enable civil marriages to be solemnized; while some clergymen, I believe, hold that first cousins ought not to marry, and do not like to be called upon to marry persons in that relation. But, my Lords, you must not legislate in a large way merely to avoid scruples which may be exaggerated, and I must consider that the conscience of a clergyman is not really hurt if he carries out that which is the law of the land. What I think is the most important part of the matter is the question—"Is this Bill just and expedient?" The noble Duke (the Duke of Marlborough) has argued that if, in this instance, we make a concession, it will be impossible to limit the demands that may be made upon us; but I do not admit that we shall break down any principle by passing this Bill. The Levitical law is not clearly understood, and there is certainly no concurrence of opinion among the whole body of Christians; and, therefore, we should not be kept in an iron mould with regard to legislation by that book. A large portion of the speech of my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack was directed against the society which promotes this measure, and I cannot help thinking that he forgot himself, and spoke rather as an active member of the rival society than as one who discharges a duty in your Lordships' House. Everything that he has said against that society was, in my opinion, quite irrelevant to the question that we have to decide. I do not care whether this measure is promoted by rich men or not; because I remember that some of the
  962
  greatest benefits that have been effected by the legislation of this country have been brought forward by small bodies of rich men. What I ask myself is, whether it is just and expedient that we should adopt the measure that is proposed to us to-day. So far from any blame attaching to those gentlemen, I think that when they found themselves and their poorer fellow-subjects under a grievous restriction, and one the justice of which is not believed by some of the most learned men in both Houses of Parliament, they ought to have strained every nerve to carry a measure of relief in this way. I know that your Lordships do not approve of any reference to the "intelligent foreigner;" but when you have a question of this sort, and you know that in Catholic Prance, in Protestant Germany, and in perfectly unsectarian America, there exists such a law as you are now asked to pass, and that no evil such as is predicted has resulted from the change that has been experienced in those countries, you ought, I think, to regard what has been said in favour of this Bill. My noble and learned Friend talked of wishing to retain the purity of home; but that is almost begging the question, for will anybody pretend that the existing law prevents a profligate or vicious man from going further than he ought in his intimacy with some of his near relations? Can anyone bring any instance against the evidence that has been brought from those other countries, where the state of the law does not, in the slightest degree, affect the relations between husbands and their wives' sisters? It is begging the question to talk about the purity of home, and I entirely deny that all the weight of argument is on the side of those who wish to retain the present law. My noble and learned Friend said that there were fewer of such marriages among the poor than among the rich; but what does that mean? Why it means that the richer, the more intellectual, and the more respectable people marry, while the poorer are told by the clergy that there is a difficulty to their marrying; and to what does that lead? The poor man does that which I believe is not strictly illegal, but is most certainly contrary to the law of God. My noble and learned Friend spoke of his experience among the poor; and no one has, in the midst of a labo-

  963
  rious life, done so much for the poor both in the metropolis and elsewhere. But I cannot compare his experience with that of the pastoral heads of some of the large parishes in the metropolis, who have signed Petitions, declaring that they are obliged to ask for this measure to relieve them from the enormous amount of immorality that is created by the present law. My noble and learned Friend told us what were the habits of ancient Rome; but I think that the reference to a law which is now in successful operation in the greater part of Christendom is more to the purpose than an allusion to the custom which prevailed in a heathen State. I sincerely vote for this Bill, because I believe it to be wise, expedient, and, above all, just.
  LORD HOUGHTON, in reply, said, that so much had been said in the interesting debate that it would be impossible for him to summarize it in the time at his disposal. The sole object of the Bill was to bring into harmony the law and the conscience of the people of this country; and he asked their Lordships, as wise legislators, to grant what the people desire. He left this matter in the hands of their Lordships in the full conviction that, by passing the Bill, they would be doing nothing which would tend to destroy the existing security of domestic life, while they would be complying with the opinion of an enormous majority of the House of Commons. If the measure were now rejected, it would come again before their Lordships, when the voice of the people would be heard still more strongly in its favour.
  On Question, That ("now") stand part of the Motion? their Lordships divided:—Contents 73; Not-Contents 77: Majority 4.

  CONTENTS.

  Beaufort, D.

  Ellesmere, E.

  Cleveland, D.

  Fitzwilliam, E.

  Saint Albans, D.

  Fortescue, E.

  Granville, E.

  Normanby, M.

  Grey, E.

  Townshend, M.

  Kimberley, E.

  Lichfield, E.

  Abingdon, E.

  Minto, E.

  Albemarle, E.

  Morley, E.

  Camperdown, E.

  Portsmouth, E.

  Cawdor, E.

  Clarendon, E.

  Bolingbroke and St. John, V.

  De Grey and Ripon, E.

  De La Warr, E.

  Exmouth, V.

  Derby, E.

  Falmouth, V.

  Ellenborough, E.

  Lifford, V. [Teller.]

  964

  Powerscourt, V.

  Meredyth, L. (L. Athlumney.)

  Ripon, Bp.

  Monson, L.

  Abercromby, L.

  Mont Eagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

  Balinhard, L. (E. Southesk.)

  Mostyn, L.

  Northbrook, L.

  Belper, L.

  Overstone, L.

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

  Penzance, L.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

  Calthorpe, L.

  Camoys, L.

  Robartes, L.

  Carew, L.

  Romilly, L.

  Carrington, L.

  Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)

  Dacre, L.

  Ebury, L.

  Seaton, L.

  Erskine, L.

  Sheffield, L. (E. Sheffield.)

  Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

  Houghton, L. [Teller.]

  Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

  Hylton, L.

  Keane, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Lawrence, L.

  Suffield, L.

  Leigh, L.

  Templemore, L.

  Lismore, L. (V. Lismore.)

  Truro, L.

  Vernon, L.

  Lurgan, L.

  Wentworth, I,.

  Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

  Westbury, L.

  Wolverton, L.

  Wrottesley, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Hatherley, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Chichester, Bp.

  Ely, Bp.

  Gloucester and Bristol, Bp.

  Marlborough, D. [Teller.]

  Lichfield, Bp.

  Northumberland, D.

  Lincoln, Bp.

  Richmond, D.

  Llandaff, Bp.

  Somerset, D.

  London, Bp.

  Wellington, D.

  Oxford, Bp.

  Peterborough, Bp.

  Exeter, M.

  Rochester, Bp.

  Salisbury, M.

  Salisbury, Bp.

  Winchester, Bp.

  Aylesford, E,

  Bathurst, E.

  Boston, L.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Buckhurst, L.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Cairns, L.

  Devon, E.

  Chelmsford, L.

  Effingham, E.

  Churston, L.

  Erne, E.

  Colchester, L.

  Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

  Colonsay, L.

  Colville of Culross, L.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Congleton, L.

  Harewood, E.

  Crewe, L.

  Harrowby, E.

  Dinevor, L.

  Kellie, E.

  Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

  Lanesborough, E.

  Manvers, E.

  Fitzwalter, L.

  Nelson, E.

  Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

  Romney, E.

  Rosse, E.

  Grantley, L.

  Selkirk, E.

  Headley, L.

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Heytesbury, L.

  Sommers, E.

  Kesteven, L.

  Lyttelton, L.

  Eversley, V.

  Lyveden, L. [Teller.]

  Hawarden, V.

  Northwick, L.

  Oranmore and Browne, L.

  Bangor, Bp.

  Chester, Bp.

  Penrhyn, L.

  965

  Redesdale, L.

  Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

  Ross, L. (E. Glasgow.)

  Sherborne, L.

  Strathspey, L. (E. Seafield.)

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

  Sinclair, L.

  Sondes, L.

  Wynford, L.

  Resolved in the Negative; and Bill to be read 2a on this day six months.

  ECCLESIASTICAL TITLES ACT REPEAL BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to repeal an Act for preventing the assumption of certain Ecclesiastical Titles in respect of places in the United Kingdom—Was presented by The LORD PRIVY SEAL; read 1a. (No. 105.)
  House adjourned at a quarter to Twelve o'clock, 'till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.