The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1879-05-10 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

In the HOLISM Or LOW, May 4, the Marquis of Salisbury
made an interestieg statement, showing the progress made
in the direction of carrying out the stipulations of the Berlin
Treaty.
Lord Thurlow rose to call the attention of her Majesty's
Government to a petition again addressed by working men
to Parliament this seselon, praying "for the opening of the
British Museum, the South Keneington and Bethnal Green
Museums, and the National GaDery, to the people on Sun-
day afternoons," and to move the following resolution
'That this House, having observed the excellent retinas that
have followed upon the opening of such institutions on
Sunday afternoons in Dublin, Birmingham, Manchester,
Middlesborough, Hampton Court. Kew, &c., is of opinion
tbat it is highly desirable that the prayer of this petition
ahould be granted, even if only in part and as a tentative
measure, in order to provide the working classes of
London with an alternative to the public-house on this
many inclement Sunday afternoons when places of out-
otdoors recreation, such as the public parks, are of no
avail for the purposes of health and relaxation." The
noble lord reminded the House and the Government that
numerous petitions had been presented during the last 20
years to effect the object he had in view, some of which
had been signed by upwards of 25,000 persons, and he
called attention to the answers of the various Ministers to
deputations which had waited upon them, and pointed
out that the late Sir W. Stirling Maxwell, who was him-
self a trustee of the British Museum, voted in favour of
Its being opened on Sundays What was a working man
,to do at present on a wet Sunday afternoon? If the British
Museum and similar places were opened on Sunday he would
have excellent places of resort, and it had been shown ty the
experience of the opening of the Grosvenor Gallery, which
had been opened by the noble duke, and by the experience
attendant upon the opening of museums in Manchester, Bir-
mingham, Middlesborough, Wigan, and various other towns
that the greatest benefit had resulted from the opening of
public =gamin and galleries on Sundays and he stated that
it had been found that the number of Sundays,
had ex-
ceeded all expectation. The number of attendances at the
Grosvenor Gallery which on week days was about 143, on
Sundays reached 510 They not only had the testimony
of the beneficial effects upon the working classes from
numerous places in this country and Ireland, but also from
Philadelphia, New York, and other cities in the United
Statea. In fact the testimony in favour of opening such
places on Sundays was overwhelming. He also pointed
ont that with respect to the comparison of the savieg of labour,
N had been shown that there were at the present moment no
lens than 340,000 barmaids and barmen employed in the public-
houtles on Sundays, and, therefore, it was idle to say that
they were introducing the bad principle of Sunday labour;
and he informed the House that he had received a letter,
signed several of the officers in the Museum, stating
that they were quite willing to give their labour towards
the promotion of this good work. After quoting the
opinion of a east number of magistrates and others in
favour of openiett museums and libraries on Sunday, he
concluded with an
*tamest appeal to their lordships to con-
sider this question fa aeterably.
Viscount Powersoourt; As one of the governors of the
National Gallery in Dublin:. desired to say that during the
last 13 or 14 years that atestitution had been regularly
opened to the public every Sunday afternoon from two
o'clock until dusk, and that wi:11 the happiest results. (Hear,
hear.) The gallery was invariashly well attended by the
working classes, and during all ,that time there had not
been a single complaint made against nny visitor. He desired
to mention these facts in corroboratiall of the views ex-
pressed by the noble lord.
lord Aberdeen had no doubt that the indoption at the
measure would be regarded as a boon to the working
classes; but he very much doubted whether thd publicabs
were of opinion that it would conduce to sobriety, because
great numbers of them were found to be its advocates.
The Earl of Kintore said he should be very glad to see the
working classes attending places of recreation or instruction
on any day but the Lord's Day.
The Marquis of .alpon said that those who shared the
views of the noble earl who had just sat down were, of
course bound to vote against the motion, but ke was not
one of those who thought that the injunctions of the Mosaic
law with respect to the Jewish S ibbath applied to the
Christian Sunday. To use the beautiful words of the
author of "The Christian Year," it was "An Easter Day
In every week." Sunday was a holy day, and no one
would more regret than he should any step which
might be taken to lower its present level, if he
had to chose between the English Sunday in its sternest
form and the Sunday which was to be witnessed in some
parts of the Continent—a Sunday devoted to labour
on the one hand and horse-racing on the other—he should
oertainly choose the English Sunday. But, happily the
choice, as it appeared to him, did net lie between those
alternatives. No doubt they were often told that the pro-
posal of his noble friend was only the thin end of the wedge.
But that argument had been used against eve's, improve-
ment and reform in this country, though happily without
success, to which circumstance it was owing that we bad
been able to proceed by reasonable steps instead of by
violent changes. He quite admitted that in providing the
-means for what appeared to him to be the reasonable
recreation of the people on Sundays care should be taken
not to open to cupidity or self-interest a door by which
Sandia, work might be introduced. He should strongly
object to Sunday labour—first on religious grounds, and
secondly, because he believed a weekly day of rest to be
essential to the physical wellbeing of the people. But he
did not see that we need entertain any fear that by render-
ing the Sunday of the working men more agreeable to him
than it was at the present moment we should be taking any
steps in tire direction of Sunday labour. On the contrary,
be believed that a measure of the kind now proposed would
make it more sure that the working comes would resist any
attempt to introduce Sunday labour. One consideration
whack had weighed a good deal with him against the proposal
was the desirability of not shocking the strong conscientious
convicatens entertained by many persons on that subject.
A good many years ago, when in the other House of
Parliament', he voted in favour of a motion similar
to the on now before their lordships, but when
be came into Pelee the coneideration referred to
caused him to hesitate to alter the somewhat anomalous
practice still existing. Still, considering that no one was
to be compelled to go to places of recreation on Sunday
who did not wish it, it would, he thought, be admitted that
those religious convictions on the part of certain people ought
not to be permitted to place aperrnanent obstacle in the way of
the change now proposed. There were, it should be re-
membered, strong feelings on the other side (tleer, hear)
not merely on the part of individuals, but, what was more
important, on the part of large masses of the working men,
*nu it seemed to him the time had come when some further
step towards minting the views of that s.ction of the popu-
lation might be taken. The only place of resort at present
open to many of the working classes on aunday was the pot.
house. Now, it was surely touch more eceeistent with the
due sanctity of the Sunday that a man should spend an
afternoon with his family in a museum or picture gallery
than that he should spend it alone in a pothouse, amid
all the temptations which there beset him. Their lordships
In justice could hardy expect poor families to spend, sae, a
wet eenday afternoon in the single room in which they
were lodged. Some change upou their only day of rest
ought to be afforded them, and the quest', n wile what should
be the nature o teat change? Was it to be the bar of the
publichouse or a public initaution of the kind which the
noble lord desired to open 1 There was yet another argu-
ment which weighed very stronely with him in favour of
the proposal. There were in this country, and he feared
In all countries, a large number of persons who were
practically indifferent to religious consideratinns, and also
a small but active and energetic body who were dis-
tinctly hostile t i the Christian religion. Now to reject the
motion of his noble friend would be to enable these people
to ri to the indifferent working man and to say, "Look what
this gloomy and fierce and fanatical religion does for you;
_the rich can enjoy themselves whenever they please; the
poor man has only Sunday at his disposal, and he is pre-
cluded from enjoying himself on that day in obedience, as
they say, to the dictates of Christianity." That was a gross
libel upon the spirit of the Christian religion, but in holding
such language its enemies wielded a powerful and dangerous
weapon, and it was to deprive them at that weapon that he
was about to vote for the motion. (Cheers.)
Lord Beaconsfield observed that there were other classes
than the working people who woald benefit by a more
familiar acquaintance than they seemed to have with
galleries of art and museums,. But of late years greatly
Increased facilities had been given for the visiting of taose
institutions. Holidays bad been established by Act of Parlia-
ment, and by custom there were now fifty-two haleholidays in
the year. He recognised the difference between the Christian
Sunday and the Jewish Sabbath, and was convinced that
any person who attempted to extend to the former the
rules of the latter would fail; but it would be impossible to
preserve a weekly day of rest without an appeal to the re-
ligious principle, and be regarded snob a day as the oorner-
atone of civilization. After some further observations the
noble lord said—" 1 venture to refer to the proceedings in
the House of Parliament, the popular branch of the Legisla-
ture. This is not an old subject; as a public question it has
come into prominence only within the last few yr ars. 1 remem-
ber the first occasion on which it was brough t forward in the
other House of Parliament. The experiment has been made
three or four dram, and it has been made so recently as during
the existence of the present Government. If I am not mu.
taken, it was made during the last year I sat in the other
House. What has been the prinapel feature o those dis-
cussions, debates, and divietons ? Unquestionably this—
that the proposal has always been defeated by a vast
majority, and in that mvjority you generally could observe
the members for the greet commerciel towns and the
great centres of industry always voting agaiazt the propo-
sition. These are very grave circumstances, though I do
not say they ought to be decisive, I do not say the
question the noble lord Nos brought forward is not one
that deserves our consideration, and it has received
to-night' a considration which it well deserved. But we
ought to bear in mind that the proposal cennot rest where
it is. r do not speak of the thin end of the wedge which
has been denounced; I do not speak at all in that penile. I
tar it is in the nature of things that the proposition wnieli
the noble lord has made must be followed by others, and
the question will be the chaege in the habits of the people,
and perhaps in their opinions, the further the matter is
gairsued. As a mere matter of police any substantial
or considerable charge in the legislation which secures
a day of weekly rest to the people of this country ehould
be, I will not say viewed with the greatest :suspicion,
but examined with the greatest vigilance, and I
believe this proposed change is viewed with suspicion by
he working classes. Whether it is just or not I will not dis-
cuss; but if such a feeling is entertained by the labouring
classes of this country, it ought to be tenderly treated.
(Hear, hear.) I do not think your lordships should make
any movement in the direction proposed unless you have
good assurance you are taking a course with which the
great body of the people at this country sympathize. No
evidence has been given which convinces me of that, and
therefore is is my duty to oppose a motion—and I do it
with regret—the apparent and superficial object of which
—and I say it not offensively—would seem to be to civilize
the people. (Cheers.)
The Duke of Somerset contended that the keel:aim open of
the museums and reading-rooms later in the week evenings
would not answer the purpose desired. Working men did
not like to enter these places in their working clothes. He
must say he could not think that the opening of museums
and picture galleries would have the effect of closing public
houses. Upon the whole, he thought if their lordthips
accepted this proposal it would be a step in the right direc-
tion. •
The Earl of Derby said that, as the first Minister of the
Crown objected to this resolution on the ground that it was
not backed by public opinion, he felt it his duty not to be
equally reticent. feeling that some step ought to be taken in
this matter. What was the real question before them
Like the noble duke who had just addressed their
lordships, he was trustee of the British Museum, and
he quite admitted that it would be very inconvenient
to open the Reuling-room. But that was really not
what they had to decide. A question of detail of
that kind could veil etesily be dealt with by the
department concerned. _gut neither their lordships nor the
House of Commons would be unreasonably exacting if in
any case it were found, from considerations of general in-
convenience, impossible to give practical effeist to the reso-
lution. The real question was whether cartein public
collections formed by the State and paid for by Lineation
levied on all classes of the community should he accessible
to the great mass of the people during the only time it ,
was practicable for them to visit them. (Hear, hear.)
Be thought there was a strong prima facie awe in favour
of the principle of the resolution, and it became
stronger when they looked at the size and *charaeter of
the metropolis. The city in which they lived was the largest
caPital in the world, and the two millions who inhabited it
mere practically abut up in it. The objection to open these
galleries, though put in various forms, really came to this—
they did not like the look of people Pod'ing their Sunday
afternoons looking at pictures. (Hear.) They had laid out
seine fine parka and gardens with admirable skill and
success, and they did all they could to encourage the people
of London to frequent them; but he could not understand
on what principle of reason or logic it Gould be held that it
was perfectly innocent and right to walk in gardens and
among flower beds and absolutely wrong to enter a picture
gallery. (flaar, hear.) He did not deny the extreme iMpor-
Lance of maintaining the day of national rest; but they
must recollect that wiittever amusements were allowed,
some labour mast be throwa on those who provided them
They permitted excursion trattoe and they constantly saw
In line seasons omnibuses and vane filled with occupants
going into the country, and on the whole there was a
great preponderance of advantage ovee disadvantage in
this; but it necessarily involved labour imposed on a
certain number of men who had to look Miser theses
excursionists. Nobody attempted to prevent demonstra-
tions ter any purpooi in the London parka; but there
could not be a large meeting in Hyde Park without
having a much larger uunther of police in
attendance than
Imat,ttthetwise be rtquired. lie did not deal with the
aligiabt reiolution, on which something might be

said as to the duty of the State to enforces what was Wien-
daily a religious obligation ; but when they were told that
the London population should be better employed than in
'visiting picture galleries, he was led to remirk that even if
working men were in the habit of going to church he did
not believe they could And room in the churches. After all,
the 200 or 2,000 who if this resolution were carried would
visit museums and galleries would be inappreciable as I
conspired with those who frequented publichouses. If 1
publichouses ware to be opened on Sunday afternoon's, they
ought not to be the only places of amusement for working
men. (Hear, hear,) If they were not to be open, there
was the more reason why these galleries should be thrown
open. Having taken some part in the discussion of the
question in another place, he felt he should not be doing his
duty if he did not support the proposition of the noble
baron.
The Archbishop of Canterbury said there had been a
good many fallacies uttered on this subject, aid the
speech of the noble baron who introduced the subject
seemed especially to abound in them. In the first place,
it was taken for granted that the working classes were in
favour of this measure; but the proof of that was en-
tirely wanting. The proof placed in his hand was exactly
on the other side. He was informed on authority he could
not doubt that when a canvass was made in Bethnal-green
some short time ago, when that museum was first opened,
ten meetings were held of the working classes, eight of
which repudiated the idea of opening it on Sunday, and
only two were in favour of it. He believed 11 they could
ascertain the opinion of the working classes they would
find that they shared the alarm expressed by the noble
marquis on tie other side of the House, lest any great
change in this matter would deprive them of that
day of rest which they greatly valued, and which
bad been so conducive to the prosperity of this country.
It was also taken for granted that all thinking men were
of the same opinion as the noble lord. Indeed, 'careens
who advocated any measure were apt to suppose that those
who differed from them were not thinking men. (A.
laugh.) But, desirous as he was and had ever been to
promdte the welfare of working men, he eould not think
he should be acting in accordance either with their wishes
or their interests in voting with the noble lord on this opca-
sion. (Hear.) He was told that in some places experiments
had been made as to the opening of museums and libraries.
But how many places which had museums end libraries had
thought it at all necessary to open them on the Sunday?
Had the persons who had the control of those museums and
libraries in the various towns thought it right to open
them? Unless he was misinformed there were only two or
three instances inswhich these institutions had been thrown
open, though it was in the power of the managers to throw
them open, and had the working claeses wished it they
would in all probability have done so. He could not help
thinking that there was another fallacy which ran through
the whole of the debate—l hst, after all, this was a etep of
very little consequence, and that the difference between
going through gardens and going through the Grosvenor
GalterY. the British Museum, or the National Gallery was
scarcely appreciable. But what were their lordships called
upon to do to-night? It was, before the eyes of the people of
thieekingdom, to pronounce a deliberate opinion that the policy
with regard to the observanee of the Sunday hitherto pursued
in this country had been a mistake. Tho-e p!aces wry ch had
been opened had been opened by some private arrangems tit ;
but here Parliament was, as he had said; called upon to make
a most solemn declaration that the policy hitherto observed
in this matter was a mistake, and that not on account of the
wishes of the great body of the working classes, but of some
rocieties, one of which made no secret of its objects, but
told us what were the ultimate views it had on this sub-
ject But, with all respect for those who laboured in
those societies, their lord-hips ought to know what they
were aiming at before accenting to their request and
making a great change in public policy. fie was convinced
that if any such change was made there was great danger of
the day of rest being lost. The noble marquis had pointed
out in terms better than he himself could use the evils
which existed on the continent of Europe in this matter.
Were they to say to the working c'asses, "You have made
a mistake hitherto as to the Souiday. You are to enjoy
yourselves and to use the day in the way most conducive to
your pleasure ? " Whatever amelioration of seciety might
be expected to follow from such a course as was now pro:-
posed, there would still be a large number of persons to
whom the greatest pleasure in life would be to add to
the wretched wages which the six days of work gave them.
Let theft Iprdships look at the continent of Europe and
observe the herd working peasant coming back from the
Sunday's labour in the fields, or let them go to Paris and
see the work that was carried on there on Sundays as on
other days. These things were full of warping to us not
without suilicient reason to depart from that policy which
had hitherto governed us in this important matter. (Hear,
hear.)
The House divided on the resolution, and the numbers
were—
Contents 60
Not-Contente _ ey
Majority
The resolution was therefore lost.

-
Several Bills having been adjourned a stage, their lord-
ships adjourned at twenty minutes to eight o'clock.
In the HOUSE OF COMMOsa, the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer, in answer to Mr Bright, observed that her Majesties
Government were most anxious to promote an early and
reasonable pacification in South Africa, and had furnished
Sir B. Frere with such instructions as they thought best
calculated to bring about that result.
In answer to ldr. Sullivan, Colonel Lloyd Lindsay said he
knew nothing of a bearer of a Zulu flag of truce having been
made prisoner by Colonel Pearson.
In answer to questious from Mr. J. Halms and Mr
Childers, Mr. Bourke said it was intended to appoint addi
Lionel Consuls, &a, in Asia Minor, but there would be no
need of a supplementary estimate, as the expenses would be
defrayed by reductions in other directions.
Sir W, Lawson complied with a request from Lord
Bartington to postpone his motion on the foreign and
colonial policy of the Government.
On the motion for going into Committee of Ways and
Means, Ur. Gladstone took the opportunity to refer in
considerable detail to the financial history of MO to show
that it afforded no justification, as contended by the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer for the Budget of the present year. In
that year new taxes were imposed, and there was, therefore,
a real distribution of charge between the present and future-
but this year's Budget imposed no new taxes, so that no fair
parallel could be dawn between them. So far from there
being remissions of taxation in that year almost exceed-
ing the new taxes by two millions* and pdd, as the
Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated, be pointed
out that while £2,415,000 had been remitted, the war rates
of tea and sugar had been continued, the income-tax had
been raised by bd., ether duties had been increased, and in
all fresh taxes had been imposed to the amount of
£8,755,000, leaving a balance of £,360 000 of increased
taxation in that year. This was the justification for bor-
rowing money on terminable annuities for the fortifications;
but none such could be alleged new,
The Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted that he bad
been misled the other night as to the exact facts of two
by some statistics which had been laid before him for
another purpose, but he still maintained that in the
yesx 1861-2, while 4970,000 was borrowed for these forti-
fications, £2,600,000 of taxistion was remitted, and his
general argument, that sir. Gladstone, in order to
reduce taxes, had resorted to something like bor-
rowing, remained entirely unaffected. This year,
no pointed out, the additional taxes imposed for warlike
purpovs had been continued, and, in all the circumstances
of the time, it was more for the convenience and the ad-
vantage of the aountry that the expenditure should be spread
over several years, as he had proposed, than that additional
taxes should be puteon to be taken Oilr next year.
After some remarks from Sir W. Haroourt, Mr. Lowe, Mr,
Ritchie, Mr. Childers. and Sir G. Campbell, the House went
into Committee of Ways and Means, when the remaining
Budget Resolutions were agreed to.
On the second reading of the Criminal Code Bill being
moved by the Attorney-General,
Sir Be James expressed a hope that the Bill would become
law tbia Session, and promised for himself and his friends
that no unnecessary obstacles should he placed in its way.
At the ~ame time he reserved to them the liberty of
criticizing the details, and intimated for himself a
doubt of the expediency of doing away with the Common
Law and trusting entirely to Statute, for the definition of
crimes. In illaetratien of this assertion he pointed to
the definition of bigamy and unlawful assemblies io the

Bill.
A discussion then ensued, in which several members took
part, after which the Bill was read a second time
Some other Bills were forwarded a stage, and the House
adjourned at ten minutes to one oicloa,

In the Hotta OF LORDS, May 6, Lord Granville, referring to
the statement made last week by the Secretary for the
Colonies ca to the instructions forwarded to Sir Bartle rere
relative to the conditions on which peace might be con-
cluded with the Zulu Kings asked whether the High Com-
missioner had power to make peace without further com-
munication with Her Majesty's Government.
- - - - -

. -
In farther explanation of the instructions which had been
sent to Sir Bartle Frere, the Etrl Cadogan said the Govern-
ment were disposed to insist upon the establishment of a
Resident in Zululand, and upon a modification of the present
military system in Zulu.
After a request from Lords Kimberley and Granville for
further information, Lord Beacorialield said his opinion was
that Sir Bartle Frere was now sufficiently acquainted with
the general policy of Her Majesty's Government and of the
grounds on which, in their opininia, peace might be es-
tablished between the King of Zulu and her Majesty.
Further papers would shortly be laid on the table.

On the Order of the Day for the second reading of the
Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister Bill,
The prince of Wales rose from the cross benches, and
havieg •reached the table, said—My lords, [have to present
a petition, signed by 3,258 farmers of Nor folk, praying for the
legalization of marriage with a deceased wife's sister. (Hear,
hear) I present it, my lords, on local and general grounds.
It is my firm conviction that it this Bill passed it would be
of advantage to the community at large, and I therefore give
my hearty support to the noble lord who moves the second
reading of the hill. (Loud cheers.)
The Earl of Beaconsfield also presented a petition to the
same effeet from 1,152 farmers of Buckinghamshire.
Lord Houghton, in moving the second reading of the Bill,
said that he brought it forward as a measure of relief. He
did not ask their lordships in giving their assent to the
measure for their approval or sanction, but only for their
permission. They might believe that these marriages were
inappropriate, unwise, and even inconvetiient to certain
classes of society, and yet that they had no right to prevent
them. He would ask their lordships to consider this question
not only apart from all party motives, but also from any
associations of the society to which they belonged. He asked
them to regard it solely as one connected with ike habits and
desires of a large mass of the British nation—that targeeseiddle
class whose habits in some degree were different from their
own, and whites desires, so decidedly expressed as they had
been, their lordships would do wisely not to neglect. He
was relieved from the necessity of going into a
long historical narration by the circumstance that the
question was not a new one to their lordships. They knew
as well as he did how closely it had connected itself with
some of the most important events In English history.
Wheu in 1836 Lord Lyndhurst brought in a Bill to validate
these merrleges there was a certain opposition to it,
and a clause was Inserted in their lordships' Huse
declaring that all such marriages after the date of the
passing of the Bill should he invalid. That clause was
rejected by the House of Commons and the Bill came up
again to this House ; but as it was late in the Session, and
every one knew what happened at the end of a &mien,
the Bill was allowed to pass temporarily, as it were, with
the clause, But what was the moral position to which the
House was committed by the passing of that Act? The
Legislature declared in the Act that such marriages after a
certain date were to be unlawful, and therefore sinful, and
yet they were enforced upon all who had contracted them up
to that date. By one part of the Act Parliament placed a
certain number of persons in a position which, if they came
to consider these marriages wrong and even sinful, they
could be enforced upon them by an action for the
restitution of conjugal rights. By another clause Parlia-
ment declared them sinful and not to be contracted. Such
a state of things was repugnant to common sense.
After a time the question was brought in successive
years before the House of Commons, and the result was
tiser Appointment of a commission upon which were
lawyeas representing the three parts of the United King-
dom. That commirolon reported that they would give no
opinion to the cublect-matter, but they were convinced
that these marriages wero going on quite as much as
before, that they were contracted by persons of the highest
social position and of the best mural character, and that
they e•ink' not be affected by legislation one way or other,
and the commission left the question to the consideration of
Parliament to make the best of it. The consequence
was that a Bill was brought in somewhat similar to that
now before their lordships That Bill passed the House
of Commons and was rejected by the House of Lords, and
so it had gone on ever stnce. Seven times the will of the
peop,e had been expressed by majorities sometimes ap-
proaching 109, and seven times had that Bill been rejected
by the House of Lords, That was not a satisfactory posi-
tion in which to leave the question. He believed that
these marriages had gone on. These marriages were not
valid In England, but there were other nations to which he
would draw the serious attention of their lordships. The
colonies of England had not been silent on the matter.
New South Wales, Queensland, Western Australia had
passed laws making these marriages legal. A Bill of that
kind had passed the Lower House of New Zsaland and
twice in the colony of Natal, which now unfortunately had
something elEe to think of. Tasmania might also be in-
cluded in the list, and also Canada and the West Indies.
The Convention of Royal Burghs, representing at least 120
municipal bodies In Scotland, had petitioned in favour of
the 13111 In Ireland, the corporation of Dublin had peti-
eimegklu favmu of the measure, and 40 other Cdrporitions
had etltlo4llo4 In the same .aeriveid Moreover, the late
i

lamented Cardinal Cullen said he had no difficulty in en-
dorsing privately the opinion *expressed by Cardinal Wise-
man and ether dignitaries of the Church, although he de-
clined to sign any document on the subject. Important
petitions in favour of the Bill had been presented this even-
ing by his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and by the
Prune Minister. Those petitions showed that in some
counties there was a considerable number of persons
who desired a change in the existing law. It was
not, indeed, so much in the great towns as in the
comparatively lonely and separate life of the English
farmer that the present law pressed so hardly and so
cruelly. It was a matter of great regret that this matter
should be taken out of the sphere of ordinary debate
and transferred to that of religion. It would have been
much better, in his opinion, if the heads of the Esta-
blished Church had left this subject to be decided by their
lay colleagues. It could not be forgotten that all the
Nonconformist bodies in this country, without any exception,
were in favour of the Bill. Again, there could be no grievance
on the part of the Church, because no minister who wished
not to celebrate these marriages would be compelled by law
to do so. With regard to the oft-cited passages in Leviticus
he had received a communication from Professor Max
Muller, the distinguished Oriental scholar, who said it was
a puzzle to him how any critic could have supposed the
passage in question to prohibit marriage with a deceased's
wife's sister. The professor added that the only analogous
case within his knowledge was the falsification of a verse in
the Veda, by which it was turned into a commandment for
the burning of a widow on the death of her husband. He
had seen some months ago in one of the newspapers a letter
signed by "A Poor Parson" on that subject, which ended
thus

"I sincerely hope that something will be done to remedy
the painful position of thousands of deserving families
during the coming Session of Parliament, for, if not, I am
convinced that the question will be made very prominent at
the next General Election, and I would not support any
member who would not pledge himself to vote for the re-
moval of this oppressive law."
The noble lord then quoted the authority of the late Rev
Dr. Hook to the effect that these marriages could not be
proved to be improper by Scripture, that the question then
became one of expediency, and that his experience as a
parochial clergyman induced him to think them expedient.
In conclusion the noble lord asked their lordships not to place
this question in a position in which thousands of honest
men and women ha this country could say, "We might
enjoy the greatest blessing of family lila with those whom
we most love if it were not for these two great institutions
—the Church of "inland and the House of Lords." (Hear,
hear.) In the letter in which Dr. Hook expressed that
opinion, and which was dated "Vicarage, Leeds, April 2,
1819," he added—

"On these grounds, if ever a Convocation be called and I
be elected one of the proctors. I shalt move for an alteration
In this regard in the table of kindred arid affinity. Until
this be the case, I shall be glad to see such marriages lega-
lized by the civil rite."

The Bishop of London contended that the division lists of
the House of Commons showed that since 1812 this move-
ment had made no progress. The petitions in favour of the
change emanated from men. He believed the immense
maj drity of the women of England were against the
measure. .A.fter the passing of Lord Lyndhurst's Act, out
of eight parliements the second, third, fourth, and seventh
declared themselves in favour of the Bill. The fifth Parlia-
ment rejected it altogether in one year. In the next year
the second reading was carried, but the Bill failed in Com-
mittee. The first, sixth, and eighth Parliaments rejected it.
Did that show that opinion had progressed in its favour? The
majorities for it were never large; they ranged from seven
to 109. The first time the Bill was carried in the House of
Commons the majority was 52; the last time it was 41 ; so
that so far as the test of divisions in the other House went
opinien in favour of the Bill had not progressed since 1842.
The measure had never paused a second reading in their
lordships' House, and he sincerely trusted it never
might do so. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord had referred
to the legislation of the colonies on that subject.
Some of our colonies had doubtless adopted this law, but
that was no reason why we should follow their example.
The noble lord had briefly touched upon what he called the
pecseliar notiQus pf the Church of England in reference to
this subject, but the noble lord appeared to forget
that the Church of England had held those peculiar
notions for upwards of 1,800 years. The noble lord had
dwelt upon what might be termed the Scripture argu-
ments in favour of this Bill. It was true that there was
no direct prohibition of these marriages to be found in
Scripture, but it must not be asesumed that, therefore, it
will intended to approve them, because the Scriptures did
not prphibit a man from marrying his own daughter,
althOugh a son was prohibited from marrying his mother;
but it would be absurd to contend that this authorized
marriages between fathers and their daughters. The infer-
ence that the Church had from the earliest times drawn
from the Scriptures was that these marriages were unlaw-
ful. It was true that the Church of Rome had occasion-
ally granted dispensations permitting such marriages; but
that Church had also granted dispensations permitting mar-
riages where the relationship between the parties was much
nearer, and was clearly within the prohibi.ed degrees 'the
Jews were not united on the subj,ot, one sect permitting and
the other prohibiting these marriages. Much stress was laid
upon the fact that in the 18th verse of the 18th chapter of
Leviticus a man was prohibited from marrying his wife's
sister during the life of his wife And here again the inference
was drawn that this was an indirect authorization of the
marriage alter the wife's death. He, however, could not
place that construction upon the language of the verse.
Referring to the social aspect et the case, he felt
that if this Bill were to become law great evil must neces-
sarily result. The noble lord had Spoken of the great
number of these marriages which occurred among the
middle classes, but he could assure him from a great expe-
rience among the middle classes that the number of such
marriages was very small. Under the existing law the relit-
tionship of a husband with that of his wife's sister was
' that of almost brother and sister, and it led to much com-
fort and happiness in households. (Hear, hear.) This
was not a state of things that should be touched
without very great consideration. The position of
the wife's sister in a household must become much
changed if she might become the wife of her sister's
husband, and although there might of course be well-
balanced minds upon which the change in the law would
produce but little effect, nevertheless there were numbers
of persons of a jealous disposition who would find that
such a change would tend to disunite their household. If
it were true that the happiness of married life and
the peace and purity of the family were maintained by the
restriction which at present existed, as he held they were,
their 16rdahiles wonid net be jastified in taking away
that prohibition. It was said that the sister of a
deceased wife was the true guardian of her dead
sister, and on that ground he trusted their lordships would
not deprive children so placed of teat protection. For his
part he believed from his experience of a large popu-
lation, and such also was the experience of other clergymen
with large parishes, that the proportion of widower's who
desired to marry their deceased wife's sister was very small.
It was, no doubt, hard that those who had disregarded the
law should find themselves in their present condition, and
they could not but sympathize with them ; but that was no
sufficient reason for altering the law. This was not a time to
interfere with the sanctity of domestic life. After some
further observations the Right Rev, Prelate concluded by
moving as an amendment, that the Bill be read a second time
that day biz months.
The Bill was supported by the Earl of Kimberley, and
Lord Stanley of Alderley.
Viscount Cranbrook opposed the Bill on the ground that it
would tend to destroy the relations now existing between
brothers-in-law and sister-iu-law. It would be sought to re-
move the prohibition to other marriages if the Bill were
passed, and another objection to it was that it would place
those who had broken the law on the same looting as those
who had obeyed it.
Lord Lifford, amid cries of "Divide," expressed his opinion
that the arguments of the Bishop of London had not been
answered.
Their Lordships then divided technically on the question
"that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the
question,' but practically on the second reading of the Bill,
when there were—Contents, 81; Non-contents, 101; majority
against the Bill, 20.
The Prince of Wales and the Duke of Edinburgh voted for
the second reading of tne Bill, Fifteen Bishops took part in
the division. One of them, the Bishop of Ripon, voted for
the Bill, and the 14 others against it.
Having forwarded several Bills a stage, their lordships ad-
journed at a quarter to eight o'clock.

The HOUSE OF COMMONS had its first Morning Sitting of the
Session to forward the Valuation Bill in Committee.
At the time of Private Business there was a short conver
Batton on the Blackburn and Over Darwen Tramways Bill,
In the course of which Mr. Raikes drew attention to the fact
that the Blackburn and Over Darwen Tramway Bill proposed
the use of steam, this being the first bill introduced this ses-
sion containing tuch provisions. Now that an inquiry into
the whole question of the use of steam on tramways had
been held by Parliament, there was no reason why the bill
should be prevented from going into committee in the usual
way. The bill was referred accordingly after a brief dis-
cussion,
In answer to a question from Mr. Fawcett, the Chancellor
of the Exchequer fixed the 2241 of May for the discussion on
Indian Finance.
In answer to Mr. Monk and Lord E. Fitzmaurice, Mr.
Bourke said there was no foundation for the statement that
the negotiations between the Powers as to the question of
the Greek Frontier had fallen through; consequently, it
was untrue that the failure had occurred through the action
of the British Government. On the contrary, the principle
had been accepted by all the Powers, but the mode of appli-
cation was still under discussion.
The remainder of the sitting was spent in Committee on
the Valuation Bill, which was settled up to Clause 10.
The Prosecution of Offences Bill was reads third time.
At the Evening Sitting Mr. Herschell moved a resolution
in favour of abolishing the action for breach of promise of
marriage, except in cases where actual pecuniary loss had
been incurred.

A discussion ensued, in which Sir E. Wilmot, Mr. Morgan
Lloyd, Mr. Rodeo'', Mr. Grantham , Sir R. James, and other
hon members took part. Eventually, the resolution was, on
a division, carried by 106 to 65, and the result was received
with much cheering.
After a short conversation on the Remuneration of Juror
In Ireland, the O'Conor Don, who had a notice on the
paper to bring in a Bill to promote University education in
Ireland, postponed it on account of the lateness of the hour,
and asked the Government to assist him in bringing it on at
an early hour on some future occasion.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, while recognising the
justice of the appeal, said it was impossible to comply with
it this week at least, and the Marquis of Hartington said a
few words on the importance of the subject and the expe-
diency of affording a fair opportunity for discussion.
The House adjourned at ten minutes to one o'clock.