The Express.
London, England, 1849-07-05 00:00:00

lIARBIAGE BY_ LICENSE.

church; an: with that view he had framed the precut
clause, losaing it to the free unfettered judgment of the
clergy to celebrate the marriages or not as they should
think at. He had hoped that the clause to framed would
have put the general sanction of the entablished clergy, and
he had in his pocket the expressed approval of the clause by
•.large number of them. At the wane time he was aware
that in some quarters the clause as it stood excited opp al-
Son. He, however, was still of opinion that the clause
should be retained in its present form, although be should
not thiak it necessary to give up the bill if the amendment
should be adopted.
The CHAIRMAN observed that the amendment amounted
in point of fact to the substitution of a new clew'. The
amendment, therefore, must take this form. The hon.
gentleman must first move the omi &on of the present
clause, and subsequently move the insertion of his own
clause.
Mr. MONTE said the [question wee, whether we were to
take our own exposition of the Bible, or that of the canons
of the church. He contended that we were to expound the
Bible according to our own mode of thinking, otherwise
where was the nee of publishing the Scripture in the Eng-
lish language ? He had seen the greatest advantage accrue
in his own family from marrying the deceased wire's sister,
and he recommended the hon. and learned peutleman to per-
severe with the clause, or to withdraw the bill altogether.
Col. THOMPSON said not only did the Levitical law not
forbid the marriage with deceased wife's sister, but a man's
face wu to be slapped with • slipper if he did not marry the
brother's widow, which he took to be an analogous case.
(Hem, hear.) He feared that the hon. gentlemen op-
posite were apt to misquote, like the celebrated titer-chamb.r
version of ate of she commandments, which, in consequence
of the "not " being omitted, stood thus, " Thou shalt commit
adeltery"—(a laugh)—and many there were, he believed,
who followed that reading. (laughter.)
Mr. MANGLES supported the clause, and joined with
the hon. member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz) in won-
needing the withdrawal of the bill rather than the yielding
up of the clause. He knew that many clergymen did not
object even now to celebrate these marriages.
Mr. GLADSTONE opposed the clause. These canons
had been acted upon in courts of juetios for the last 250
years ; and though certaia of them relating to external
regimen had been contravened by act of parliament, yet this
was a canon of a very different nature, plainly declaring
what was the sense of the word of God. His hon. and
learned friend affected to throw some doubt upon the inter-
pietation, but surely nothing could be clearer than
the precise terms of the canon. It was in the following
words "No person shall marry within the decrees prohi-
bited by the laws of Gad, and expressed in the table set forth
by authority in the year of our Lord 1563." (Ironical cheers,
and an hon. member—" The pope.") As the clause stood
he was convinced eons( qualms would be involved, which
might be remote, but the approach of which would be sure
and formidable beyond expresiou ; because it would destroy
altogether the recognition by the law of the country of the
true ehristian and scriptural standard with regard to the
law of marriage. (Hear, hear.) This would not he the
cam if the amendment were agreed to, and he should there.
fore give it his support.
Sir G. GREY said that the clause as it stood was prefer-
able to the amendment. The amendment consisted of two
parts, and the first portion was, in his opinion, wholly in-
consistent with the second elan." of the bill. He objected
to the words " or authorised " further on, and believed that
the object of the hon. gentleman who moved the amend-
ment would be secured, if those words were left out. At
the saute time if the committee divided, he should divide
in favour of the clause. _ _

Mr. WORTLEY replied, and expressed his determina-
tion, alter the opinions which had been expressed, to perse-
vere with the clause. Ile would only acid, that the 99.6
coon was no doubt an article of the church, but that r o
clergyman was called upon to subscribe to it upon his ordi-
nation. . . . . . .

Mr. GOULBURN feared that the bill would lead to
greater end more extended evils than wasoriginal:y supposed,
amounting even to a total subversion of the rules by which
the church was governed. He recommended the hon. gen-
tleman not to take the opinion of the house on the rejection
of these words, but to take time f r c3nsidering the amend-
ment he proposed, and take the discussion on the report.
Mr. B. DENISON said that he had presented a number of
petitions, from the constituency which he represented, in
favour of the bill, and a great number of them were signed
by the clergy—clergy of the highest standing, and
he was quite sure those clergymen would not
have signed these petitions unless they had taken
all the bearings of the case into their most mature
consideration. The bill, as it stood at present, was
to relieve the minds, and quiet the consciences, of a vast
number of persons ; and he trusted the house would pose it,
on the ground of the opinions entertained in its favour by
the large constituency which he represented.
Mr. HOPE would withdraw his opposition to the clause,
en the distinct understanding that the discussion should be
taken on the question of bringing up the report.

Mr. S. WORTLEY did not agree t this, and the gallery
wu cleared for a division, hut, alter a short time, strangers
were readmitted; and we understood that the amendment
was withdrawn, and the clause agreed to.

Mr. F. MAULE roes to propose a clause which bad for
its object tte exemption of Scotland from the effects of this
bill. The hon. member for the West Riding had jut stated
that he appealed to the house to enact this bill oo the ground
that he represented one of the largest constituencies in Eng-
land, and that the voice of his constituents was in favour of
this measure. He (Mr. F. Maule) spoke confidently in the
name of the whole people of Scotland, and It r the reason
stated by the hon. member, entreated the house to exempt
Scotland from the operation of this act. Ile called
on the house not to take the step of extending this
bill to Scotland, first, as the marriages did not exist in Scot-
land; secondly, on the ground that the idea of these mar-
riages was abhorrent to the people of Scotland; and further,
on the ground that they were making an uenecessary and
rash attack on ecclesiastical authority in Scotland ; and, lastly,
that they were introducfr g a practice of marriage which had
never yet had around there. In every instance where these
marriages had taken place, so offensive was it to the neigh-
bouring people that the parties had been obliged to quit the
neighbourhood. He therefore moved to bring up the clause
of which he had given notice, to exempt Scotland from the
operation of this bill.

The LORD ADVOCATE said that this amendment, if
carried, would lead to the wont possible C•I2IINYC nCes. lie i
admitted that there was an aversion, amongst the people et
Scotland, to this class of es, but he could not say
that it was very general. That, °mover, was not an argu
ment of sufficient importance to prevent the bill being passed.
Considir what would be the consequence of a mar:lege being
lawful In England, and not in Soils:id. It would throw
matters into the greatest confusion, it would disturb all the
relations of life; all the relations of property, everything
which could be subject to iiihentance would be thrown into
confusion by this arrangement. What would it be to say
that a marriage which wes good in Eastland was incestuous
and punishable by transportation in Scotland? lie would
rather have the bill thrown out altogether, although he
thought it a most important one, than that the house should
adopt the amer.dment of his hon. friend.
Mr. FORBES tali, that admitting that confusion such as
was described by the lord advocate, was likely to arise, he
did not think that the happiness of the whole man of the
people was to be sacrificed for the disturbance of the property
of one or two individuals. He trusted that for the ',Ate ut
this happiness of the great body of the people, for the sake,
especially of the poor, the house would exempt his country
from the operation of this bill.

Mr. EWARYimitial neilltictit;inTse;tsYstens of mar-
riage litmus was regulated by act of parliament, which al-
lowed aerbtrri of the church of England .o be 'married by
liceuse without giving any previous notice, whereas dissen-
t/re WTI compelled to give Wren days notice. The bill
which he now moved shout.' be read a second time was
framed in order to remove that inequality of treatment, and
he hoped the house would not refuse to affirm the principle,
bat would ar.ew it to be read a second time.

Mr. GOULBURN herbs( understood that the bill was to
have been withdrawn, had not tome down prepared to
argue it.
Sir 0. GREY said that the hon. menhir had stated the
case very fairly. The subject wee ander the consideration of
the Registrar General, and he hoped the bill would not be
persevered in.
Mr. BROTHERTON recommended that the bill be with-
drawn. and hooeght forward the next session.
TM bill wee then withdrawn.
REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY
CONVEYANCE.
The house went into committee on this bill. The whole
o: the closers went agreed te.
Mr. HEADLAM brought up a chew to the following
effect :—"Aad be it 'meted, that the powers and authorities
given by this ant to the Court of Chancery in Ireland shall
and may he exercised in like manner, and are hereby given
and .xrended to •be Clue of Exchequer in Ireland."
The clause was agreed to and added to the bill.
The house thin mused.
MARRIAGES BILL.
Mr. FORBES Feinted a petition from the members of
the free kirk against t►is ►ill, and
Mr. S. WORTLEY several from Bridgeninth and other
pluck, to Mvoar of it. The hon. member then moved that
the bi I be committed.

TM IMlise Imola( into committee.
Clem.* 1 woe apead to.
Chime 2 tubs pt from the chair,

Mr. GOULBURN said that the present clause was •
roof at the inowlicy ol the bill. His hon. friend propound
to miser Iron the operation of the bill such warriors wit►
• er:fs's sister as had bra preceded by any acts of adultery
between the part,es during the wife's life-time. The clams
gave no remedy to a wife so injured, bermes her natural
scam 31 delicacy would prevent her Irons going into a court
of law t• arse her husband's sad her sirer's shame, and
there wee Impossibility of framing such • clause so as to offer
protection to wives so dreamt:towed.
- -

Mr 8. WORTLEY did not think that the clause was
op 'n to tie, objections urged by his right hon. friend, but he
had inservd it in delirium to the opinion of unite who
t 1 'ought that the bill might tend to promote Ruch illicit inter-
course, thetarb from the high tone of moral feeling prevalent
am, nest the English women be entrrtaiued co such appre-
roma ions as those upon which the chute was framed. The
etawat was then agreed to.
On clause 3 being propoeed,
Mr. ROPE, cm the pert of Mr. R. PALIIKH, moved, in
line 14, ..ifter the word "that," to tray, out t • the end of the '
clause. sod insert tasked the words following :
frothinicht titie set contained shall be deemed oe weaned la an,
Veil or reeled vocal coon of this realm to alter or In any who alien
any doctrine, ninon, re law ecelesiostisal of the United Chunk of
Eninand and Ire lend, or of the Chunk of Scotland, whereby the do-
gr.a of ouinala Malty end affinity, within which manias, is now
brit to be pr hd. ited by the doctrine and discipline et the seas
churches respectively ere settled or &lined ; and no sitemmen,
nhter, or "teraLL-
nhter, of tither of the raid churches shall ae niched or
euthviest, uy virtue of thin art, to solemn/SD Or fruit lee nkw
ellenanixiee an • marriage cootrary to the &string er of the
church of wind' he is each clergyman, ,oldster, et eine; rat shall
say end arinkter, or racier who may Inmeher miming
or mot saybeeno• for voleautleing any m =ha ommspled,
by virtue of Mi. set, from aay or 1111111 We Or
=I to which ke would by law be subjected it this act had not
. _

Mr. wormy egialttod dot tits amodatant referred
M a wry gad jeer,' difficult pm of the question.
His 466 W tima M Tway a great social evil with es
Mb Madam as predWe lialikaii7 of llta

Mr. DRUMMOND was surprised that the hon. and
learned member did not remember that the state of confu-
sion was precisely the state of the law at the present mo-
ment. Tne ecclesiastical reformers of former days were
much more modest than the ecclesiastical reformers of this
day; they did really and truly mean t., ref..rm the church,
by taking away all the evil and leaving all the quid; but
gentlemen in these days wanted to give us • new Christianity
altogether.
Mr. OSWALD said that it was not only the deliberate
opinion of the people of Scotland. but it was the deliberate
faith, that these marriages were incestuous, and it war, in
the meet distinct mat.ner, so laid down in the formularies
which were in the hands of every peasant in Scotland.
Tun were 1,294 congregations in Scotland which held to
the confession of faith. There was, in Scotland, the longer
and shorter catechism. In the 139th question of the
shorter catechism, the diepensieg with unlawful marriages
was said to be forbidden by the 7th comm iadohnt. In
chapter 24, sec. 4, of the confession of faith, these unlawful
marriages were enumerated, and in the larger catechism un-
lawful marriages were referred to. As the second reading
of the bill bad passed, all he could do was to endeavour, by
supprrting the amendment, to save the country from what he
thought a great evil.

Hr. S. WORTLEY, in reply, said that this bill left the
law, as to the confession of faith, exactly where it was. Hs
admitted that if they were attempting to cnerstoch on the
esnliession of faith, they would justly raise the indignation of
the people of Scotland, and he attributed the oppoai,ion to this
bill mainly to the wholesome jealousy which existed as to the
riseguitian of the confession of fsith. Much had been said
as if they were taking a step towards coercing the conedenee
of any Scotehmare It must not be forgotten that Scotland
was not inhabited wholly by Scatchmen, but there was in
many pieces a large English population. At present, if a
Scotch clergyman celebrated these marriages, he would be
visited with a suit in the Ecclesiastical Curt, and this men-
eats Val only to relieve him from that liabi ity. If this
measure was to peas it must be an imperial measure. (Hear,
bear.) If by the law of Scotland. as some suriosied, these
=armies were valid, this bill could make no alteration; if
they were invalid, the bill only mode the marriages of those
people who chose to celebrate them good and valid.
Mr. R. PALMER heard with astonishment the statement
that a clergyman of the church of &eland, who et 1. bested
these marriages, could not be proceeded avainat in the
ecelesiestical courts, on account of the affinity of the parties,
but might be proceeded against as taring violated the
conies ion of faith. 11, was satisfied that no court would be
pa-witted to entertain such a doctrine.
Mc S. WORTLEY explained.

Mr. lIUME said he was anxious to support the bill, ss
applied to England, because it went to remedy many com-
plaints end evils; but, as regarded Scotland, Le must say,
that every man he had been in communication with in that
part of the kingdom was altogether averse to it, and payed
that that house would not meddle with the law of mannalies
in Scotland. (11w, hear.)
Mr. J. O'CONNELL moved the addition of words in.
eluding Ireland in the exemption from the optration of the
bill, believing that it would inflict a heavy social evil upon
that country.

Kr. F. MAULE said he had no objection to do for Ireland
what he would do for Scotland. tie had n-n heard a word
to shake his determination to take the reuse of the house on
the question.

THE EXPRESS, THURSDAY EVENING, JULY 5, 1849.

Mr. S. WOItTLEY opposed the addition of Ireland to
the clause, obserring that he had received many egotists
from clergymen in that country to proceed with the bill.
Mr. NAPIIIR denied that there was any general feting
is favour of the bill in Ireland.
Mr. WORTLEY referred to the published evidenet of
Roman Catholic prelates in its favour.
Mr. I. O'CONNELL said, that the evidence of the Right
.Rev. Dr. Wiseman was in 1 f the bill only in ling
land, his reason being, that as the Roman Catholics in Big-
land were only a minority, it was desirable to encourage
intermarroges. (A 'ugh.)
The chase having been so altered as to include Iremd,
the committee divided, when there appeared—
Fur the clause 66
Against it
Part of the preamble was struek out on the suggestion of
Mr. GOULBUIttf, and the remainder having been agreed to
the report was ordered to bo brought up on Friday. The
house then resumed.
COPYHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
• -

Mr:A(311014IY having moved that the house go iato
committee on this bill,

Mr. CHRISTOPHER appealed to the hon gentleman
whether it was not too late than to go into coutraitve (WC
put four o'clock). The bill was a direct interference with
pnrate property. (Hear, heir.) It was compulsory urn
the landlords, and not so upon the tenant.. Ho there're
moved that they go into committee on tha bill that day time
months.
Vissount GALWAY seconded the amendment.

3dr. JOLIONBY said that the bon. gentleman began by
appealing to him to postpone going into c,,mmittee on tic
b Li, and concluded by a much more cogent form cf 'odes-
Touring to effect his wish. The objections of the hon. gee.
denten had been stated over sad over aitain on the woad
reading, which was carried by a majority of 24. They wets
objections against the principle, and ought to have beet
urged on the second reading. After full consideration he
had satisfied his mind that the bill was a just and equitable
bill, and was desired by the country. He denied that it in.
terfered with the rights of property, and if he did not succeed
in proceeding with it this session, he would resume his efforts
to do so next session.

Mr. GOULBURN said he knew not the object of dit
Parent stages of a bill, if ton. members who could not attene,
at one rare were not to express their opinions of it at ano
thee. lie supported the amendment because he considersil
the bill to be unjust in principle.

S:r G. Ingle KLAN- D said he should be greatly Bur-
prised if the bill were allowed to pass another stage, as it was
a most unjust and one-sided measure.

Mr. FELLOWES said that if the hon. member for
Cuckermouth should bring in this bill again next session, to
was sure there would still be found a sufficient number of
members to oppose it, because it was founded on injustice.
Mr. HUME suggested that the principle havicg beer
sanctieued they should go it to committee, and endeavour t)
amend it, so u in some degree is meet the views of hoe.
gentlemen who opposed it.
Sir C. BURRELL was understood to support the amend.
ment.

Mr. P. BENNET considered that copyhold tenures were
the best and cheapest that could be held. The la was a
one•aidcd measure, and he should oppose it on that ground.
Mr. H. \VILLYAMS thought that the bill, though good
in principle, was bad in its details. He should, therefore,
vote for going into committee, in order that the details
might be amended.
The house divided.

For going into committee 6O
Against 7l-11