The Sun.
London, England, 1862-02-19 00:00:00

PRIVATE BUSINESS

The following bills were read a second time
and South Wales Union Railway, Crystal Palace District
Improvement, Drayton Junction Railway, Edinburgh and
Glasgow and Caledcnian and Dumbartonshire Junction
Railway Companies; Edinburgh and Glasgow, and Glas-
gow, Dumbarton, and ITelensburgh Railway Companies;
Launceston and South Deven Railway, Maryport and Car-
lisle Railway, Middle Level Drainage and Navigation, &c.,
Saint Giles-in •the -Fields, Disused Burial Ground, Shef-
field and Chapel-en-le-Frith Roads, South Yorkshire Rail-
way and River Dun Company (Transfer, &c.), and Wes.
ton-super-Mare Pier.
LEAVE OF ABSENCE.

On the motion of Mr. WHITMORE, leave of absence
was granted to Sir William Miles for a month on account
of domestic affliction, and by Dir. CHILDERS to Mr. Mouse
for a fortnight for the same came cause.
PETITIONS.

Petitions were presented by several members against the
revised code of education.
Mr. M. MILNES presented a petition from Dublin and
Armagh in favour of the Martiage of Affinity Bill,
Mr. COX presented a petition from 3,000 married women
in the metropolis to the same effect.

Other petitions of a like import were presented by Sir S.
C. LANE, from the parishes of St. Margaret and St. John,
Westminster; by Mr. COLLIER, from Plymouth; and by
Sir M. PETO, from Dorsetshire.
QUALIFICATION FOR OFFICES ABOLITION
BILL.

Mr. HADFIELD having moved the second reading o;
this bill,

Mr. NEWDEGATE objected to the measure, as the
taking away the reservation invested in corporations by the
Test and Corporations Act would have the effect of converting
such corporations into political clubs,and would operate most
prejudicially as regarded the Church of England. It would
have the effect of creating confusion among the institutions
of the country, and therefore, without any desire to con-
trol or limit any man's freedom or rights he considered
this measure would be the means of diverting cor-
porations front their legitimate administrative functions,
and making them, as he had said, mere political clubs.
He therefore should oppose the measure as being unneces-
sary and uncalled for, and he hoped the hon. member
would not proceed further with the measure. If he did, he
would move that it be read a second time that day six
months.

Mr. SOTHERON ESTCOURT also opposed the mea

sure, and hoped that the Government would take the mai

ter into their own hands.

Sir GEORGE GREY said he did not consider that the
measure was of such importance as to induce the
Government to take it up, and that it might be with greater
propriety left in the hands of private members. He did not
. .

think that the measure would have the injurious effect ap-
prehended, and he should be ready, as on former occasions,
to support the second reading of the bill.

Sir MORETON PETO also supported the measure, and
expressed his belief that instead of operating prejudicially
to the Established Church, it would have the very opposite
tendency, as it would do away with a declaration which had
long been a source of heart burning, and had induced dis-
affection to that church.

Mr. WALPOLE said he could see no practical evil
which the passing of the measure would inflict, and he
shou d support the second reading of it.
The house then divided, when there appeared—
For the second reading
Against it

Majority for the second reading.... —9
The bill was then ordered to be committed on Friday
next

MARRIAGES OF AFFINITY BILL.

Mr. M. MI LNES moved the second reading of this bill.
Colonel LYGON said on former occasions bills to a
similar effect had been submitted to the house, but
they had always been put down for discussion at a
later period of the session. At the present time
there were many members connected with Irish and
Scotch constituencies who had not yet arrived in
London, and as the question involved is the measure
created great interest in those two countries, he thought it
unfair to bring it on for discussion till they were present,
and had an opportunity of fully considering and discussing
it. So far as regarded the principle of the measure, he
considered that it would lead to endless litigation and
confusion. If they took away the prohibition which
prevented a man from marrying his wife's sister, he
could not see that they could with justice maintain the
prohibition which prevented a man from marrying his wife's
niece. If they once broke ground, and swept away one,
they must go on until they swept away all prohibitions at
present on the statute book. If it was argued that there
was not in the Old or New Testaments anything
which prevented a man from marrying his wife's
sister, then they must hold, upon the same ground,
that there was nothing in either of them which prohibited
the other prohibitions as regarded affinity, and must corn
to the conclusion that the prohibition against a man°
marrying his wife's niece or his daughter-in-law was as
unbinding as the one preventing him from marrying his
wife's sister. It has been said that the Bishops of
London and Durham had signified their approval of the
removal of the prohibition as regarded marriage with
a deceased wife's sister; but though at one time he believed
those right reverend prelates had expressed themselves
somewhat in that manner, they had since changed their
opinion, and were opposed to the removal of the prohibition.
He contended that the Act of 1835 did not bear the con-
struction put upon
,it in respect of these marriages; and
whatever might be stated in respect of them, he was certain
that very few of such marriages existed among the poorer
classes. (Hear, hear.) He had the statement on this sub-
ject of an hon. gentleman who was once an ornament of
that house, Vice-Chancellor Sir William Page Wood, who
said that I.e had made inquiries in the parishes of St. Mar-
garet and St. John, and he had found but very few.
Mr. MONCKTON MlLNES—Seventy-four.
Colonel LYGON—If there were 74, they ought to have
more satisfactory evidence on the point than the statements
of an anonymous society. Sir William Page Wood had
only found two such cases, and two others had he believed
been sent him since. As regarded the petitions which had
been preserited in favour of the measure, it was easy to
multiply these when two guineas were freely allowed for
every four hundred signatures obtained ; but petitions so
got up were no criterion as to the feeling of the public on
the subject, and were unworthy of any attention. He
trusted, therefore, that a further examination of the mea-
sure that house would refuse to sanction, and prevent at
once all further discussion on the subject. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. COLLIER considered that the burden of proof lay
on those who opposed this measure. As to a man being
disqualified from marrying any particular woman the bur-
den of proof lay upon those who forbid the banns, and not
upon the parties who wished the marriage consummated.
Those marriages were sanctioned in every country in
Europe except their own, and putting aside what was
called the moral instinct of parties, he would ask, weas
there any prohibition in the Scriptures aguatmthst
then
nthmthey
There was none in the New Testament, b
were thrown back upon a chapter in Leviticus, and
that chapter. But that one verse did not
to one verse
bear out the argument of the opponents of this measure, for
it simply stated that a man should not marry his wife's
sister during his wife's lifetime, but it did not say that he
should be prevented from doing so after his wife's death.
(Hear, hear.) And besides, they had it in evidence taken
on this subject, and given by one of the chief Rabbis in
London, that the Jews were in the habit of constantly con-
tracting such marriages. It was said that the apostolic
canons prohibited these marriages. But the apostolic
canons prohibited many marriages which even bishops
themselves had since contracted. They, for instance, for-
bade bishops to marry with servant girls. (Laughter.)
But these restrictions were now for the most
part disregarded. Therefore these apostolic canons
being the chief stock in trade of the opponents of
this measure, he thought they gave them but little ground
to stand upon. (Hear.) There being, therefore, no prohibi-
tion in the Scriptures against such marriages, he could see no
reason for the opposition to this measure. It was not meant
by the passing of it to compel the contraction of such Ilar.-
riages, but all that was intended was to peymit. thoseof
hear.)
their nature and their feelings, and do so. (Hear,they
who wished to contract them to follow the instinct
would see
If they looked at the case in
h e Prohibitions. It
the impropriety of maintaining
anothert lief
which it
ewas
thealways
statuteeonfstenefdathnfs eenus, to maintain
nature,it
would be disregarded by many, and.
.was well known
maintain a prohibition
ap-
peared to him therefore impreper.to main
inconvenient,
book pro andbiti
the moral sense
which was antagonistic to the religion, and
portion of the community. Among the
of a large p
were contracted
higher classes these marriages Ting y
and were considered by them bin h law
orer classes the case
of God, but among the Po
well kwn was different. Among them it was take that'
on
the death of the wife, the sisterwouldebetween her place in
the family, and if the marriage
her and her
sister's husband were prohibited, they
•
would live together
in a state of coneubinag
e'it not einevitable effect of
the prohibition, and considering . falsified by the Old
or New Testament, and not at variance with the principle of
civil and religious liberty, he cordially gave his support to
the second reading of the bill. (Cheers.)
BLACICBURNE opposed t
Mr• it on the the measure, and
founded his opposition to 10th and two following
verses of the 18th chapter of Leviticus. He trusted the house
would throw out the measure upon the second reading, and
that they would never have such a disagreeable subject
again before them.
Mr. HEADLAM said he had voted in favour of this
measure ever since he had had a seat in the house, and on
the present occasion he had seen no reason to alter his opi-
nion. He would not go into the theological arguments on
the subject, as he considered that house was not the place
for theological discussion and all they had to do was to
apply to the question that' principle based upon justice and
morality which guided the discussions of that house. There
could be no doubt that in former years these marriages
were tolerated and recognised in this country to all intents
and purposes. They prevailed throughout all classes of
society, from the highest to the lowest, and there was not
an atom of proof of an instance of any one of them ever
having hem set aside. During all that time whew ouch