The Sun.
London, England, 1862-02-20 00:00:00

by prohibiting her from doing that which the man was per-
mitted to do ? The hon member who had charge of the
measure was a man of learning, a historian, and a poet, and
as a historian he would asked him to go back to the days of
ancient Rome, and see what:the historian Tacitus says of an
interference made with the marriage law then prevalent,
and which had ended in inducing indelicacy and shame.
The hon. member was also a poet, and he would ask him to
look at the picture which Shakspere had drawn of the con-
duct of Gertrude, Queen of Denmark, in her marrying with
her deceased husband's brother. He would see from all
these instances that the interference with the marriage law
was no matter to be trifled with. He should therefore op-
pose any alteration of the law, and he did not believe that
there was any such disadvantages felt in the present state
of the law throughout the country.
Mr. C. BUXTON said, after the number of petitions
which had been presented praying for the abolition of this
law, it could not be said that there was no interest felt by
the country on the subject, while besides these petitions
they had no less than two archtishops, 19 bishops, and some
400 or 500 clergymen in the neighbourhood of London, all
declaring that the prohibition in question was not sanc-
tioned by the Scriptures, and that it ought to be abolished ;
and that being so, he considered they ought to have no
hesitation in passing the present measure.
Sir E. COLEBROOK said if the was extended to
the whole of the United Kingdom lieshould give it his sup •
port. He would, however, support it more as a social ques-
tion than as a religious one, as' he considered that, while
there was nothing in the Scriptures authorising the prohi-
bition, great inconvenience was caused by it to a large por-
tion of the community.

Mr. SPOONER would also look at the question as a
social one. He had come to the conclusion, from inquiries
he had made, that the evils of being debarred by this pro-
hibition from marrying were very great, and operated most
prejudicially, and he would give his support to the measure.
Mr. A. KINNAIRD said he was certain the extension
of the measure to Scotland would be looked upon with
great dissatisfaction, and he should feel called upon to vote
against the second reading of the bill.
Mr. M. MILNE S said he would not trouble the house
at length, but would refer to a few of the objections which
had been raised against the measure. It had been stated
that by this measure he was about to disturb the law of
marriage, which had been in existence for the past 300 years.
But he was no such thing. The law of marriage had al-
ready been disturbed, and this measure he was only en-
deavouring to restore it to a proper state, and to reconcile it
with the consciences and feelings of the people. It had also
been said that the question had never been agitated before;
but was it not the fact that the English Reformation mainly
hinged on this question. It had been therefore agitated
before, but previous to the act ©f 1835, he believed
that it operated satisfactorily. It was that law which was
carri-11 to an extent which Lord Lyndhurst, who introduced
it, never intended, and which had been the cause of all the
disturbance, for he could not understand the justice and pro-
priety of a law which declared a marriage legal up to a cer-
tain period, and then declared it to be illegal. (Hear, hear.)
How did the law of England operate in the case of a legacy
bequeathed to a wife's sister ? (Hear.) Did it in that case
recognize any relationship ? No such thing. (Hear, hear.)
On the contrary the wife's sister in that case was treated as
an alien, and in that character the law of England alone
recognized her. Deeming it, therefore, unjust that these
marriages should have once been permitted, and then pro-
hibited, he had introduced the present measure in order to
remedy the wrong which had been committed, and the
uneasiness which had been caused. He had seen through-
out the country, he had seen among his own tenants, and
he had been informed by the clerg3 men of the diocese in
which he resided, the erilsjwhich prevailed, and the unsa-
tisfactory state of things which existed in respect of this
marriage question, and he hoped the house would support
him in the present effort to remedy them. (Cheers.) He
considered that he had conformed to the feeling of the
house by extending the measure to Ireland and Scotland,
and he thought as regarded the former country that he was
justified in doing so from the various petitions he had pre
sented that day in favour of the measure. (Cheers.)
The house then divided, when there appeared—
For the second reading .. 144
Against it
Majority in favour of the second reading —ll
The bill was accordingly read a second time and ordered
to be committed on the 12th of March.
WAYS AND MEANS.

The house have gone into committee of Ways rnd
Means,
Mr. PEEL moved the following resolution t—That; to-
wards making good the supply granted to her Majesty, for
the service of the year ending the 31st day of March, 1892,
the sum of £973,747 be !granted, out of the Consolidated
Fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
The resolution having been agreed to, the house resumed.
MARRIAGES (IRELAND.)
Sir 11. CAIRNS obtained leave to bring in a bill to
amend the laws relating to the Solemnization and Seques-
tration of Marriages in Ireland.
The bill was read a first time and ordered to be read a
second time on the 3d March.