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

marriages were contracted, and when the contraction of
them was common and universal, was there the slightest
evidence that any injury had been inflicted on morality or.
religion in consequence of their prevalence ? There was no
such evidence. Had they been pregnant:with evil or scan-
dal to morality or religion, no doubt they would
have had bishops and clergymen denouncing them from
the pulpit, but the pulpit never gave out any loud sound
on the subject, and there was never heard any oomplaint
or murmur at their prevalence. (Hear, hear.) The object,
of the bill of 1835 was to establish the validity of such mar-
riages which had previously taken place, unless proceed-
ings were taken against the parties so married within a
certain time, and to legalise such marriages in future, un-
less objections were taken to them within a certain period..
That was in effect legalising such marriages. But objec-
tions having been taken to the second clause, which legal-
ised such marriages in future, that clause was withdrawn
in order to secure the passing of the other one legalising
such marriages up to a certain time, the house having at
the same time clearly indicated its favourable opinion as to
the legality of such marriages. While, however, previous
to that act there had been no complaint, ever since there
had been a continued agitation for an extension of that act,
and the legalising all such marriages in time to come, while
at the same time, no man who wished to contract a mar-
riage with pie: deceased (wife's sister was deterred from
doing so, believing that there was no law of God prevent-
ing him from doing so. (Hear, hear.) The fact was, they
had no argument with which to meet a man who wished to
contract such a marriage to the illegality; and believing
that the passing of the measure would do away with a great
deal of inconvenience, and prevent a considerable amount
of immorality, he cordially supported the second reading of
the bill. (Hear, hear.)
Lord R. CECIL opposed the measure. He considered
that the same restriction which prevented a man from
having two wives, prevented him from marrying his de-
ceased wife's sister. That was the legitimate argument to
be drawn from the prohibition, as stated in Liviticus; and
the bigamist might with the same reason that, as his con-
science and his instinct told him there was nothing in
Scripture to prevent him having two wives, he was not
going against the doctrine of Scripture in following that
instinct and have his wives. He did not believe that the
passing of this measure would be the means of satisfying
public feeling and opinion in respect to the marriage ques-
tion ; for if they passed the measure they would set the
whole kingdom a thinking who they might marry and who
they might not. (Laughter.) If he was about to found a
new republic, he might make such a law, but in the mean-
time he would move that the bill be read a second time that
day six months.
Mr. BALL having seconded the amendment,
Sir G. GREY said he would not go into the theological
argument, but he considered, from all the evidence they had
before them on the subject, that they might with propriety
make some relaxation in the present law. (Hear, hear.)
He concurred in the able arguments which had already
been uaged in favour of the measure, but he must say in.
no social point of view it was not proper that this subject.
should year after year came up before Parliament for dis- •
cussion. (Hear.) He thought the hon. gentleman who
had brought forward the measure was justified in bringing
it forward on this occasion, considering as he had no doubt.
did that there was a large portion of the public anxious for
such a measure passing, but at the same time it would be
fraught with :much disadvantage to keep public opinion
agitated year after year on the marriage questien, and ho
hoped they would at once come to a final decision respect-
it. (Hear.)
Mr. WALPOLE cautioned the house against disturbing
the marriage law, which had been the same ever since the
introduction of Christinity into the country. It had been
uniform and consistent ever since not only in England, but
also in Scotland and in Ireland, and as there was no law
which had so raised the character of woman land given her
that place which she ought to hold in the social, scale,
he cautioned them against interfering with it. (Hear.)
He argued that religion was a matter which ought not to
be needlessly brought into discussion in that house, but he
hesitated not to say that in all the laws, civil and sacrt'd,
they would find it laid down that these marriages are pro-
hibited, and say what they might there was !no questions
that a man was prohibited from marrying her sister-in• law
upon the same principle that a woman was prohibited from
marrying her brother. in-law. (Hear.) The relationship wiei
the same, and the prohibition was equally atrong in both
cases. He found, on looking at the list of prohibited mar-
riages, now 30 in number, that 20 out of the 30 were mar-
riages of affinity. Now, was it intoned by this bill to le-
galise marriages of affinity? They knew well the at empt
to do that would be going in the teeth of the Scriptural
prohibition, but would not the legalisation proposed have
the effect of lowering the woman in comparison to the man
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 Tautus saysof an
interference made with the marriage law then prevalent,
and which had ended in inducind 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. Ho should therefore op-
pose any alteration of the law, and he did not believe that
there was any such disadvantages felt on 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 the archl.ishops, 19 bishops, and some
400 or 500 clergymen in the neighbourhood of ondon, all
declaring that the prohibition in question has 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 E said if the measure was extended

the whole of the United Kingdom he should give it his supT
port. He would, however, support it more as a social ques-
'ion than as a religious one, as he considered that, while
there was nothing in the Scriptures autorising the prohi-
bition, great inconvenience was caused by it to a large por-
tion of the community.
Mr. S I'OONER would also look at the question as a
social ono. 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 weuld 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. MILNES said he would not trouble the house
at night, 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 things. The law of marriage had al-
ready been disturbed, and by this measure he was only en-
deavouring to realise 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 marriage. It had been therefore agitated
before, but previous to the act of 1833, he believed
that it operated satisfactorily. It was that law which was
carried to an extent which Lord Lyndhurst, who introduced
it, never intended, which had been the cause of all the dis-
turbance, for he could not understand the justice and pro-
priety—a law which declared a marriage legal up to a cer-
tain period, and then declare 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 clergy men of the diocese in
which he resided, the evils which pervaded, 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
ahnoudsheebtyheexutgehntdainsgretermdeedastuhreefetnno lerreeleaurindtryantdhSatoohteland,
was
jsue
ns ttiefide dt
hi
ant dd oa iyn g
ins
foa
vlracumr
ethet
hvea r imomussupreet.i t i on se h
sheer
shs d. pre-
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.

ooitMEANS.te
The housee
of
Ways
and
oSneANinDto
halvVeAYg
Means,
Mr. PEEL moved the following resolution ,—That, to-
wards making good the supply granted to her Majesty, for
the service of the year ending the 31st day of March, 1862,
the sum of 1973,747 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 H. 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 31st March.
MERCHANDIZE MARKS.
gone
The house having into committee.
Mr. M. GIBSON obtained leave to bring in a bill to
amend the law relating to the Fraudulent Marking o f
Merchandize.
The house having resumed, the bill was read a first
time.
j
The house then ad ourned at half-past four o'clock.