The Sun.
London, England, 1849-02-23 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS. Feb. 22.

MARRIAGES WITHIN DGREES OF AFFINITY.
(Continued from our Third Edition of last night.) •
The motion having been seconded,
Mr. H. T. HOPE, who was understood to oppose the proposition then brought forward, addressed the House
for some time, and referred at some length to various
documents arid papers in support of the views he enter.
rained; but the Hon. Member was almost totally inew
dtble in the gallery from the low tone of voice in which
he spoke, as well as the noise which prevailed during
his address. In concluding his observations, he was WI.
derstood to say that he would not take the, sense of the
House upon the present motion of his Right Hon. Friend
for leave to bring in his Bill, but that ho would divide
upon the second reading.—(Hear.)
Mr. R. PALMER said that he Islt it his duty to offer
the most strcuuous opposition to this measure, but
he thought that at this stage he would not go into
any matter of principle, or enter at large upon
the subject. The existing law, from the
earliest period down to the present time, was held
to be the exponent of Christian morality and of the. Trill
of God, and such they were informed by the Comusis•
sionera was the prevailing belief in this countiy. All
that he would say was, that when that Commission
issued he thought they should have had a very differeot,
sort of inquiry.—([lear.) It was mostly made up 01
the evidence of prejudiced and interested witnesses. lie,
expected to have found archbishops and bishops, and
persons learned in the law ecclesiastical, examined ; but
there was nothing of the sort. Instead of a general in•
quiry, it was conducted in a limited manner, and for *
limited purpose, and not entitled to that consideration
claimed tOr it. These were important matters to he
borne in mind in coming to a deliberate conclusion oe
this important subject.—(Hear.)
Mr. HENLEY stated his full concurrence in all the
remarks made by the Hon. Member with respect to the
mode in which the Commission had been conducted. Al
this Bill was founded upon this report, he would °proe
it, for, though he would not divide the House on the'
stage of it, he wished to guard against its being sU
' posed he could give any sanction to the measure. If the
evidence of interested persons was taken away from the
Commission's report, what weight of testimony had the,'
to show that this alteration of the law was desirable
He would go one step further. It was hardly possible te,
road the evidence without perceiving that one class or
witnesses had been subjected to examination of a chase'
ter totally different from the character of the examine'
tion to which others had been subjected. He had beers
struck with the very searching legal cross•exarninatiol
in some instances, and the want of it in the caseg
f
witnesses to whom it ought to have been applied'
Apart froth the propriety or impropriety of examining
paid paid persons who gave, not their own testimony, 11,e.
that of others, they were a class of witnesses who ought
to have been subjected to the most severe cross-exatiS;.
__
nation. They might almost be likened to electionetlril
agents, who put down every man that did not spit
n%
their faces as being in favour of their candidate.
eho believed the r-port brought in by an r lectionee ;c?.
agent? The Right lion. and I.warned Gentleman (7A„
S. Wortl4y) said no report had been made recomm.o_ri.r
ing legislation because that question did not lie ivrniia
the powers of the Commission. But he took upon . u
self here to say, he had the authority of the Corneal iv
of whom was dead—for declaring that they were
in favour of legislasioe.
Mr. S. wouluy had saidho could not WAmon

• "1
~ ,: