The Sun.
London, England, 1849-05-04 00:00:00

rage were far more likely to find a better and a more
natural protection in their mother's sister than they .1
would is step-mothers, towards whom they too fre-
quently entertained embittered feelings. Take the case
of a dying mather; and did they not believe the pings
of that woman woul.l be asoiaged—that she would die
happy, if once convinc, d her children would be left in
charge of her own sister. He begged pardon of the
House for having occupied so much of their attention;
and as it was a question great and paramount import•
ante, te trusted they would consent to the second read-
ing of the Bill. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman then
resumed his seat amid general cheers.
Mr. R. PALMER said he felt a great advantage in
having to follow the Hon. and Learned Gentleman who
just addressed the House, because of the clearness with
which he put forward his arguments, and a disadvantage
in having to follow a speech characterised by so touch
eloquence and power. He believed that the practice at
present prevailing was founded on the law of God; and
it was for that reason he should give the measure every
opposition in his power. Those who took the view that
the law of the land in this respect was founded on the
law of Gad had also a right to maintain the great
social advantages which follow it. The Honourable
and Learned Gentleman threw out a challenge to show
that no authority was to be found in Scripture against
such a measure as proposed by the Bill, and, much
as he (Mr. R. Palmer) was averse to such a discussion in
that House, yet he should not shrink from it on that
occasion. The Hon. Gentleman then read that portion
of Leviticus which set out the different prohibitions of
marriage. He besought the House to pause before they
reversed the legislation of Christendom down to the
present day, on this subject. The Book of Leviticus
expressly laid down the prohibited degrees, and stated
positively the Jews should not follow the example of
the heathen nations who surrounded them. The pro-
hibition in plain and express terms was given that no
man should marry his brother's wife, and surely the
converse of that showed as clear as words could ex-
press it, that neither was he to marry a wife's sister.
He should not go farther into that part of the subject,
painful as it must be to the House, and would proceed
next to the judgment and authority of the Christian
Church. He believed they were warned in the New
Testament not to depend upon the traditions of the Jews,
and he boldly asserted that there was no one instance' in
the Church of such a marriage taking place. It was
held in Scotland to be contrary to the Westminster con-
fession of faith, and prohibited altogether in Switzer-
land, the country of Calvin. All the reformers of Ger-
many and this country so interpreted the Levitical law
as to include this marriage in the prohibition.
At the time of Lord Lyndhurst's Act, if a
man married his own sister she was his
wife until the Ecclesiastical Court interfered and
pronounced it void. That was a state of law which
there was very great reason should not continue. He
had carefully read the evidence taken by the Commis-
sion. The report did not present any sufficient reasons
by which the House ought to be actuated to change the
present state of the law. With respect to the moral
effect, they could not compel morality by the law. There
would be incestuous connexions, make what laws they
might; but still it was their duty to prevent, as far as
possible,nnd to discourage such immorality by the laws.
At the same time it was clear from the re-
port itself, that the number of these marriages ascer-
tained by those who had been engaged in seeking evi-
dence amounted to 1,500 only. He thought also that the
inquiries by their agents had been limited to the degrees
of affinity referred to in this Bill, so that there was' no
general evidence as to the actual moral condition of the
people, and the operation of the marriage laws, presented
in the report, and they were asked to alter the law upon
most limited and partial grounds. Next there was the
argument drawn from the state of marriages in foreign
countries. They were told that those marriages were
permitted in France, Prussia, Holland, and the United
States. But when they were referred to the law of these
countries in this respect, they ought to ask whether they
were prepared to assimilate all their other laws to the
laws of these countries.--(Hear, hear.) If they
agreed to it they could not stop there. Divorce
would undoubtedly follow. One of the greatest men
of this country, John Milton, had written two
treatises on the " Doctrine and Discipline of Di-
vorce," in which he had advocated divorce founded on
the practice of the German Church, and at a later pe-
riod a work was written by Mr. Mather, carrying the
doctrine still further, and approving of bigamy and po-

lygamy in certain cases. All the arguments adduced by
him in support of these views, were as applicable and as
true as those which were urged by the supporters of
this Bill. He trusted that the House would not forget
that 11,000 of the women of England had addressed the
Queen, praying that she would not give her assent to this
Bill, and thus preserve inviolate the purity of the family
ties of Great Britain. (The Hon. and Learned Member
was loudly cheered on resuming his seat.)
Mr. BUNBURY, who rose amidst loud cries of
" Divide, divide," said atihat late hour it would be im-
possible for him to follow the lengthened and able speech
of the Hon. and Learned Member; and he should, there-
fore, propose that the debate be now adjourned.—(No,
no; proceed, proceed.)
Mr. STUART WORTLEY said he was quite willing,
if it was agreeable to the House, to take the division
that night.—(Proceed, proceed.)
Mr. GLADSTONE said it would be impoisible to
divide that night. It was a most important subject. The
Members for the Universities and others were anxious
to express their views upon it, and he should support
the adjournment.
After some further conversation, strangers were or-
dered to withdraw; but the motion was agreed to with-
out a division, and the debate was (we understood) ad-
journed to this day.
SELECT COMMITTEE ON SAVINGS' BANKS.
Mr. REYNOLDS then moved the remaining members
of this Committee—Mr. John Abel Smith, Mr. Grogan,
Mr. G. Craig, Mr. George Alexander. Hamilton, Mr.
Spooner, Mr. Forbes, Mr. Henley, Mr. Henry Wil-
loughby, Mr. Richard Fox, and Mr. Bourke. He per-
ceived that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had moved
a wholesale amendment—(A laugh)—which was, he be-
lieved, entirely at variance with the practice of the
House. At the last debate the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer opposed the Hon. Member for Dublin University
(Mr. Napier), because he was not on the Committee last
year. But he had now changed his ground, and pro-
posed three new Members who were not on that Com-
mittee. Now he protested against having a Committee
forced upon him by the Right Hon. Baronet. It would
not be one of his selection, and he now announced that
he would divide on every name. He asked what was
the meaning of the attempt to pack this Committee?—
(Hear.) It he said " pack," he would be disorderly, and
therefore he would merely ask what was the reason he
was refused the usual practice of the House, and why
the Right Hon. Baronet refused him the selection of his
own Committee? Why, it could only be because it was
felt that he had proved his case, and it was determined
to prevent him from getting a fair jury.—(Hear.) It was
a disagreeable thing to object to the names of Members,
but he had no alternative. The Hon. Member for the
University of Dublin (Mr. Napier) had been rejected as
not fit to sit on that Committee.—(No, no.) Well, then,
he was rejected because he was not on the Committee
of last year—(Hear, hear)—but was the Marquis of
Kildare or Sir G. Clerk on that Committee ?—(Hear,
hear.) He did not object to them, but he preferred
others. He had on the last debate taken credit for hav-
ing placed the name of the Right Hon. Member for the
University of Cambridge (Mr. Goulburu) on the Com-
mittee. He was one of the four who had passed muster
—(Laughter)—and he did not mean to disturb him.—
(A laugh.) But if he had to nominate the Committee
afresh, he would place his name on the list, because he
was Chancellor of the Exchequer when these frands were
committed.
Mr. GOULtURN—They were not commenced in my
me.

Mr. REYNOLDS—WeII, if they did not commence
in his time, at all events they were fostered and cloaked
during several years of his official life.—(Hear, hear.)
He was prepared to prove, by several credible witnesses,
that while the Right Honourable Gentleman was in
office he was informed of these frauds, and yet he never
did his duty by closing the account of the Cuffec.
street Bank, as he was bound to do, and making
known its defalcations to the public.—(Hear' hear.)
If he was prevented from getting a fair Committee he
would throw up the affair altogether, and despair of
justice being done to the large body of paupers—
(A laugh)—for whom he appeared. He had used
the word paupers advisedly. They were paupers
and made so through the default of the Government,
which ought to have protected their small savings.
He
would feel it to be his Ttuty to take the sense of the
House upon every vote, and it would be for the Right
lion. Geutleman to take such a course as would prevent
such an unpleasant necessity. The Hon. Member
thanked those Members of the
House who bad given him
their support in this matter, and he also thanked the
public press for the anxiety it had evinced, without ex-
ception, that justice should be done to the unfortunate
depositors. He concluded by
on thepro name of
singhismmotrir motion.
On the question being put
Abel Smith,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER rose and
said that in selecting the Committee he begged to assure
the Hon. and Learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Napier)
that the reason why he objected to oa his name was, that
his was the first of the names that had been proposed,
that had been on the list of the Committee of last
year. He could assure him
in the
what he had
done, he had no personal feeling matter. The
Right Hon. Gentleman in further explaining°iethbe reasons
which had influenced him in the selection
efodrelloinde,
said that when the Hon. and Learned Member
lin complained of so large a number of English Mem-
bersl3-
being placed on the Committee, he would remind
the Hon. and Learned Member that he had himself ad-
mitted that the question was not simply an Irish, but
that it was an Imperial question, and he thought that,
under these circumstances, he acted with the utmost
fairness in placing four Irish Members on the list.at the
He
felt confident that any gentleman who would look
list of last year, would admit that the selection he had
now made was made in the spirit of perfect impartiality
and fairness, and that he had no personal feeling what-
ever in the matter.
Mr. A. STAFFORD said.he did not think the Right
Hon. Geatleinan the Chancellor of the Exchequer hate
ad
at all made any reply to the able and dispassion
statement of the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin,
and he could assure the Right Hon. Gentleman that no
attempt of the Government could put down the feeling
that existed upon this important subject out of doors
(Hear, hear.) lie had yet to learn why the ordinary
course had been departed from of allowing the mover,
in the present case the Learned Member for Dublin to
select his Committee.—(Hear, hear.) Although the
Government might succeed in packing a Committee,
they couldtnot hope by such means to satisfy the public
on a question of such vital importance to a large class of
poor people who had suffered by three Irish savings'
banks, mid one Scotch one.
Mr. GOULBURN said, with reference to what had
been attributed to the Hon. Member for Evesham, that