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

laceunder their present state of the law, and that none
ojelies which were apprehended from the change
Ova follow. The Attorney-General had stated
,"let clergymen of the Established Church could he
:3i:opened to administer the offices of the Church by
it"e law. Ho thought that the clause in the Bill en
thatlio subject was a piece of homage and respect to the
rgY which they ought to be content with. It gave
vitneyrfelergyrnan who had conscientious scruples against
its "ranig such marriages the option of refusing; but
there was a great difference among the clereymen
t themselves the marriage would not thereby be prevented.
`ii only necessary for parties so situated to go to a
Ah'-'2Yrnan who had no such scruples, in order to have
marriege solemnized„ :lie had no desire to compel
7,20 ministers of the Church to perform acts from which
a-t"lleoescientiously dissented, and he thought this was
1.011.111 Y provided for. Regarding this Bill as a remedy
a great practical evil, and believing that no injury
uulri arise from it to any class, he hoped it would be
eseee,r.sidered consistent with his duty, as a member of the
aurela of England, to give it his cordial support.
Mr, SEYMER said' that tkose who, like himself, were
Convinced that the Bill was opposed to the law of God,
hero hound to act upon that conviction, and oppose it.
(Rear, hear.) But with reference to the evidence
'ehich it was based, he must say that, after having
'Fully vend the report of the Commission, and every
question
, and and answer in the blue book, he had come
cutieteue conclusion ;that it was a one.sided one.—(Loud
by P.) The greater part of the evidence was given
biro!rlte.rested parties, by persons, in fact, who had
(ve the law they wished to have repealed.—
theeear, bear.) It was as if an agitation was got up for
abrogation of the law against sheep-stealing on the
"idorece of convicted sheep-stealers.—(A laugh.) That
4:ta precisely the case with this Bill. Instead of relaxing,
a law, he would tighten it by passing a short law declar-
ant; that the marriages were illegal between Englishmen
"lid English women, who went abroad to be married
ander the impression that their marriage was thereby
'be obeyed.
If that were done, he believed the law would
.e
obeyed. The Hon. Member proceeded to examine
'ne evidence, which he said showed, by the testimony of
ktr, Brotherton, that marriage within the prohibited
',leg sees of consanguinity was exceedingly prevalent in the
tkic,cese of Manchester. Another case was stated of a re-
I'lleictable and wealthy man, who kept his carriage, and he
'arias sorry to say, as the House would perceive by the
7.l.i.clence, kept his mistress also.—(Hear, and a laugh.)
41, was stated that he cohabited with his deceased wife's
ster, and was only prevented from marrying her by
th e unsettled state of the law; then he protested against
t'bat man's respectability.—(Cheers.) It was of a similar
et iaracter to the definition of that word, some years
14g% when a respectable man was explained to be
one who kept a horse and gig.—(A laugh.)
rhetes could be no respectability in living iu opposition
to the law. But Mr. Foster in his pamphlet continually
Izstel the terms that "parties were compelled to do this
1 the defective state of the law." He could not under-
ett .nd why such terms were used. What compelled this
'at an to cohabit with his wife's sister? He knew of no
!Prnpulsion which should cause him to over ride the law.
Ile could not take the opinion of the class who lived in
towns as a guide for his conduct on the present ques-
tion. He had endeavoured to explain the sentiments he
*entertained regarding the proposed alteration of the law,
'mad his opposition to it was on the ground that it was
t"eainst the principle of their church, and the principle
'of their law—(Hear, hear)—from which he would not
'depart,
The Earl of ARUNDEL and SURREY said he would
refer to what had been said about dispensations being
granted by the Pope, in what had been called the
*lark ages,
for the purpose of enabling an uncle to
marry his niece. Now he would tell the Honourable
Member, that the Pope could not grant any dispen-
sation for any purpose that would he contrary to
the law of God. As far as the discipline of
the Catholic Church was concerned, that was another
thing; but no dispensation could interfere with that
which was the law of God. Whenever, therefore, dia.
Pensations were granted by the Pope, they had a right
to hold that the purpose of the dispensation was iu con-
formity with the law of God. He was in favour of the
proposed measure, as he believed there was a large body
(A persons in this country who advocated its necessity,
and who were entitled to the relief which its provisions
+could afford them.
Mr. JOHN O'CONNELL was of opinion that the re-
lief proposed to be given in the Bill was one called for
by the pride and selfishness of man, and was not for the
advantage of women.—(Hear, hear.) He could refer to
the evidence given by Dr. Wiseman on the subject as
proving that in Ireland the measure was not needed.
Re could also say that he had recently had ocsasion
to consult Dr. Brown, the Catholic Bishop of
Elphin, and although that Right Reverend Pre
late wished to guard himself against being thought
to do more than simply to express his own opinion,
yet he (Mr. John O'Connell) could say that Dr. Brown
.had had great experience, first in Galway, and next in
Ilphin, and his statement was that no ease had occurred
of such a marriage taking place in these districts, of
'which he had any knowledge. He (Mr. J. O'Connell)
did not intend to enter into any discussion, and had risen
merely with a view to mention these facts with refer-
ence to Ireland.
Mr. COCKBURN apprehended that they were en-
titled to expect at the hands of the House a careful con.
sideration of the measure before them, because the Bill
which the present measure was intended to remedy had
been carried under circumstances of a very peculiar clia•
ratter. In fact, that Bill was passed to protect a parti-
cular case, by making a number of other Dailies suf-
ferers. It was suggested by Sir W. Follett, who had
charge of the Bill, that if the particular clause bearing on
the present subject was omitted, the omission might be
fatal to the Bill. Under these circumstances, therefore,
the measure now before them was under consideration.
lle would first say that if the position taken up by the
Member for Cambridgeshire was a tenable one, then
there was an end of the matter. But if the measure now
proposed be opposed to Divine law, he called upon Hon.
Menbers, who so argued, to cite the law, as they were
as well able to judge of such a matter as Churchmen
exere.—(Hear, hear.) The only passage in scripture he
could find bearing upon the subject was the following,
namely, " Thou shalt not take a wile to a sister to vex
bee in her lifetime." Now this passage merely showed
that a man should not marry two sisters while both were
living. It was intended to prevent the divorcing of one
sister from the purpose of marrying another, or of mar-
rying one sister during the lifetime of another. This,
then, he would contend, amounted to a permission to
marry a deceased wife's sister under any circumstances,
for the prohibition only applied to the lifetime of the
wife. The Hon. Member then quoted the opinions of
several eminent Divines—those of Jeremy Taylor especi-
ally, with reference to the Levitiod law, aed said that all
these opinions showed that many things held under the
Mosaic law had been altogether departed from
in Christian countries. Whatever, however, might be
the opinion of Churchmen, he would maintain that such
a question should be considered upon social, moral, and
religious grounds. The fathers of the early Church,
Whatever might be their virtues and abilities, carried
their ascetism to a most mischievous extent. Persons
who contracted second marriages were condemned for
doing so, and those who contracted third marriages were
considered as being no better than beasts.—(Hear, and
laughter.) The Hon. Member then referred to the
canons of the Church at an early period, to show the
very extreme nature of the opinions entertained by the
Church on the subject of marriage. The Noble Lord
who last addressed the House said, and said truly, that
the Roman Catholic Church only exercised a dispensa-
tion, allowing of those marriages as a matter of church
discipline, but not at all as a power derived under the
Divine law.—(Hear, hear.) With respect to the
means resorted to by Henry the Eighth to effect the
object which he had in view, they were all historically
acquainted with them. Foiled in his applications to
the Pope, he directed his application to the Legislature,
and a pandering Parliament passed the 25th of Henry
the Eighth, which renders those marriages illegal, and
it was from such a source as that—from, he would say.
such an unholy and polluted source—that the English
divines took their authority. He (Mr. Cockburn) ad-
mitted, and admitted readily, that the law as it
stands should be obeyed ; but, at the same time, ho said
it was the duty of Parliament, as a Legislative body,
not to so make the law as to interfere with the course of
human affections—not to make it arbitrarily and capri-
ciously, but to make it in a manner calculated to pro-
mote social happiness and virtuous inclieations.—(Hear,
hear.) If the considerations to which ho had referred
should not operate to keep a man within the bounds of
decency, if they should not operate to, prevent a man
from laying his hands upon his wife's sister, and from
having incestuous intercourse with her, then, no laws
which they could make would operate upon such a
man, for, by his guilt—guilt from which every moral
and sensitive mind would recoil in horror—he proved
himself insensible to shame. What I were their
English women so fallen in sense of decency and morality
4,3 to allow their sister's husband to lay incestuous
',Lands upon them? No, he utterly disbelieved it.—
(Rear, hear.) It had been said that iu other countries
Pb such marriages prevailed. Now that was not the
vas,?• In all Catholic countries they were known to pre-
vail, and in Protestant countries on the Continent, they
were also known to prevail. The Hon. and Learned
Gentleman then cited the opinions of Professor Story in
lariats
a such marriages, as those of one of the greatest
tore
Who had written on the subject, and showing that
to.'re was nothing in the Divine law which forbade a man
'trry with his wife's sister. It was a custom which
prel,siled in the United States of America, where, allow
1g this
to Fiay, the standard of morality was quite as high as
44 this country. Surely, a law which rested upon an hypu-
thesi,
alter ought to be done away with. The law could not
human nature, and it they would attempt:to do that,
they were legislating in the dark.—(Hear, hear.) Look-
ing at the other side of the question, he would ask
them, were there no evils resulting from their laws?
Why, to a very great extent their law was most inju-
rious. 'Within a few years of the passing of Lord.
l'Yodhurst's Act, it
those marriages took place.
said that no less than 1,500 of
On the other hand, they
had eighty-eight cases' itacew.hich the law had not been
obeyed at all, and out of these eighty-eight case they
had no less than thirty-threehi in which the parties were
living in a state of coneu
those were cases where it was owing
to the law. Now,
cerain that the parties
were desirous to marry, wouldanaashear. marry had not the
law forbidden them.—(Hear,
legitimacy,oce n t cl
dren were to be deprived in this way of Itfheinirn
he said the Legislature was but involving
confusion, and that they ought not to trifle lightly families
within
the happiness of families and innocent chilr
(fear, hear.) It was said, "Oh yes, but persons are
bound to obey the law." Yes, but the Parliament,
in its legislative capacity, ought not to throw temp-
tationen, in their way to break the law.—(Hear, hear.)
The Hon. and Learned Member then alluded to the 0,-„-
uroas of Jeremy Taylor, a favourite authority •s.
and showed that they were in favour of per; fins iu the
relationship under consideration, inure ing. Ile thought
they should not shut the doors of Parliament against
marriages of this kind, and that children of a first mar-

ridge were far more likely to find a better and a more
natural protection in their mother's sister than they
would in step :mothers. towards whom they too fre-
qaently entertained embittered feelings. Take the case
of a dying mother; and did they not believe the pangs
of that woman wouhl be assuaged—that she would die
heppee, if once censinc, 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 of great and paramount import-
[tree, he trusted they would consent to the second read-
ing of the Bill. The Hem. and Learned Gentleman then
resumed hie seat amid general cheers.
Mr. R. PALMER said he felt a great advantage in
having to follow the lion. 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 much
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 Gel heel also a right to maintain the great
social advantages which follow it. The Honourable
and Leerned 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 discus-ion in
that House, yet he should not shrink from it on that
occasion. The Hon. Gentleman then read that portion
of Leviticus which set cut the different prohibitions of
marriasse. He bps' ught 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. lle 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, it 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 es
possible, and 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. lie 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 at that late hour it would be im-
possible for him to follow the lengthened and able speech
of tho 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 impossible 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' BANIC6.
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 lion. 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 lion. 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. lie had on the last debate taken credit for hav-
ing placed the name of the Right Hon. Member for the
University of Cambridge (Mr. Goulburn) on the Com-
mittee. lie 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 frauds were
committed.
Mr. GOULBURN—They were not commenced in my

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 be never
did his duty by closing the account of the Cuffee-
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,
o and despair of
justice being done to the large b
(A laugh)—tor whom ho appeared. y ofw Hehad used
the word paupers advisedly. They erep aupers—
end made so through the default of the Government,anpera
which ought to have protected their small savings.
Heot would feel it to be his duty to take the sense of the
Ise upon every vote, and it would be for the Right
Hon. Gentleman to take such a course as would prevent
such an unpleasant necessity. The II Member
thanked those Members of the House who a.
had given him
their support in this matterhe also thanked the
y
public press for tho anxiety t and
t had evinced, without ex-
ception, that justice should be done to the unfortunate
depositors. He concluded by proposing his motion.
On the question being puton the name of Mr. John
Abel Smith,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER rose and
said that in selecting the Committee he
the Hon. and Learned Gentleman opposite
to assure
ir. Napier)
that the reason why he objected to his name
his was the first of the names that had been was, that
proposedl
that had been on the list of the Committee of last
year. He could assure him that in what he had
done, he had no personal feeling in the matter. The
Right Hon. Gentleman in further explaining the reasons
which had influenced him in the selection he had made,
said that when the Hon. and Learned Member for Dub-
lin complained. of so large a number cf English Mem-
bers 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 Imperiel question, and he thought that,
under these circumstances, he acted with the utmost
fairness in placing four Irish Members on twould look.
list.at He
e
felt confident that any gentleman who
list of last year, would admit that the selection he had
now made was made in the spirit of perfect impartiality
and fairnev, and that he had no personal feeling what-
ever in the matter.
Mr. A. STAFFORD said he did not think the Right
Hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had
at all made any reply to the able and dispassionate
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.) He had yet to learn why the
er,
ordinary
course had been departed from of allowing the mov
in the present case the Learned Member fur Dublin to
select his Committee.—(Hear, hear.) Although the
Government might succeed in packing a Committee,
they could not hope by such means to satisfy the public
on a question of such vital importance to a large cases of
pour people WiAO heti suffered by (lave Irish savings'
banks, and one Se,eelf one.
Mr. GOULBURN said, with reference to what bad
been attributed to the Hon. Member for Evesham, that