The Sun.
London, England, 1858-05-05 00:00:00

_N EWSP APE R
- - ------ -- - - --71--1,-.17.W.
y.;;1-:
for her. This bill would open the do !).Vlese4. et,:,e--,, er
oi‘
and after its passing there, would be no re, et :!‘leiliell V% .5 ' -LZ &- .4/ 1: . ,I' "
6 t s . :'..••••••:::: oc. :,
wife's sister under the brother's root. ! The -Jot
eef eeee /ye`ee
tion of the Divorce Act of last session, and th b -4----- eleeofe'e'e
e - ellie/
carried would be that if the husband seduced 'hi
sister, the wife would be compelled bythe laws of tool! a S
to divorce him. He would then be left free to lead-to-
the altar his wife's sister, whom he had seduced, and
whom he bad seduced in order to obtain a divorce to
make her his wfe by this enactmett. (Hear, hear, and
cries of "Oh, oh.") In Ireland the bill was regarded
by Roman Catholic pricets and Presbyterians with Ns
unmixed feeling of horror ' • yet Ireland was to be
dragged under the law, end a bonus be gives to Soot-
land, He called upon the house to reject the second
reading of the bill.
Mr. BUXTON considered this question was open t)
d
doubt relative to its expediency ; but he thought in many
great cases
there
marriages
were peculiarly fit, and it was a
hardship parties IhJuld be deprived from enter-
ing them. These marriages were not contained in the
list of forbiddi n unions ; and it appeared to him char
by implication that after the wife's death such marriage's
were to be allowed. The prohibits ins of parents and
first cousins had within late years been removed, as well
as the marriages of the godfather and godmother of the
same body, and he saw no reason why the. prohibition
to con'rect marriage with a deceased wife's sister should
not be removed.
1 Mr. COLLIER said the hon, member for Maidstone
appeared to think that the number of petitions presented
ie f scour of the measure was no proof ef the favour in
which it was eicieilaieed In the country, but from.a
document he (Mr. CJiier) hell in his hand he found cer-
tain limits given for drawing up petitions against the
!oil! teat had been sent toned the country with a remark
that there was no objec.ion to women eignieg it. (Hear.)
That paper ens signed by Mr. J. B. Hope—('aughter)
—and those who acted wiih him appeared to him to have
a desire to get up his petition as economical as possible,
far the document further stated that in consequence of
the expense of sending the circuler round gentlemen
were asked to coo tri eute a few
postage stamps towards
defraying it—(laughter)—and the result of the agitation
hot been the production cf one small petition. (Hear,
hear, and laughter.) He considered the burthen of
proof that those usages were illegal rested on those who
opposed them, and he proceeded to argue that by Levi-
ticus a man was only prohibited from ()ringing bra wife's
sister home to vex her during her lifetime, and not froM
marrying her after his wife'e. death. (Hear, 'bear.)- If
thee marriage's were illegal, Achy did the HOtteefr of rat.
littmeW inetoding the bench of bislitspikiielnislt-itosi
Lyndhurst's Act to-pese legalising those marriages that
had taken place before that time. By consenting to
that Act, it appearel to him the legislature had sanc-
tioned these marriagesas not being contrary tothe word of
God. He did not find that in the countries where these
marriages were permitted the people had any desire to
change the law, The evils spoken of by the opponents
of the measure as likely to ensue from this change were
of an imaginary character in comparison with those
that ex's fed under the present law. The honourable and
learned member referred to the recent decision declaring
that marriaeee contracted by English people in foreign
countries were illegal which had caused many to be the
victims of a tyrannical law. If its having operated had
beet felt in the higher classes, it was greater amongst
the poorer classes, who looked upon a sister as the natu-
ral guardian far a deceased wife's children. As the
tteological part of the argument was against the prohi-
bition, and if the social evils resulting from the
prohibition, and to bel apprehended from a change
were so nicely balanced, it was the duty cf the house to
consider which course they would pursue, and he thought
common sense pointed out theta change would be bone-
fi sal to the morality of the people.
Mr. M. T. BAINES supported the measure. He
considered it was wrong and tyrannical to legislate
against those marriages. It was impossible to induce
the people to believe that these marriages were prohi-
bited, and be therefore considered it was unjust far that
1 house to endeavour to prevent them. He defended the
report of the commii.sion, composed of five very able
men, and which was deserving of every respect and at-
tention from that house. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. If. DRUMMOND admitted with regret that the
present state of things required alteration.
Sir G. C. LEWIS cordially supported the bill, and
hoped the house would read the bill a second time with-
out hesitation.
The LORD ADVOCATE was opposed to the bill on
legal grounds, and considered the burthen of proof
of the necessity of the measure rested on the promoters
of the bill, who had failed hitherto to do so.
He should vote against the second reading of the bill.
Mr. PULLER opposed the bill and entered into a
lengthened theological argument to prove that these
marriages were prohibited by scripture, and contrary to
divine law. He suggested a committee of the most able
divines to enquire into the question on theological
grounde.
Mr. M. MILNES, who was in some measure answer-
able for the introduction of the bill, was anxious to have
a division on the second reading that afternoon. The
question was se well understood by the people that he
should not enter at great length into a defence of the
bill. He defended the necessity of such a bill both on
theological and moral and social grounds.
Mr. AYE 0Y D and Mr. M ALIN S supported the bill,
amidst loud cries of "Divide."
Viscount BURY replied to the objections raised by
the opponents of the bill in the course of the debate.
The house then divided, when the numbers were—
For the motion
Against it

Alnjority ... 40
The bill was read a second time and ordered to b.
committed on the 20th.
ECCLESIASTICAL RESIDENCES (IRELAND)

BILL.
Thu bill passed through committee pro forma.
ROADS, &c. (SCOTLAND) BILL.
The second reading of this bill was poaponed till 80th
June.

EXCHEQUER BONDS (2,000,0001.) BILL.
This bill was read a t'aird time and passed.
The housa adjourned at a quarter past Ore o'clock,

MARKET NEWS.—(This Day.)

C
~--~