The Sun.
London, England, 1850-03-06 00:00:00

Cbtrli Ntation

SUN OFFICE, Seven o' Clock.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
(THIS DAY.)

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

The SPEAKER took the Chair shortly after Twelve
o'clock.
Mr. SCHOLEFIELD presented several petitions
from Birmingham in favour of the repeal of the stamp
and advertisement duty; and also a petition from the at-
tendants at Carr's-late Chapel, Birmingham, in favour
of the Marriage Bill.
Mr. Alderman SIDNEY presented petitions from
Stafford in favour of the Marriage Bill.
Mr. HENLEY presented petitions from Oxfordshire
in favour of the establishment of county financial boards.
Sir THOMAS BIRCH presented a petition from
Liverpool in favour of the Marriage Bill.
Mr. 0. DUNCOMBE'presented petitions from places
in Yorkshire against the Bill.
Mr. BUSFIELD presented petitions from placea in
Lancashire in favour of th© Bill.
Mr. FORBES presented a petition from Stirlingshire
in favour of protection to agriculture.
Sir R. INGLIS presented petitions from various parts
of Oxfordshire against the Marriage Bill.
Mr. WILSON PATTEN presented petitions in
favour of county boards from different parts of Lan-
cashire.
Mr. FREWEN presented similar petitions from places
in Sussex.
Mr. STAFFORD presented a petition from Limerick
against the Fisheries Bill.
Mr. HOPE presented several petitions from Gloucester
and Worcester against the Marriage Bill.
Mr. ROUNDELL PALMER presented similar peti-
tions from Norwich and cther places.
Mr. S. WORTLEY presented several petitions in fa-
♦our of the Marriage Bill.
Mr. SANDERS presented petitions from Wakefield
and other places against the Marriage Bill.
LANDLORD AND TENANT BILL.

Colonel SIBTIIORP gate notice of his intention, on
the motion for the second reading of the Landlord and
Tenant Bill, to move that the Bill ho read a second time
that day six months.
OCCUPIERS OF LAND—COUNTY RATES.
Sir IL HALFORD gave notice of his intention, on
the 12th of the prelent month; to move for leave to bring
in a Bill to relieve !ha occupiers and tenants of land, not
being.the owners thereof, from the county rags.
IRISH CHURCH.

Mr. ROEBUCK gave notice of his intention, on as
early a day as possible after the Easter recess, to call the
attention of the House to the state of the Irish Church.

The dropped orders of the day and notices of motion
were then re-appointed.
HEALTH OF TOWNS (SCOTLAND).
The LORD ADVOCATE, after a few observations
from Mr. Forbes, obtained leave to bring in a Bill for
the improvement of the health of .towns in Scotland.
Tte Noble Lord also obtained leave to bring in Bills
for the better paving of towns in Scotland, and f.:r the
regulation of their police.
In answer to a qsestion from Mr. O'FLAHERTY,
Sir W. SOMEitVILLE stated that it was his in-
tention to introduce very shortly a Bill for the better re-
gulation of fiscal affairs in counties in Ireland ; and also
a Medical Charity Bill.
REDUCTION OF OFFICIAL SALARIES.
Colonel SIBTHORY wished to know from the Go-
vernment whether the reductions which a Committee of
the House had recommended in the salaries of official
officers of the Government had been carried out in re-
spect of the appointments which had been made during
the past year? In putting this question, he made espe-
cial reference to the recent appointment of the Lord
Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench.
Mr. HAYTER replied, that if the Hon. and Gallant
Member would put his question upon the paper, the
Government would have no objection to answer it.
Colonel SIBTHORP—Then I give notice that I will
repeat the question again to-morrow.
IRISH FISHERIES BILL.

Mr. lIAYTER urged the Hon. Member for Youghal
(Mr. Anstey) to postpone the consideration of this Bill
until after Easter, because as it would involve a consider-
able expenditure of public money if carried out, it was
desirable that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should
be present when the discussion re:pelting it came on.
Mr. ANSTRY agreed to postpone the Bill until the
10. h of April.
Mr. CONOLLY presented several petitions from Ire-
land against the Bill, and gave notice that when it next
came on he should move that the further consideration
of it be adjourned fur a year.—(Laughter.)
AFFIRMATION BILL.
This Bill was read a second time pro forma.
LIFE POLICIES OF ASSURANCE. _

The second reading of this Bill was postponed until
this day week.
MARRIAGE BILL—ADJOURNED DEBATE.

Mr. S. WORTLEY presented petitions from Preston,
Salford, and other places in Lancashire, in favour of
this Bill.

The adjourned debate was resumed by
Mr. HOPE, who opposed the measure on the ground
that it was not justified either by divine or moral law.
Every one must admit that the degree of wife's sister
was not so flagrant a case cf violation of the prohibited
degree as a marriage with a niece or aunt, and j et the
case made out for the one class proved an equally strong
case for the other. The returns which the Right Hon.
Gentleman the Member for Bute read in support of
his Bill were made up by an irresponsible
society in London, but ho had in his possession returns
which had been collected by a number of young barris-
ters', and in which he placed muchenore reliance, because
they could have had no interest in deciding the case
one way or the other. These returns, too, which were
chiefly from the agricultural districts, embraced parishes
of small populations, where the clergymen were well
oonversant with the situation and history of his congre-
gation, and of course the best able to give information
upon the subject. Now, he found from these returns
that within a given space of time, no less than 269 mar-
riages had been solemnised within the prohibited de-
grees cf affinity ; 102 were with a wife's sister;
46 with a brother's widow; 6 with an own
niece; 19 with an aunt; and S 9 cases in
all within the degrees other than a wife's sister.
It might be urged that these eighty-nine cases occurred
in the lower grades of society; but tho returns them-
selves showed that it was not se. Many of them were
taken from the higher and middle ranks of society. The
first case he had extracted from the returns was that
of a titled lady who married her former husband's
nephew. The next was a Lieutenant-General in the
army, who married a lady, then married that
lady's aunt, and afterwards feat lady's sister.
In another case, which occurred at Bristol, a mars
moving in a respectable sphere of life, married his wife's
illegitimate daughter; while in another case, a farmer
had married his step-mother. These were no doubt
painful details, but it was necessary to give them, be-
cause they proved a case in favour of the other degrees
equally as strong as that of a wife's sister.—(llear.)
Tne lion. Alemb€,r then read letters from the clergymen
of the pariah of Keetiah Town ; St. Leonard's, Shore-
ditch; St. Paul's, Knightsbridge; Margaret's, Mr-
minster; St. Marylebene ; Christ's Church, Broadway;
St. Mark's, Old-street, City-road, and other places in
London, with the vie» of showing that not more than
one of the cases of marriage which it was now sought to
legalize had come to the knowledge of those clergymen
in their respective parishes, and in many of them there
was no suca case. The case, too, cf the poor man he
thought had fallen to the ground. As to the case of the
poor, ho would read a few extracts from the letters of
clergymen on the subject. The first was from the
senior curate of Bethnal-green, in which he said,
" I have not heard of any instance among the
poor of this parish cf a poor man having married
his deceased wife's sister."—(hear, hear.) Thera was
another clergyman who had entered deeply into the
subject—a clergyman of two parishes in the city of Wor-
cester, containing a population of 19,000 sou's—and he
said," I have never beard of any such mar•
riages among the poor in my parish. Inched, I
may sifely affirm, there seems to be a very strong
feeling against them. • * I have come to the opinion
that marriage with a deceased wife's sister seems se
contrary to reason:that it never enters their Leads. *
I fear there is more of crime and incest arising from
the crowded cottages of the poor than from any other
cause." If, then, those marriages were lawful let them
be tsnc,ioned by Parliament, but if they were unlawful
let the House not set a trap to catch people in
a them.—(Cheers.) Ho would re
in read an extract
from a letter of a clergyman in a parish which was no-
toriously the most demoralised England—he meanttrct
the parish of Devonport—a clergyman who had been
five and-a-half years in that parish. Ho said, I have
heard clergymen of the longest standing in this place
say that when the person sent round to collect opinions
in favour of the proposed Bill came here he did not call
on those best able to supply information, but was con-
tent to take the vague opinions of one who had no fixed
cure or appointment." The petitions in favour of this
Bill, as was well known, had been very adroitly ma nu-
factured.—(llear, hear.) Scarcely any clergyman in a
place which was known to be against the
Bill had been asked to sign those petitions;
and copies of the circular letter which
had been sent round had in many places with which he
was acquainted—viz., in Kent:Northurnberland, and other
places—been sedulously forwarded to the churchwardens
cf the parish, and not the clergymen. With respect to
Dr. Hook's lhtter, some fnv years ago the influence of
Dr. Hock in the town of Leeds was absolutely
despotic. Now, among the petitions presented
by him (Mr. Hope) to the House this very
day against this Bill, oee of them was a petition s7ened
by thirty-six of Dr. Hook's clergyme
—(Loud cheer:.)
In a printed pamphlet which Dr. hook had published,
palage—"Certain (!c,;rees of
he (Mr. Hope) found this
cansaeguieity are among the inipeCiiments to marriage,
both by the law of nature and by the revealed word cf
God, and those degrees, as designed by the Church, are
expressed in a table drawn up ey,,Arelibishop Parker, in
1563, and set forth by authority. That was the opinion
of the Vicar of Leeds.— (Hear, hear.) Dr. Houk then
went on to say—" The law of England has declared
that marriage may henceforth be regarded as a
civil contract ; but tho Church is net silent,
and she affirms that the word of God instructs
us otherwise, and that marriage is a religious
contract." Ho went on to say—" Of course all Church-
men must now adhere to their principles, that marriage
is a reliions contract, and rnmt be solemnized by the
Church." He (Mr. Hop) trust_d' if a second edition of
the Blne•Book was published by the. Hon. Gentleman
(Mr.
S. Wortley), those opinions of Dr. Hook would
be given in an appendix a little more fully.—(Hear.)
The first place at which meetings were held, ho found
from the Leeds Mercury, was at Huddersfield, where

the attendance was numerous. The next was is the ►
Ramsden-street Chapel, in Leeds. Another was held at
York, where the attendance was both numerous and re-
spectable.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) At all these
meetings Mr. Sley was present in the character of
chief lecturer. The next meeting was at Dewsbury, where
the meeting was not so numerous as was desirable,
greatly to the disappointment of the projectors no doubt.
Mr. Sley had endeavoured to hold a meeting at Liver-
pool, but it proved a total failure.—(Hear, hear.) The
Honourable Gentleman then read a series of communi-
cations from Wakefield and other places, stating the
opinions of writers, principally clergymen in the manu-
facturing districts, that the law as it now stood was no
oppression on the lower orders. He then went on
to say, that it was only a mistake to sup-
pose that the law of England was different in
principle from that of every other country. Under all
law it was necessary to restrain licentiousness, and every
individual must give up some portion of his liberty for
the common weal, and under the English law the re-
straints against marriage were so few that they amounted
to no oppression whatever. The Church had declared that
the law of marriage was founded on the 18th chap-
ter of Leviticus, and there it was expressly de-
clared that marriages between certain degrees of con-
sanguinity were prohibited.—(ll6 an hear.) This case it
should be remembered could not stand alone. If they
allowed the transgression of the law in one [instance,
how were they to prevent the progress being carried
still further? If they allowed the marriage with the
sister of a deceased wife, what would prevent the mar-
riages with aunts, nieces, and other relatives?—(Hear,
hear.) And should permission for such marriages as
those bo granted, to what degree of impurity in the na-
tional character might they not descend?—(Bear, hear.)
They must stand upon one ground or another; they must
say that England, f a. the last three centuries, had gone
on a wrong track, and must place her for the future on a
similar relation as Prussia, or they must place a restric-
tion on unions which were contrary to Scripture, a re-
striction which might be burdensome to the consciences
of some, but which was necessary for the good
of all. In England they had never lead those
prohibitions on the marriages of the nobility
which existed in other countries, where a nobleman
was not permitted to marry a lady who might be his
aunt, or his neice, or his wife's sister, if she could not
produce the requisite number of quartering!. Such was
the case in Spain, and in what state were the Spanish no-
bility now he would ask? Their proudest boast had
been their ancient Christian blood untainted by any
Moorish mixture, and to preserve this they had prohibition s
on the marriages of their nobility, and look at their
state now—dwarfed, dissolute, and demoralized. But
in hitherto Christian England they had had no such
prohibition. He (Mr. Hope) had been glad to find that
in the Bill of this year there had been inserted one
clause which he rejuiced to see, for every wrong thing
prevented was a gain to morality, and that was the pro-
hibition against marriages with a niece. The Right HUD.
Gentleman, however, in one of the motives be bad assigned
for the bringing forward this measure had shown
lameetible ignorance, and that was that the amount of
these marriage.; among the poor called for some provi-
sion from the Legislature. He could show, from an ex-
tract from a Manchester paper which he would read to
them, that this s as not the case—that the poorer classes
in that part of the country at least showed no desire for
any such marriaaer, and that their circumstances did
not lead them to desire such unions; and he hoped that
moral England never would submit to have them
legalized.
Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT said that he wished to
address a few words to the House in explanation of the
reasons which would determine his vote upon the present
measure, and in coming to the concluion which he had
done he must say that it was upon different grounds to
any which he had yet heard assignel, and grounds
to which differed very materially from the opi-
nions of many friends fur whose judgment he
entertained the very highest respect. He (Jr. Herbert)
had presented a petition against the Bill, numerously
s•gned by the clergy of the diocese in which the county
ho represented was situated, and he observed this differ-
ence in this petition to those presented by persons of the
same class, that it rested net upon religious, but upon
social grounds. He rejoiced to see that that dis-
tinction existed, because he thought they were
not justified in arguing the question solely
upon religious grounds ; and if he could find a
good social argument advanced in this discussion, that
was the argument upon which he (Mr. Herbert) should
rely. It had been held from time immemorial by the
Church of England that these marriages were unlawful,
and he for one would give his cordial assent to her right
of denouncing them. But in the House of
Commons, which was not a convocation or a
council, they had no right as well as no
competency to discuss nice theological questions. As he
had said before, if there were any social arguments to
this measure, it was upon those that the opposition to it
should bo grounded, and upon those only. And
between the adoption or the rejection of the mea-
sure the House was bound to take the balance of
good and the balance of evil, and to decide in which
Leal° the advantage or disadvantage lay. In the pre-
sent Bill ho was glad to perceive that everything
had been avoided at all likely to interfere with
the Church cf England. In his Bill of last year
his Right Honourable Friend had, be thought,
with great impolicy, included in his Bill clauses
withdrawing clergymen who offended against this Bill
from the authority of the Church of England. With
another Church, which was in part connected with the
State, the Right Honourable Gentleman had not dared
to interfere ; with that Church only, which was
entirely tied up by tho State, and was wholly
in its halide, had ho meddlei. So far as
the Church of England was concerned, it was
loft untouched by the operation of the Bill, and he re-
joiced to find that the broad principle of the measure
would not interfere either with the laws which that
Church, or any religious body, had laid down for its
government. Other religious bodies, who had no
laws or canons which restricted them from con-
tracting marriages of this description, were
clearly subject to a religious disability by the civil law
as it now stood. If, socially speaking, it could be made
out that morality would be endangered by the Bill of his
Right Hon. Friend, there would certainly be a good rea-
son for maintaining this religious disability; but it had
not been so established, at least so far as he had
understood the arguments. He felt, as marriage
was a civil right, that they were bound to make
it co-extensive with the opinions and conditions of the
people, and on that ground he had come to the conclu-
sion to support the Bill.—(Hear.)
Mr. ROEBUCK thought the question ought to be
divested of all considerations as to whether these mar-
riages were prohibited by the New Testament, for there
was no part of it which was net in turn received or re-
jected by different persons. He looked at the question
simply as a legislator, with the view of laying down a
rule for the guidance of the people in the matter. He
differed with the Right Honourable Gentleman (Mr.
Sidney Herbert) that a broad distinction ought to be
drawn between tho Church of England and persons who
did not agree %hie it. Now the reasons which
had induced men in all civilized countries
to prohibit marriages with a sister, were first the
physical, and secondly the moral evils which resulted
:rem the nature of the intercourse. In regard to the
present Bill, the physical reasons did not apply, but the
moral reasons did, and they could not be overlooked in
discussing this question. He thought if these marriages
were legalized that exalted feeling of esteem and confi-
dence which was reposed in a sister-in-law by the near
tics of relationship would no longer exist, nod that
jealousies and dislikes would bo introduced into families
where now nothing of the kind was felt or thought of.
But it the Right Honourable Gentleman passed this
was he so ignorant of human nature, so blind
to the realities of life, as not to know that, in spite of
herself, the wife could not have the same kindly feeling
for her own sister which the existing state ot the
law encouraged? At present sympathy subsisted
between the sist3rs that render jealousies almost impos-
sible, but break down the barrier which the law bad
raised, every day and every hour would witness the
occurrence of jealous bickeriugs and miserable
disputes in family relations, which now multi-
pl:el all the kindly feelings of our nature.—
(Hear, hear.) Could the supporters of the Bill show
any instances or ground for believing that there was a
balance of evils in this case? Let him take the other
side of the question, and see what the benefits of the
Bill would be ? As the world was constituted. the oc-
casional marriage of A, B, or C with his wife's sister,
was a matter of little importance. It could not justify the
passing of a Bill like this. It was not as if a man were
placed upon a desert with his wire and her sister, be-
ciuse there if the wife died, the desire to continue the
race of man might justify a Marriage with the sister.—
(Hear,
hear, and a laugh.) But there was no such
want in this country, and when the benefits likely
to arise from the passing of the Bill were put against
us dangers, the comparison was immeasurably in
favour of continuing the existing prohibition. It was
natural, he readily admitted, that an aunt should have
a lively affection for her sister's children, and a desire to
attend them, to care for them, and watch over them;
but he did think they would not increase that desire by
making her the wife.—(Hear.) Just the contrary, because
the feelings of the aunt were stifled in the new passions
ot the stepmother. She has now children of her own,
perhaps, and all the affections of the aunt were lost in
the Ic:clings of the wife, and instead of increasing the
happiness of her life, and making her a more powerful and
efficient protector of her sister's children, the utmost
that could he done to diminish her kindness for them
favour
i t.
bad been accomplished.—(Cheers.) Therefore upon
the very same grounds that were urged
oppose
mischiev-
ous in
fav o
ioife thedidßillhohto tthoughti
believe tthahtis
adutmy to
plan than this Bill could possibly be
devised fur converting the kind anal fond aunt into
the jealous stepmother.—(Hear.) With regard to the
religious pert of the question, he agreed with the_ Right
flon gt c
t debate.—
(Hear, masers u Gentlemanaht
(Hear, hear.) Let those whose religious feelings or
opinions 1 ant in favour cf these marriages legislate
fur themselves and marry as they thought proper; but
before he could give his sanction to a Bill ( f this nature
it must be shown to him that it would not prove a
jealous
feelings cf evil in giving rise to painful and
feelings between married and unmarried sisters—
it must be shown to him that the old law
would break up the harmony of the most
important of all our institutions, namely, that of
iarailiee—(Hear, hear)—and because he felt that this
Bill was a direct attack upon that institution, and
fraught with danger and evil t) the entire social system,
he felt bound to record his vote against it.— (Cheers.)
Mr. SPOONER was afraid, afar the able and
eloquent speech of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, ho
should not be able to secure the attention of the House;
but be thought itjto behis duty to protest against the doc-
trine laid down by the Right Hon. Gentleman the Mem-
ber for Wilts, and seconded by the lion. and Learned

Gentleman who had just sat down, that the Word of
God ought not to be mixed up with this question.
Ho admitted there would be inconveniences arising from
this Bill to a small class of the population; but he called
upon the House to remember how many were living in a
state of concubinage. lle was convinced, from a long
and intimate acquaintance with dense populetions in the
manuracturing districts, whose houses wese so crowded,
and where society was so large and dense that: the
state of concubinage which was produced by the present
law of marriage was such as to horrify and greatly dis-
tress any man of right feeling and right mind. Then
was that immorality occasioned by the present law or by
the law if God? They must attribute it to the imper-
fection of human law—a law which took upon itself
a power which it had no right te assume, in his
humble judgment. Giving to this subject the best con-
sideration he could, he was thoroughly convinced that by
the Word of Gcd such marriages were not forbidden.
He (Mr. Spooner) contended that the Hon. Member (Mr.
Hope) had not quoted Dr. Hook's letter fairly, inasmuch
as Dr. Hook had expressly used the term "consangui-
nity," and nct the term " affinity," upon the former if
which words- the whole of Dr. Hook's argument turned.
Because then he thought that the Bill brought in by his
sight Hon. Friend was not contrary to the law of God
—because he thought that the restrictions which it
sought to remove were altogether unnecessary—because
he thought that the law as it now stood was instrumental
in the production of a great bass of evil among the
lower classes—because the removal of the restriction
which this Bill proposed would be the in-
strument of great benefit, he would give his honest
hearty and earnest support to the second reading of this
Bill.—(Cheers) • -
Mr. ROUNDELL. PALMER said that no one could
deny the power, ability, and 'research which had been
displayed in the speech of hit Right Hon. Friend the
promoter cf the Bill. That speech was fraught with in-
dustry and talent. ft was full of tte intellectual power
which he at all times possessed, and which he could at
all times exert, but it had failed to convince him that his
arguments were sound, or that the change would be desir-
able.: The speech of the Hon. Member for Warwickshire,
who had just sat down, had also been distinguished by
the happy adaptation of its arguments and the peculiar
felicity of its expression—(Hear, hear)—but he must
beg to dissent altogether fcom the doctrine that the
marriages which it was the object of this Bill to render
legal were not opposed to the law of God. But, for a
moment setting aside all considerations of this nature,
what would be the case supposing the spirit of this Bill
to be carried out—what would be the case in all
our domestic relations? Why, that a road would
be opened for other evils which the projectors cf the
Bill seemed to have overlooked.—(Haar, hear.) If the
marriage with the sister of a deceased wife was to be
permitted, why also should not the marriage cf a wife
with the husband of a deceased wife be permitted?—
(Hear, hear, and cheers.) Yet this was a point which
had teen left altogether out of the discussion .—(Hear,
hear.) Then, as respected the point which had been
so much dwelt upon both by the mover of the Bill,
and also by the Honourable Member for Warwickshire,
the latter Gentleman had relied upon a difference between
the reading of the text in the chapter of Leviticus and
the marginal reading, and although he had spoken of
contemptible Hebrew scholars, it should be recollected
that the marginal readings were usually considered as
the more correct readings of the two, and surely he
would not attempt to say that those translators of the
Bible, by whom the marginal readings were affixed, were
contemptible Hebrew scholars. They expounded the
text, and were, moreover, the compilers of the canons
of 1603, iu which those marriages were prohibited.
He now came to the speech of a Right Honourable
Friend cf his whose opinions he had always been accus-
tomed to receive with the deepest respect; but when the
Hon. Member for Wilts (Mr. Sidney Herbert) stated
that no religious feeling was to be allowed to interfere
with the law of marriage, and that, as an alteration ha)
been already made, if Dissenters did not interfere with
the usual routine of the Church, that no impediment
ought to be placed in the way either of those or of other
parties who in this matter agree, with them,
tie must totally differ from hit:a—(Hear,
ear hear.)
History sufficiently showed that marriages between
brother and sister were not uncommon, and that were
the licence was allowed that licence was invariably used.
Now, would the House, because it was shown that such
marriages had frequently taken place, be justified in
passing a measure for the legalizing of them? Certainly
not. It was the privilege of that House to regulate what
belonged to the order and good government of society,
to form a conscientious judgment of the moral tendency
of any institutions which might exist or might be pro-
posed to the House, and to act upon their convictions.
There were many persons in this country who enter-
tained lax opinions upon the due observance cf the
Sabbath, and almost as lax as those held upon the Con-
tinent, yet had the House ever legislated upon the
opinions of a few individuals, and ought it to do so
in this matter? As to the argument which had been
advanced on the immoral tendency of this law of prohi-
bition, it was just as sensible to say that the law of
theft was chargeable with all the robberies which took
place, as to say that this law was the cause of immora-
lity. Some gentleman had advanced the argument of
comparison for the wives, and for the children who had
been the offspring of these marriages; for his own part,
looking at his own feelings only, he should be quite
content to replace those women who had fallen from
virtue, and the children who had lost their right of inheri-
tance by such marriages, but this was not a matter in
which private feelings alone should have the direction.
I The last argument on which he should touch was, that
England was the only country in which such marriages
were prohibited, and that it was inconvenient to differ
from other countries in this respect. He was so far from
thinking that the manners of other countries ought to
form an, example; for this country, that he was disposed
to attribute the difference which he saw in the morals of
this and other countries to the levity which prevailed
abroad upon these points. In conclusion, upon this
point, he should use the words cf Milton, though for a
far different purpose to what that author had applied
them—" Let not England forget her privilege of teach-
ing other nations the way to live."—(Cheers.)
Mr. M. MILNES thought that the grounds
of argument which had been advanced upon this Bill were
scarcely of a sufficiently extensively theoretical nature,
as the subject was capable of. The Hon. Gentleman the
Member for Sheffield had certainly painted, in his own
peculiar manner, the tender and domestic relations of the
family affections, and the importance of extending, if
possible, those relations. He (Mr. Milnes) was disposed
to insist much upon the evil of the marriage of first
cousins which was not forbidden by the English
Church, but was most positively and strongly prohi-
bited by the Roman Catholic Church, and unless he
could be shown that the relation between a man and his
sister-in-law was more tender than that of cousins he
could not see any objection to removing the prohibition.
He thought that when they looked abroad and saw that
this law had been deliberately broken by good citizens
and honest men—broker, too, without any loos of
public estimation—this of itself was enough to furnish
a prima facie evidence of the necessity of some altera-
tion in the law. Bat this measure had only be, n brought
fsrward when these marriages had spread to the highest
ranks. If a foreigner had been in the gallery the other
night, when the Hoe. Gentleman the Member for Ox-
ferd taeoured them with his views on this subject, he
would not have fancied that there was a law on the
statut:-book declaring these u arriages, up to a certain
day, to be legal; but it was net fair for days or hours to
prevent the legalization of marriages. Having ale
mated the principle, and laid the foundation
for legislating on the subject, they could not now assume
the grounds of high morality and treat this question as
if it now came Lefore them for the first time.—(Hear,
hear.) A special grievance had been distinctly brought
before them, and they were bound to consider whether
there were sufficient grounds to justify their legis-
lating upon it.—(Haar, hear.) Now the people of this
country were not averse to these marriages, and while
he could not believe that the passing of this Bill was
likely to give rise to those evils and dangers which the
Honourable and Learned Member for Sheffield shadowed
forth, ,he was bound to support the measure, as he had
no doubt whatever that it would confer great and lasting
benefits upon the community at large. He was,
however, satisfied of this, that whatever might be
the legislation of the House, those marriages
would still continue. A feeling would grow in the
country that a large majority of the House were favour-
able to them—that men if station and importance be-
lieved the law ought to he altered, and the people would
become gradually habituated to them.—(Hear.) And
therefore it was that he asked the House to pass the
Bill now rather than wait till the pressure from without.
—(Hear, hear.) If they had 2,000 of these marriages
now they would have 4,000 of them in ten yi ars hence.
The people if England were not accustomed to evade
the law of the land. A man who did an unlawful
thing was invariably shunned by his neighbour; but
in regard to these marriages, although, to a certain
extent, they were a violation of the law, that feeling did
not prevail, and hence they were not only tolerated
but encouraged. Why, then, continue a law which bad
inflictedegt misery
Inedchildren
upon
h ldr
en ht
huantd
were
eds e
legitimateT fam
in v.l cehhad
illy
eof
morality? Pass this Bill, and he believed they would be
doing what was right; but refuse it, and they would inflict
a grievous wrong upon a large body of the community.
He implored Hon. Members, who were members of the
Church to acquiesce in this Bill. Some cases of mar-
riage of this kind had come within his own knowledge
among the higher classes, and there were many others
among the middle classes of society, all of whom thought
they were justifiable in contracting these marriages.
And that being so, he would not presume to set his own
individual opinion against those of the persons in the
higher and middle classes who had contracted such
marriages.

. LordMAHON must say, after the fullest considera-
art
uhul
utter
trtephdtr
the
uephgoel
hsasawtol
et
hi ooaeffl
House
marriages iasrßr intercourseiiaggsheht should
fl- odfanif
without
Ima'turi
sips: nrs e—f
n(r
tton, that he had a strong and insuperable objection to
e
duTnihnegy caouviledlnenctt
et
the,
re'y heari
n ter.?
infraction of the social feelings which existed among the
people. He thought the intercourse between a married
woman and her sister, and between a man and his sister-
ir.-law, receive the greatest interruption and dis-
tarbance from such a measure as was now proposed.—
(Hear, Lear.) He did think also that they were
to look not merely to ;I'LL; that intercourse might
be in a period of health, but also what it might
be whilst the wife was on a bed of sickness. There was
no period when a wife required more t arnestly the
society of as unmarried sister than when she was
laid on a bed of sickness ; and yet that was
the very period when, under this Bill, that society
given,
d etlhi
naatny the
in
rendering ir. But thare was another consideration
unmarriedwou would b e
sisterleas least
mightcommonly
have e feelings
connected with this Bill. lie could not but apprehend
that if this Bill were to pass it might happen that
many married women, moved either by a leeling of
affection towards hor children or by a tender regard for