The Sun.
London, England, 1842-03-09 00:00:00

He need hardly mention the state of the law in foreign countries
on the subject. He believed that in most Christian communities
these marriages were allowed, but under various restrictions.
The restrictions in the Protestant States of Germany were directed
chiefly against the crime of adultery, and with that view they
had invested the Sovereign Power with the authority of disposal ion,
with which in the Roman Catholic religion the Pope was invested.
Them'asure which he would propose would remedy all the various
evils connected with the subject. He trusted that whatever might
be the decision of the House, justice would be done to the interests
of society in all grades. He would conclude by moving for leave
to bring in a Bill to amend the Marriage Act of 1835.
Mr. P. BORTHWICK seconded the motion.

The SPEAKER having put the question,
Sir 11. H. INGLIS said, regretting as he did, that the subject
had been introduced at all—(Hear, hear)—he doubly regretted that
it had been introduced by one—he would say nothing of hiss
acquirements or station, but whose character was
sufficient to give additional weight to what he
(Sir R. Inglis) believed to be evil. There was one consolation
which he had in rising after his Noble Friend, and that was, that
he already knew, and the Housr knew, not only that he was dis-
posed to hear with respect whatever fell from his Noble Friend,
and to imitate thecalmness with which he had discussed the subject,
but also that he (Sir R. Inglis) was not influenced by party feeling,
in any way whatever upon the matter. His Noble Friend had
said that he would not rely on the introduction of his measure
upon the theological merits of the question. Neither would he
(Sir R. Inglis) enter upon that subject, because he felt that the
House, unfit as it was to entertain theological questions generally,
was still more unfited to discuss in detail acts relating to the present
subject. He would follow the example of the Noble Lord, and not enter
into any theological discussions. He wouldnot go into the con,idera-
tion of the question whether these marriages were prohibited by the
Word of God or not. It was sufficient for him (Sir R. Inglis) to state
that they had the concurrent testimony that it had alw iys been the
conviction of the Universal Church that those marriages which the
Noble Lord now sought to legalise were not in the sight of that
Church sanctioned or adopted. Thst was a position which he
thought the Noble Lord himself could not dispute. Win ther
those marriages were or were not contrary to Scripture, cer-
tain it was that they had never been sanctioned by the
Church. The Universal Church, for fifteen centuries,
had decreed that such marriages were not expedient,
and he thought that where they found that such restric-
tions had been the universal practice of the Universal Church,
it must be held that such restrictions had originated in a con-
viction on the part of the Church that such marriages
were contrary to Scripture. The Noble Lord ha I re-
ferred to the Council of Illeberis. Now, be (Sir R.
Inglis) could refer to other authorities, but he would repeat
his proposition, that there was no instance of the Christian Church
authorising those marriages which it was sought to sanction by the
proposed law. When they found these marriages were repudiated
alike by the Church of Rome and the Church of England; when
they found that these two Churches, which differed in so many
other points, agreed in refusing to sanction these marriages,
he thought they might fairly conclude that there was good reason
for presuming that these marriages were contrary to the will of
God. But it was not necessary to rest the question on the ground
that these marriages were contrary to the revealed will of God. He
(Sir R. Inglis) believed there 'were social, practical, and politi-
cal grounds of objection sufficient to induce the House to refuse
its sanction to the proposed measure. The Noble Lord had
stated one cause of hardship of a husband who had been desired
by his wife, on her death-bed, to confide her children to the care
of her sister, and to marry her. He (Sir It. Inglis) did not deny
that such a case might eat. But for one such case of hardship
he thought he might produce 49 cases of greater hardship, in which
parties now received the sister of their deceased wife into their
houses as the best friend and assistant they could have in bringing
up their children, and who were regarded by them in the same
light in which they would their own sister.—(Hear, hear.) In the
records of the Courts of Law in modern times, he be.
neve.' there was only one instance of any alleged im-
proper intercourse taking place between a husband and
the sister of his wife? And why was this ? Why, because there .
was not one man of well-conditioned mind who did not regard his
wife's sister as ha would his own.—(Cries of " Hear, hear," and
" No, no.") He hoped that that denial did not mean to say that there
was any man either in the House or in the country who regarded
the sister of his wife in any other light than his own ?—(Cheers.)
He considered that if he even limited his view to the single con-
sideration which his Noble Friend had adduced in introducing the
measure, he showed sufficient grounds for his opposition. When-
ever he Law upon the face of a Bill what he con,i :rred a valid
objection to it on principle, he always thought it his tatty at once to
oppose it, and to afford the House an opportunity of at once de.
ciding on the principle; and in the present case he thought there
was sufficient ground to refuse the motion of his Noble Friend, for
not only did he propose to legalise the marriege with the sister of
a deceased wife, but he proposed to add a schedule of other mar-
riages which might be allowed.
Lord F. EGERTON—Disallowed

Str ROBERT INGLIS—That would'arnount to the same thing ;
for whatever was not included in the schedule would be so touch
withdrawn from the prohibited degrees of kindred as established by
the liw of the Church of Rome, of the Church of England, and of
the Greek Church. His Noble Friend had said that in relation to
that subject Heaven was silent, but man had spoken ; but what se-
curity would they have if they consented to his Noble Friend's mea-
sure that the schedule itself would not requite some alteration, and
that in seven year's time they would not have some new law 1 roposed
on the subject of marriage. And he would ask was the subject
of marriage one of so little exciting a nature, that the House could
renew that discussion of it every seven years 7 He felt that there
were sufficient grounds in the announcement of the Bill to autho-
rise him to take the sense of the House on the subject ; and he
trusted that that sense would be expressed so effectually and so
clearly as to prevent a renewal of the discussion.—(Hear.)
Mr. MONCKTON MILNES regretted the intention- of the
Right Hon. Baronet to take the sense of the House on the bringing
in of the Bill, not because he had not a just right to take the sense
of the House on the principle of the Bill, but because this was a
very peculiar case, and it was but right that every Member of the
House should take the case into his thoughts and into his conside-
ration, and not decide till he had maturely considered the subject.
He demurred to ahe grounds assumed by the Right Hon. Baronet.
The Hon. Baronet said that the decision of the Catholic
Church was clear. He (Mr. M. Milnes) knew all that
had been said on the subject of the canon law, but he also knew
that the canon law had always provided and permitted a system of
dispensation.--( Hear, hear.) But the cation law welt further
with regard to the prohibited degrees; it prohibited the mat iages
between second cousins, and to declare at once on this subject,
that they would not legislate because the Church of England had
chosen arbitrarily to limit the decrees of the Catholic
Church in this matter, without giving any right
of dispensation, was a piece of gross tyranny, which
neither Church nor State ought to sanction. They ought
not to consider this question merelyin relation to their own feel.
ings, or those of that class of society in which they habitually
moved. No doubt, considering merely' - the habits of the upper
classes, any change in the law on this subject would be disagreeable.
But they should consider bow the law operated upon the middle and
lower classes.—(Hear, hear.) He thought that neither loyalty to
the State, nor devotion to the Church, required that summary dis-
missal of the ques' ion which it was the determination of his lion.
Friend to propose.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. HOPE would give his cordial support to the motion of the-
Hon. Member for Oxford. He had heard with great amazement
the speech of the Noble Lord the Member for North Lincolnshire,
who panegyrised persons who within the last seven years had
transgressed the laws of the State and of the Church.—(Hear,
hear.) The prohibition of such marriages as the Noble Lord wished
to legalise took place in the earilest days of Christianity, and ought
not to be abrogated for such rash, slight, and unsatisfactory notions
of advantage as the Noble Lord had expressed.--(Hear, hear.) Be..
sides the religious view of the question, the Noble Lord had di-
rected attention to the social views. Now, a step-mother might be
either a good one or a bad one.—(Roars of laughter). NotWths
standing their laughter he would go nn—(Renewed laughter)—and
if a man married his wife's sister, she would be, to the
children of his sister, either a. good step-mother or a
bad one.—(Renewed laughter.) If she were a kind woman she
would take care of the children, if she remained unmarried to their
father; and it was not wise to place her its a situation in which she
would be likely to have children who would be their rival?.—
(Laughter, and loud cries of " Hear, hear, He called upon the
House, not by a precipitate measure like the present, to put the
Church in danger, and to hazard the honour of its clergy. If they
granted this step, by and by they would be called upon to sanction
the marriage of an uncle with his niece, and shortly afterwards a
brother with his sister. _ _

Mr. CHARLES BULLER wished that this question had been
brought forward at a time when the House might have had a
greater opportunity of discussing it. The question was one of
great importance, and he trusted that the Hon. Baronet, the
Member for Oxford, would postpone his opposition to a future stage
of the Bill. He thought it a most inconvenient course to discuss
the question now.--(Cries of "Go on, go on.") He wished
that Honourable Gentlemen would consider the Importance of
giving that due deliberation to a question like the
present, bearing as it did upon all the relations
of rocial life. He trusted that the House would allow the debate
to be adjourned, and for the purpose of taking the sense of the
House on that subject, he would make that motion.'
The SPEAKER having put the question that the debate shoUld
be adjourned.
Mr. PLUMPTRE honed that the Hon. Member for Oxford
would withdraw his opposition and take the discussion on the
second reading.
Sir R. INGLIS could not agree to such a proposition.
Mr. BORTH WICK hoped the House would see the propriety
of the motion of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman opposite fur the
adjournment of the debate.
Dr. NICHOLL believed that the law applic tble to this case was
not the law of 1663, but the Statute law of the realm.
Sir R. PEEL, while he admitted that it was competent to the
House to discuss the present question on a motion for leave to
bring in a Bill, thought that if the Hon. Baronet had entered his
protest agairst the introduction of the Bill, and taken the
discussion on the second reading, that would have answered
every object he had in view. He, for one, wished this not
to be considered in the light of a political quest:on.
He thought it was due to the importance of the subject, that the
discussion should be full and ample. Upon the whole, he thought
that the course least subject to objection would be to adjourn the
debate, although at the same time he must express his willingness
to take that debate on the second reading.
Mr. CHARLES BULLER wished to know to what day it was
the intention of the Right Hen. Baronet to adjourn the debate.

Sir IL PEEL said that it was diffi, ult for him to mention a day ;
it was his intetAion to-morrow to bring forward the Corn-laws,
Thursday he had no control over, and on Friday he should bring
forward the great question of which he had given notice.
After a short discussion the debate was adjourned to Wednesday
next (this day week).

- PETTY SESSIONS BILL.
Mr. BANKES said, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to
snake further provision for the holding of Special Petty Sessions,
and for providing that in certain cases, where persons accused shall
voluntarily desire to plead guilty, it shall be competent to the Ma-
gistrates at such Sessions to award the sentence of the law, for the
purpose of shortening the periods of imprisonment before trial, and
of preventing unnecessary expense to the public and inconvenience
to witnesses, he should move the second reading of the Bill
early in May, in order that the Bill might be inspected by the Ma.
gistrates of the country.

Mr. HARDY seconded the motion, and after a few words
from Mr. CURTISS and Sir EARDLEYLsfor,
The SPEAKER, having suggested an alteration in the motion,
leave was given to bring in the Bill.
Mr. GREENE brought up the Report of the Committee of
Supply, and the votes were agreed to.