The Sun.
London, England, 1842-03-17 00:00:00

he would have a much longer timef
Isis orthedisp osalefhis goods,
and there would be no necessity for
adoptinghigh prices.
His (Captain Fitzroy's) object in rising was to urge on
the attention of the House the subject of protection to
the copyright in carpet manufacture. He • would not be
going too far if he stated that protection of the design to
the carpet manufacturer was of more consequence than almost
any of the parties the Hon. Member for Belfast proposed to
protect by his Bill. Most Hon. Members conversant with the
manufacture of carpets knew that the expenses of the design
varied from 51. to 101., or thereabouts, and that to produce the
first yard of carpeting cost in many places 141., and even 161.,
and to place that pattern in the loom before another yard could
be produced, it frequently took three weeks and some times
nine. Now it was not fair for another person to be allowed to
undersell the manufacturer in his own pattern, which he could
do under the present system. The duplicate of the pattern 'could
be obtained for about 41., and what a difference was this, of no
less than 7/, 81., or 101., in favour of the pirate. If the pirate
charged the same price for the invention, he gained a large per
tentage, but he never charged the price which the in-
ventor did, yet still he obtained a profit, and thus the
original manufacturer obtained a good deal of odium from his
prices. It materially effected the working man, and many
families who had been in comfort had been reduced to absolute
penury in consequence of these piracies. The carpet manu-
facturers complained that any protection less than for three years
was not sufficient. He thought it his duty to state this to the
House, and begged to thank them for so patiently hearing him.
Mr. MORRISON was aware the subject was full ot. dif-
ficulty, and required great caution in legislating upon it. The
difficulty arose in a great measure from most of our designs
coming from France, and no', only did they come
into this country, but they were taken by the'
United States and countries on the Continent. On the
entire, he thought the Hon. Member for Belfast had
not. maturely considered the working of the Bill which he
had introduced, and that is promises would be inconsistent
with the interests of the trade.
Sir J. HEATHCOAT should feel quite content with the
discussion which had already taken place upon the subject,
but it appeared the Hon. Member for Belfast had not very
well considered the working of the Bill; the fact was, there
was no protection given by it to frauds in registration. The
condition was that the manufacturers should present true
copies for the articles which they manufactured. The Bill did
not propose that there should be any investigation into the
originality of the copy, for the certificate which was
to be given to the party was in itself to be
prima facie evidence of the originality of the design of the
article. Nothing but confusion could result from the measure.
In the first instance, this country was ectirely depending upon
France for ali matters of fashion or fancy, the milliners of this
country always went over to France in spring and in autumn
for the fashions of that country, and when they bad an oppor-
tunity of being acquainted with the fashions there, it was hardly
necessary for them to register their original designs in this
country.
Mr. BROTHERTON said that in 1794 a similar measure
to that then proposed was made perpetual for three
months. Since that time, and during a period of fifty-one
years, the trade had prospered. The exports of prints then
were greater than at any time since 1830. He had listened
most attentively to the speech of the Hon. Member for Bel-
fast, and he (Mr. Brotherton) should say there had been no
sufficient reason assigned by him for the alterations he had
professed to make. He (Mr. Brotherton) did not pretend to
be a perfect judge of those alterations, but he thought that the
professed obj-cts of the Bill were to increase the profits of the
printers as much as the profits of the other persons concerned.
He would agree to the measure if it did not extend beyond
three months. On the entire, he implored the House to con-
sider the effects of the Bill, and he hoped the House would be
very cautious in extending the copyright in t:esigns as it was
proposed.
Mr. J. W. HENLEY could not help calling the attention
of the House to the machinery of the Bill proposed by the
Hon. Member. It was so clumsy, that no man could be con-
victed under it ; and, at the same time, it would not protect
the shopkeeper from being called up before the Magistrates,
and subjected to the necessity of employing an attorney or a
barrister, to expose its clumsy machinery.
Mr. GLADSTONE would say a few words upon the sub-
ject of the trade, the statistics of which had been a good deal
misrepresented. The evidence with respect to it was that
though there were 36 firms opposed to the measure proposed
by his lion Friend, the member of those in favour of it wer:
much larger in every respect. In the first place, there were
43,000 persons employed in the different firms in favour of the
measure, whereas there were only 7,000 persons employed by
the firms opposed to it; and, again, of 17,000,000 pieces of
cloth manufactured in those firms, there were only 4,500,000
pieces manufactured by those who opposed the Bill. Then,
with respect to the opposition given to the measure, it might
be divided into two classes—one applied to every protection
given to any measure which could be proposed upon the sub-
ject ; and the second was as to the difficulty of reglstration.
To clas,ify those designs might require a more extended orga-
nisation in the registration office than has been hitherto ne-
cessary, but he was sure there was nothing in the nature of it
to constitute an objection. Neither did he see what objection
could be raised against the, admission of the evidence of the
registering officer as prima facie evidence of the originality or
non-originality of a design, because it would be always quite
competent for parties accused of piracy to show where their
design came from. One great objection raised to this Biil
was, that the passing of this Bill would cause much damage to
the retailers, and Hon. Gentlemen thought this a matter of
so great importance as to be worthy of attention; but the
form of the provision for bringing the retailers to account was
not one of great severity. It provided that they should be liable
to p-nalty only in case of their knowingly exposing for sale
any goods of design which should have been copied. The
Honourable Gentleman seemed to think that this was quite
a new principle. Was the Hon. Gentleman aware of the
clauses on this subject in the existing law- By the Act passed
in the second year of her present Majesty, it was provided
that if any person should sell, or expose for sale, any article
whereof the registered design had been used, knowing that the
proprietor of the design had not given his consent to the use of
his article, he should be liable to penalty. He should wish the
House to observe, however, that the great objection after all
to this measure was the fear of its being injurious to their
foreign trade. The house should remember, however, that
the Hon. Member for Inverness, being friendly to free trzde,
altogether discarded that objection ; he said that it was not to
be supposed thnt foreign trade would be injured by passing this
law. He (Mr. Gladstone) thought that so far from its in-
juring our foreign trade it would have the effect of benefiting it.
—( Hear.) The last observat'on he should make to the
Howe was in reply to what had fallen from the Honourable
Member for Bolton, who said that we should rely not on
laws of copyright, but on schools of design. He (Mr. G:ad-
stone) certainly wished to see schools of design established,
but in his opinion it would be worse than useless to es-
tablish schools of design, and thus induce a number of persons -
to enter on this branch of art, eithout providing them %VIII'
the means of obtaining a livelihood.—( Hear, hear.) They
would have much the same effect as the normal schools had
upon education ; though much was expected from those schools,
they had not succeeded. Indeed, the fact would be, that if
these schools of design wire established, and no means taken
to provide a livelihood for the artists, they would carry their
produce to other markets. He would not detain the House
with any further observations. He hoped, after what had been
so well said on the subject, that the Bill of his Hon. Friend.
would be carried.

The Bill was then read a second time.
COPYRIGHT BILL.
On the Order of the Day for the second reading of this Bill
having been read,
Lord MAHON rose and said, before proposing the second
reading of the Bill, he begged to present four petitions on the
subject, which he held in his hand. The first petition was from
authors, praying that the Bill might pass into a law; it was
signed, amongst others, by Mr. Gleig, Mr. Lockhart, Mr.
Ward, Lady Morgan, Mr. Cunningham, Capt. Maryatt, &c.
The scowl was from several etninentf-publishers, signed by
Messrs. Murray, Bentley, Colburn, &c., also praying that the
Bill might pass into a law. The third was from the printers,
with the same prayer. signed by I%leSsrs. SPottiswoode, Han.
sard, Clowes, and others. And hereite shOuld itate 'that seve-
ral of those who signed this petition, were strongly opposed to
the Bill as it originally stood.—( Hear, hear.) The fourth
was from the stationers. also praying that the Bill might pass
into a law. In moving that this Bill be read a second time, he
conceived it would have been his (Lord Nlahon's) duty to have
stated the main arguments on which he rested his proposition,
and to reply to the objections which he conceived might be
uq.cd again,t it ; but since he had came into the House the
Hon. Member for Finsbury, who took so active a part against
the Bill, had informed him that it would be far more convenient
if the discussion were posponed to the time of the Bill bring
in Committee. Acceding to the views of the Hon. Member,
he should conclude by moving that the Bill be read a second
time.

Dlr. WAK LEY said he was glad that the Noble Lord had
acceded to the proposal of Members on his side of the House.
They were all anxious that authors should be properly re-
warded fir their services, but they differed in the mode.
When the third chose was brought before tipe House in Com-
mittee there would be a division.

Mr. MACAULAY said he thought there was now an ap •
proximation to right legislation on the subject. He saw many
defects in the details of the Bill, but he believed in a short
time they would have some proper legislation on the subject.
The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to he
committeti en Wednesday.
MARRIAGE LAWS.

On the Order of the Day for resuming the adjourned debate
on Lord F. Egerton's motion for leave to bring in a Bill to
amend the Marriage Act of William IV., having been read,
Mr. P. BORTHWICK rose and said he should be sorry
to give a silent vote upon this subject, after what had
fallen from the Member for the University of Oxford. The
remarks he had to make, however, should be brief. It had
been al'eged, first, that the Bill of the Noble Lord was in
direct opposition to the revealed will of God; secondly, that
for the last 1,500 years legislation had been contrary to this
now prop3sed ; and, thirdly, it had been argued, with greater
show of reason, and with considerable ingenuity, that the
practical operation of the law would be to take off the fine
edge of that morality which at present existed in families.
Now, if this could be proved, he was sure the Noble Lord.
who proposed the measure for the consideration of the House
would have been the last man to bring it forward; and, -if it
were directly opposed to the will of God, he would consent to
withdraw it from the consideration of the House. As a good
deal had been said, however, on that point, he should
take it for granted that that portion of the ques-
tion was already disposed of. As regarded the
. _ _

assertion that for nearly 1,500 years, the honest opinion of the

Catholic Christian Church had been directly in opposition to
that law, he ,had to observe first, that divines in the Holy
Catholic Church had certaily
.been opposed to these

marriages, but they would also end that they did not con-
sider it proper for their priesthood to marry at all.
The Catholic Church forbid the priests to marry as a matter of
discipline and not as a matter of moral rectitude. The priest
was not allowed to perform the functions of the altar, but the
prohibit ion did not arise from any breach of moral obligation.
And if the Church of Rome did forbid those mar-

riages, it retained in the hands of its head—the
Pope—a dispensing power which the Church never
retained in any matter in itself sinful. No well-instructed
Protestant, much less, no well-instructed Catholic, would
maintain that the Roman Catholic Church vested in the
proper dispensing power in everything relating to moral sin.
the effects of those marriages on society had been urged upon
the consideration of the House. 11 the Church of Rome in
its wisdom could be shown to have founded its ob;ection to
such marriages on the ground of their immoral •tendeticy, no
person would be more disposed to give to that venerable autho-
rity a'l the consideration its ordinances deserved—not even
those she belonged to it. He bad always, in that House
a-id elsewhere, spoken in veneration of that body for its
learning—f r the care with which it iirotected Christianity,
and the light it shed through the (lark agcs.—(Cheers. )
But could it be said that the Church of Roine prohibited
such marriages on the ground of immara ity ? It ha I
teen said by the Hon. Member for Oxford that a person
should regard his wife's sister with the same purity with
oh c't he regarded his own sister. He perfectly agreed with
the Right Hon. Gentleman, but he did not think anything
more likely to banish immorality than allowing the
celebration of those marriages. Up to the year 183.5,
those marriages were allowed, and he asked were
they going -
to retain on the Statute-book an Act so
offensive to morality, and so opposed to the revealed law of
G id? Any objection that lay against the measure must be
against the details. It had been stated in petitions sent to
that House, that the present law had a tendency to increase
immorality amongst the lower orders ; and if that were so, he
asked them to consider well whether the results of the law with

respect. to these classes might not counterbalance any advan-
tages which the higher orders derived from it. Upon those
three grounds, then—first, that these marriages wore not
prohibited by Scripture ; secondly, that they were not
opposed to the ordinances of the Church, inasmuch as these
rested on moral grounds, and that the permission of such
marriages would not be productive of half the moral incon-
vcsiene ! which existed under the present law—he gave his so:-
dial support to the Bill of the Noble Lord. After the best
consideration he could give the subject, the evils that were
alleged might result to society, to morality and religion, he
came to the conclusion that he ought to vote for the Pill, and
he hoped the House would adopt the measure.—(Hear, hear. )
Mr. CURTEIS said he would offer a few observations on
the subject. He differed from the Right Hon. the Member
for Oxford, because he (Mr. C.) believed weight of Scrip-
ture evidence was in favour of Bill of the
Noble Lord, he alluded more particularly to that text
in which the " brother " was directed "to raise
up seed by the wife's sister." He did not think there was any
thing like impurity in the case, and he thought that the law
as it stood at present was likely to be productive of snore im-
pure results. He also differed from the Hon. Member for
Oxford when he stated that the sister-in-law should be looked
on in the same light with the sister. He (Mr. C.)
knew a great many persons who did not look on
the sister-in-law and his sister in the same light.
But whatever might be the difference of u;iinion on the subject
in dispute, he thought they might at least allow the Bill to be
introduccjl, and they could afterwards discuss its provisstons in
detail. He thought they should not refuse to allow any Bill to
be brought in which was not of a very outrageous character ;
and he should therefore vote in favour of the motion of the Noble
Lord.

Mr. C. BULLER said that the question then under the
consideration of the House was one undoubtedly which
deeply affected the happiness of many, and embraced considera-
tions of the highest :mportance. He should, however, avoid
discussing the theological part of the question ; and he would
consider it merely on the ground of national expediency. The
main evidence against the Bill was founded on its alleged
tendency to disturb domestic rela ions, by allowing a man
to look on the sister of his wife as a person with whom he might
himself become one day connected. That appeared to him to
be the strongest objection which could be urged against the Rll
of the Noble Lord. It certainly was desirable that such a feel-
ing as that to which he had alluded should be discouraged by all
reasonable means ; and he confessed that if the Bill were
merely to affect the higher classes of society, he thought that
argument would be a sufficient ground for its rejection.
But the objection in question yielded to those great considera-
tions of expediency and of justice which affected the middle
and lower classes, and which induced him to lay down a diffe-
rent rule in their regard. Considerations of paramount im-
portance here claimed their attention. It appeared to him of
the utmost importance, that they should allow the sister of a
ee,:eased wife to become the step-mother of her children, in
order that they might receive that motherly care which they
had a right to expect from one who was bound to them by the
nearest ties.—( Hear, hear.) When the wife of a poor man
died, leaving child en, what s ranger would extend to them
that care which they stood in peed of? Why 'no woman vtould
(to it without being paid for her trouble ; and it was well known
that among the poorer classes the difficulty of providing for
their own children, superseded all consideration of the
wants of the children of another, except in the case
of one who was bound to them by the ties of relationship. In
point of fact, when a cottager's wife died, no stranger could be
found to take care of them, unless the sister of the deceased
wife. It was in that way they were frequently provided for ; it
was the commonest th'ng that could happen, and that was the
origin of most of those marriages which were exceed-
ingly frequent, not merely among the profligate, but
among the most industrious of the working classes. That was
a case which often 'existed, and which it was the duty of the
Legislature to provide for. Now, what would be the conse-
quence of a law which prohibited marriages in such cases.
The consequence would be that parties placed in such a situa-
tion to each other would dispense with marriage, and if they
framed their law strictly, they spuld,not prevent the inter-
course of those parties, but they would prevent their marriage
from taking place with the sanction of the Church and of the :aw.
In his opinion it wonld be unwise cf the Legislature to require
more preliminary conditions in cases of marriage than were
justified by indispensible necessity. By creating prohibitions,
which would be sure to be neglected in many cases, they would
not merely cast a stigma on those who married contrary to the
law, but if the general feeling was one way and the law the
other, the result was that communication between the parties
took place, and the evil consequences did not fall upon those
parties but upon their innocent children, and that afterwards
became a fruitful source of litigation. He said he did not wish
to discuss the religious part of the subject; and it appeared to
him that the moment there was a doubt or a difference of opi-
nion as to the religious state of a question; then it was unwise
to make that House the arbiter of religious controversies. Now
there was no unanimity of opinion upon the present subject.
All Christians did not hold their marriages in abhorrence; and
he even believed that the greater part of Christendom deemed
them to be perfectly lawful.—(Hear.) It appeared to him to
be very improper in a country where religious t. leration was
the law, to make the cannons or rules of one Church rules for
the whole population. Let them look in the first instance on
the hardship of the present law with regard to Roman
Catholics. These marriages were prohibited by the Roman
Catholic Church, but that prohibition might be relaxed by the
Pope, and after a dispensation from him had been obtained,
Roman Catholics
.held these marriages to be lawful. By the
existing paw of the country, however, they were illegal, and
that was a grievance of which Roman Catholics were entitled to
complain. It was the same with Dissenters. They had no
right to make the discipline of the Church of England binding
upon those who were not members of that Church. Let the
Church discourage these marriages if they thought them
improper : hut let not the legislature violate by any
enactment of theirs the principle of religious toleration.
It seemed to him to be trifling with the sanctity of marriage,
and with the general feelings of European countries uron the
subject, to allow, if they could possibly avoid it, any discre-
pancy between the law of marriage in different countries. It
was very desirable, when persons were continually going abroad,
to avoid discrepancy ; and though that might not be conclu-
sive, it would at least form one element in the grounds of their
decision. If they were to continue the laws prohibiting these
marriages, that law would be greatly in danger, from the mere
fact that the general feeling of European countries, and of
America, was against such a law. People would not, and
-could not, be easily persuaded to look with horror upon a mar-
riage in England, which was perfectly proper in all foreign
countries, Protestant even more than Catholic. He thought it
very advisable for another reason to make no unnecessary pro-
hibition. The most effectual-way to break down the barriers to
still closer alliances was, perhaps, to make it the same offence
for a man to marry his wife's sister as to marry his own sister.
By prohibiting these marriages they ran the risk of loosening
_those herders. The Hon. Baronet, the Member for Oxford,
had exclaimed with great horror, " Why this is only the first
step—you take seven years to bring forward a proposal to marry
a man's sister, and in seven years more you will propose that a
man should marry his sister." When the Catholic Church
prohibited marriages among persons who were related in the
tenth degree; when there was not a Royal family in England
who could marry into another without the Pope's
dispensation ; when there was a law in this country
by which a man's marriage was annulled because
be had stood godmother to his wife's cousin.—(Great
laughter.) No, they did not go quite so far as that—it was a
man's godfather—( Continued laughter)—would the Hon.
Member have come forward when this system wad proposed to
be altered, and said, " Where will you stop ?" You will be-
gin with allowing a man to marry his cousin and end by al-
lowing him to marry his grandmother."—(Laughter.) Such
an argument was perfectl futile. The change in this case,
as in every other, would stop just where convenience and
good sense should dictate; and he believed that if they granted
this permission it would not lead to any improper encroach-
ment.—( Hear, hear.) He must say that thase who came for-
ward- with this proposal, instead of deserving obloquy and re-
proach, deserved to be listened to with serious attention by the
Legislature. ' After all, in ninety-nine eases out of
an hundred, these marriages, 'where they occurred, arose
out of the most justifiable feelings. Probably the circum-
stances were Those which the Legislature would desire to pro-
vide for. In the first place there was the quality of affinity;
in the second place, there was the desire that marriages should
be performed with a full knowledge of the characters of the
different parties, each knowing the other's faults and virtues,
and therefore entering into the marriage state wth a full
knowledge of each other's characters. He would ask, under
what circumstances could marriage be performed with a fu ler
knowledge of character—under what circumstances the affec-
tions would be likely to flow in a purer and more refined
course?—( Hear, hear.) The source of attachment was here
no idle passion, no heyday of blood ; the probability at least
was that it arose from a common sympathy with a fond be-
loved object, and that the tie which bound them to the living
was that of a common affection towards those who were the
common objects of their care.—( Cheers. )
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he was
anxious to offer a few observations on the question before the
House. He thought that the Hon. Member who had just sat
d'swn had used some of the strongest arguments which could
be used against the measure which he had advocated.—( Hear,
hear.) The Hon. Gentleman had opened his speech by saying
that, if the question referred to the higher orders alone—that if
it was now the question, whether a man in the higher ranks of
life, in a situation of ease and comfort, should or should not be
permitted to marry the sister of his deceased wife, he would in
that case rather be disposed to oppose the marriages. But the
lion. Member said that his views of the law were formed from
its effects upon the lower orders of society. Now he
(the Chancellow of the Exchequer) could not corrent
with the Hon. Gentleman to place the moral feelings of the
higher and lower orders of society upon a different level. He
'had sufficient knowledge of the lower orders of society to
know that they were as strongly actuated by moral feelings in
the several relationships of life, as persons the most malted in
rank and station.—( Hear, hear.) And if the Hon. Gentleman
thought that it would he expedient to prohibit marriages of
that description in tide higher orders, he believed he
could almost satisfy him that the necessity for the prohibition
ifis7noii
tr,aahate,
dprsseichercerstrhrect
siwtro,gsotiouahpi
marriages
general
el
society
rormrharolei i
which
etnfsgsrt.
bcyeet
;aohle:
desirablenotdotheol,
hsoide.fetma
tLrhi
tsslearoo:
oteiawwitf:drhtpe
kernirreeniyretndoet
drtr,mwtrdhchowoeeeaohrunia.
hisersmyb o
confined
ai
Gentlemannooesos
prohibition
rror:
enreicoseeei
should
ceicostnoeacty,
nitoiari
entertained
ter: furottoaaoLhawsnnf
iecastnsstti wooeymhmtdefeh,
eioeewts
objectionrye
ietbmht ehaner generaldeeree
t
aathisnsi-ost acfiianametetild..
But surely the Hon. Gentleman must admit that in the lower
louver rwoerrdee orders tnhfieneconfined
attention
family
withinl
one
fami-
liar
with
intercourseanothe
r;
;t_haantd thethat
l oifwieor
thoerdloe
of the husband to the sister of his wife might create
dissension, so much more in the lower orders of society amidt the same attention excite the same feeling, because the wouoppor-
tunities of intercourse would be so 'much greater, ant, ttledifficulties of caution and watchfulness would be increased in'
proportion to the poverty of the individual.—( Hear, hear.)
He could not, therefore, acquiesce in the views of the Hon.
Gentleman, that the measure was expedient with reference to
the interests of the lower orders. He differed also materially in
point of fact with the Hon. and Learned Gentleman• fhe
lion. Gentleman spoke of these marriages as if they were a
common rule of society amongst the lower orders, for whose
care he wistßtd to provide. Now he (the Chancellor of the
Exchequer) had certainly hid some experience in a very ex-
tensive rural neighbourhood, and he could say with truth, that
he knew no instance, in a very extensive rural population with
which he was personally acquainted, in which a marriage of
that description had taken place, or in which the feelings of an
individual were favourable to such marriages.—( Hear, hear. )
He admitted that the view of the lion. Gentleman derived
weight from a petition which had been presented to the House
signed by the parochial clergy. But when the Honourable
Gentleman assumed that that petition expressed the views
of the gnat body of the parochia, clergy of this country, lie
thought he gave far more weight to that petition than either
the numbers of those by whom it was, signed in the distri t
from which it came, entitled him to give to it. He believed
that that petition came entirely from the clergy within a very
limited district; he bad understood that it was signed by
clergymen within the diocese of Norwich, and it could not
therefore be considered as an indication of the general feel-
ings of the country upon this subject. For himself, having
had extensive communication with the parochial clergy, he
could ;say that the persons most eminent in character, and
whose opinions were entitled to the greatest weight,
considered these marriages objectionable, not nle%elY
as affecting the general interests of society, bOt on
higher grounds, which he would forbear to state, from an
unwillingness to make that House the arena of theological
discussion. The Hon. Gentleman had defended marriages of
that description on the ground that whilst they were permitted