No such con

one of which is there any blood connection; | will then have to apply. you tell us that in one case only will you sequences ought to be admitted; and if relax the law, and now I ask you, what are you intend to pass this Bill, you must you going to do with the other nine? repeal this clause of the Divorce Act. But Do you intend to permit marriage to the is there any argument whatever in favour nearer relation, the sister, and withhold of this measure? The noble Viscount it from the more distant one, the niece? tells my hon. Friend (Mr. Hope) that it is Upon what ground do you withhold it? I for him to show that the objections are so am told that the existing law is a restraint great that he will not allow the Bill to be on liberty-civil and religious liberty, al- read a second time. I always understood though it is difficult to understand how that when anybody came into this House civil and religious liberty are affected-what or the other House of Parliament for an liberty? I know of no liberty which is alteration of the law it was his first duty to not under restraint. I know of no liberty show the reasons for that alteration. But which has not a moral obligation attached what are the reasons urged for this to it. But if the prohibition of marriage alteration? You tell me that the law is not with the sister of a deceased wife be a re- kept, that it is violated, that these marstraint upon natural liberty, I go back to riages take place, and, therefore, for the your former argument, and ask you, why is sake of some few hundreds of people you not the prohibition of marriage in the are going to inflict grievous mischief on other cases also a restraint upon that li- thousands of others. Never let it be said berty? I am told that the permission of that the violation of the law in this country these marriages would be an advantage to is a sufficient reason for alteration. The the lower orders, that there are grave last argument upon which you ought to rest social reasons for the passing of this law, a measure is that; but if you do rest it upon and that the sister of the deceased wife that I recommend you to read carefully is the best protectress to the orphan chil- through the blue-book all the cases where the dren. That argument has always been law has been broken, cases where men have met by another, and I believe a sound married their nieces, and a mother and one, that for one case in which you would daughter consecutively. On your own give the orphans the protection of a step- showing, if you alter the law in one respect mother, in twenty you would deprive you must in another; and then, on your them of that of an aunt. Remembering own showing, you will throw into confusion what has been done by the Marriage and and leave the courts in such a position that Divorce Act, and coupling that with a no one can tell hereafter what are to be the clause in this Bill, I must ask the noble marriage relations in England. I protest Viscount to consider the dreadful position once more against this measure. I have in which he is going to place the people of urged the same arguments which I have England. By the recent Divorce Act, which used before, namely that the measure is for the first time and I supported that pro dangerous to society, and contrary to the vision-gave a woman a right, in certain highest religious and moral considerations. cases, to apply for a divorce a vinculo matri- Believing that the present law is good for monii, you gave her that right in the case the offspring, good for the parties, and of the commission of incest by the husband. good for the country, I hope it will still be By the noble Viscount's own Bill he pro-aintained, and I shall therefore join with poses to say that nothing therein contained shall invalidate or affect any canon or law ecclesiastical of the United Church of England and Ireland now in force." By these canons these marriages are at this moment by the law of the land incestuous. If, therefore, we pass this Bill and enable the husband to get the advantage of marrying the sister of his deceased wife, and if, at the same time, you put the two parties in a position of temptation which they have never been in before, we may encourage that very incest upon which is to be founded the sentence of divorce for which the unfortunate and deluded wife

Mr. Walpole

my hon. Friends personally and individually in giving my vote most cordially against the second reading of the Bill.

[Baron Mayer Amschel de Rothschild, the new Member for Hythe, presented himself at the table to be sworn. The proceedings hereon are recorded post.}

Debate resumed :—

LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Sir, before the House goes to a division I wish, without entering generally into the arguments, to state in a very few words the grounds upon which I shall give my vote, more es

pecially as for several years during which | pened under the then existing state of the the House has discussed the question I law-that those marriages being voidable, have felt the difficulties to be so great on suits might have been instituted in the Ecboth sides that I have refrained from giving clesiastical Courts, they might have been any vote on the subject. When Lord set aside, and those who were confirmed Lyndhurst's measure was before the House in their possessions, titles, peerages, by I did indeed give my vote in favour of the that Act of Parliament might have been confirmation of existing marriages, but on deprived of those advantages. But, now, the general question I have refrained from Sir, will any man say that the House of voting. I am sorry that I did not hear the Lords would have sent to us at that time whole of the speech of the right hon. -or that we would have agreed to it if Gentleman the Secretary of State for the they had-a Bill which confirmed incesHome Department, but that part which I tuous marriages? Supposing that there did hear was undoubtedly very powerful, had been some five or six marriages with and placed the argument in the strongest persons really sisters in blood, so that they light. I should say with regard to the re- were unquestionably incestuous, would the ligious part of the question that I was satis. House of Lords ever have sent down to fied with the statement made some years us a Bill confirming those marriages? I ago by my right hon. Friend the Member think no man can say that such would for Morpeth, that every Member of this have been the case. There is, therefore, House was bound to look at it for himself, a clear distinction between marriages of but that it would not be desirable that relations in blood and those which are Members of this House, having satisfied between relations who have become so by themselves either that there was or was the marriage tie. But, in admitting this not a religious prohibition of these mar- difference, I must say I have felt-and riages, should enter into a discussion of this has prevented me hitherto from givthat part of the question. I agree in that ing an affirmative vote in favour of the view, and I must say that I have satisfied proposition-that it is a weakening of that myself that here is not any religious pro- relationship which takes the place of relahibition of these marriages. The right tionship by blood when the sister of the right hon. Gentleman who spoke last has wife is placed in a different position from alluded very properly, and in terms in that which she has hitherto held. I canwhich I quite concur, to the religious not but allow that it is in itself a misforsanction of marriage both in the Old Testa- tune and a disadvantage that that feeling ment and by our own Christian dispensa- which has hitherto prevailed, that when a tion; but when he went on to say that he man marries a woman the sisters of that agreed with the hon. Member for West woman become his sisters - that all his Surrey (Mr. Drummond) in regarding these feelings, all his conduct to them in the marriages as not other than incestuous, most domestic intimacy-with relation to there could not but occur to my mind the their affections, it may be with reference vote which I gave many years ago, after a even to their marriage-are guided by the very powerful speech made upon the sub- same sympathies, the same care, and, I ject by the late Sir W. Follett, than whom may add, the same reverence which are no man was better acquainted with the due to a sister. I cannot but feel, I say, principle which should guide legislation on that it is a great disadvantage and a great such a matter. Looking back to the misfortune that that tie should be weakenquestion, I cannot say that I am now ed by any alteration in the law of marriage. perfectly persuaded that we were right in But, while I admit that on the one hand, not altering the general law on the subject; I also think that there is a great and prac but there was one part of the Act in which tical evil which we cannot well refrain from we all concurred, and that was to confirm remedying. The evil is not among the upthe marriages with a deceased wife's sister per classes of society, where I trust there which had previously taken place. That will be no weakening of the idea of relationAct was agreed to, as I believe, both by the ship, and no alteration of feeling, as the respiritual and the temporal Peers of the sult of that alteration we may make in the House of Lords, and there are now Mem-law. But there is no doubt, partly among bers of that House-Peers of Parliament the middle classes, and much more among -who have their seats in the House of the lower classes, a feeling that after the Lords by virtue of that Act. I do not say death of the wife there is often no person that it would, but this might have hap- so fit to take care of the children as the

beloved sister of that wife. With the con- | make it equally applicable to both sexes, fined врасе and the close dwellings in which and to all the degrees of relationship which they live intimacy in no long time grows have been mentioned. I certainly feel the into that kind of affection that they wish question to be one of great difficulty, and to confirm it by the ties of marriage, and it is not without some reluctance that I to those persons it does not appear-not vote upon it, but as it has been pressed being blood relations-that there is a suffi- on the attention of the House I felt bound cient reason why they should not contract to state my opinion. that bond. I am afraid that your law has MR. WALTER said, that it was with been found useless in its prohibitions, and extreme reluctance that he ventured to that it has failed to make people feel that make any remark upon the very delicate and those near relations are sisters, and that very painful subject before the House; but marriage, therefore, ought not to be con- one observation had fallen from the gallant tracted between them. The consequence General the Member for Bradford (General is that upon persons who live together on Thompson) which had occasioned him (Mr. terms of intimacy, whose motives are Walter) the greatest pain at the moment, innocent, and who have no other object in and which he could not pass over in silence. contracting marriage ties than to live If he understood the gallant General aright, together in comfort and respectability, and he had expressed the opinion that it would to give to the children that care and pro- be impossible for a widower to receive into tection to which they are entitled, you his family the sister of his deceased wife impose the stigma of concubinage, and as the protector of his children without upon the woman especially who is living in making to her an offer of marriage. Now, that condition you affix infamy and disgrace. he (Mr. Walter) stood there to give a Sir, I believe that to be so great an evil practical refutation in his own person to that I am willing to submit to that other that opinion. For many months past it disadvantage to which I have referred had been his lot, in a period of great afrather than refuse to remedy it. It is not, fliction, to enjoy the benefit of that very perhaps, in a great number of cases that arrangement which the gallant General these marriages would be contracted, but condemned, but which this Bill would tend I think where persons feel that they can utterly to destroy. He did not propose to without scruple contract them, that they enter into any of those arguments, either should be allowed to do so. I do not, how-theological or social, which had been adever, see any answer to the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary with respect to other relationships of the same kind. I can well understand a line between the blood relations, among whom the guilt of incest is at once admitted and dreaded, and relations by marriage. That line is intelligible and distinct; but I own that, in my opinion, if you make this change in the law you cannot stop short where you are. As the right hon. Gentleman truly observed, the man says, "I take you for my wife, your mother for my mother, your aunt for my aunt, your sister for my sister." Those are all relations of the same kind, and I do not see, if Parliament agrees to the change in the law now proposed, how it can stop short of a change to a still greater extent. Neither can I see any justice in saying to the man, 66 You shall have certain advantages, and in case of your wife's death you may contract a marriage that suits you, but your widow shall not have the same opportunity." In voting, therefore, for the second reading of this Bill I should consider the change of the law utterly imperfect unless you further alter it so as to

dressed to the House on both sides of the question; but, in reference to what had fallen from the noble Lord the Member for London, he might be permitted to say that they could not deal with the question of marriage in any way-they could not relax any of the prohibitions as to the degrees of relationship, without diminishing to a corresponding extent those bonds of family interest and those domestic associations which, above all things, it was desirable to preserve. It was not a question only of what they would give by this Bill; but it was also a question of what they would take away; and it was his belief, founded upon personal experience, that what they proposed to give would not compensate for what they proposed to take away. For these reasons he should give the measure his strenuous opposition.

VISCOUNT BURY said, in reply, that the weight of argument and authority had been so overwhelming on the side of the proposed measure, that he would not have detained the House another minute, but for the pledge which he had given to the hon. Member for Maidstone that he would not allow any

66

argument which the hon. Member might cases as those who advocated that law advance to remain unanswered. That hon. chose to deem it to be binding upon them. Member could not now complain that the He ventured to assert that there was no subject had not been ventilated. Many clergyman who regarded that law as bindhon. Gentlemen had risen on this side of ing upon him. He believed that by that the House, but very few on the other, and law a clergyman was not allowed to go those few had stated facts and raised argu- into a publichouse on Sunday. He did not ments which, Session after Session, had say that any clergyman did so; but he had been disproved and refuted, and which, no doubt that if a clergyman wished to go division after division had shown not to be into a publichouse on Sunday he would not consonant with the feeling of the House. hesitate because there was a canon against It had been urged that the Bill ought not him. He believed that one of the canons now to be read a second time, because said that clergymen should not marry it had only been in the hands of hon. widows or servants; but he ventured to Members only a short time previous to the say that many clergymen had married meeting of the House; but that, he begged widows, if not servants. He had known to assure them, was entirely due to the instances of the latter. The opponents of new postal arrangements of the Secretary the Bill having been driven from the canon of the Treasury. The proof of the Bill, law, which was their stronghold, asserted which had been forwarded to him through that the Bill was socially inexpedient. the post when he was out of town, had no That point was most ably urged by the head" upon it; and the consequence right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of was, that after lying a considerable time State for the Home Department, and that, in the hands of the Post Office authorities he believed, was the only real objection of it was sent back to the Bill-Office. It which any notice ought to be taken. The only reached him at last by an accident, right hon. Gentleman said that when you but for which the Bill would not even yet married a woman her daughter became have been in print. The Bill being iden your daughter, her sister your sister, and tically the same as that introduced last that, in fact, when you married a woman Session, he did not think it necessary to you married her mother, aunts, sisters, make a speech on moving the second read and her whole family. He (Viscount Bury) ing, and it was only to reply to some of should like to submit that opinion to the objections that he had heard that day the impartial verdiet of the whole comthat he rose to address the House. One munity of England. Did the right hon. of the objections of the hon. Member for Gentleman mean for a moment to say that Maidstone (Mr. Beresford Hope) was, that when a man married a woman he made her there had been no agitation upon the sub mother his mother, and was there anyject. He remembered that last Session body who would like that arrangement? many speeches were made against the Bill. He (Viscount Bury) maintained that there and that the main objection was that there was no such relationship, and though he, had been an agitation upon it. It appeared as a young Member of the House, should that his hon. Friend was dissatisfied when feel the greatest hesitation in gainsaying there was agitation, and equally dissatis- the authority of the right hon. Gentleman, fied when there was no agitation at all. still he asserted that to mix up the ties of He remembered that last Session petition consanguinity and affinity in that manner after petition was placed upon the table of was not a fair argument to offer against the House in favour of the Bill, and that the Bill. Would any hon. Gentleman with the hon. Gentleman made it a matter of a smattering of physiology say that by complaint that those petitions were remarrying a woman you mixed one drop of ferred to as a reason for passing a Bill on such a subject as this. This Session no petitions at all had been presented in favour of the Bill, and still his hon. Friend was dissatisfied. With regard to the Scriptural objections to the Bill its opponents had been beaten in many a hardfought field, and at last they were obliged to take refuge in the state of the canon law. The canon law appeared to him to be obligatory only so often and in such

your blood with that of her relations? He thought that was a perfectly untenable argument. There was another question which was raised by the hon. Member for Surrey (Mr. Drummond). That hon. Gentleman was an old Member of the House, and he (Viscount Bury) was, as he had said, a young one. It would not, therefore, be decent to bandy personalities or hard words with that hon. Gentleman, but when he stigmatized these marriages as