isting restrictions, unless we are pre- | Prelate who asked your Lordships not pared to substitute something better in to think that the House of Commons their place; but this Bill would unsettle was the representative of the people everything and settle nothing, and it on a question like this. Now, I must would not give satisfaction to the poor, point out to my noble and learned but only to a comparatively small num- Friend that, although it is true that the ber of rich persons, who have entered into majority on the Division List this year these engagements with their eyes open, was absolutely smaller than it was last by the advice of an anonymous society year, yet it was relatively larger comwhich has thought proper to mislead pared with the numbers in the House, them. At any rate, if the question is and that the majority will be found to to be opened, let it be done thoroughly, represent an enormously larger number so that we may arrive at a settlement of constituents than the minority. In the upon it that will be likely to last for a absence of other tests, I am old-fashioned century at least. The passage of the enough to think that the opinion of the present Bill will not effect such a settle- country is, on the whole, very faithfully ment. I think it most necessary that a reflected by the House of Commons. Select Committee-which has hitherto My right rev. Friend (the Bishop of been refused in the House of Commons Peterborough) thought that taking its -should take the whole subject into opinion too blindly would lead us to consideration. By rejecting the Bill on have recourse to a plébiscite; but I bethis occasion your Lordships will enable lieve, on the contrary, that our confithe subject to be thoroughly reviewed, dence in Parliament will enable us to in all its branches, next year, and I avoid such a violent measure as that. therefore hope that the Amendment of All sorts of arguments have been emthe noble Duke will be carried. ployed against this Bill. It has been objected to, first, on a religious ground, that it is contrary to the Word of God; secondly, because it is alleged to be contrary to the law of the Church; and, thirdly, because it is inexpedient in itself. In regard to the first objection, I am bound to say it appears to me that this debate has entirely destroyed every vestige of the argument. It is impossible, indeed, to adduce that argument, considering that 35 years ago the whole Bench of Bishops voted in favour of legalizing marriages which we are now told are contrary to the law of God. My right rev. Friend-a Prelate of great learning and moderation-tells us that the Levitical law denounces these marriages; but another right rev. Prelate declares that that law is in favour of such marriages; while a third stated that, after a careful study of the subject, he could not come to any conclusion with regard to it. He said that, putting aside the Old Testament altogether, he thought the words of our Saviour, as recorded in the New Testament, respecting a man and his wife being one flesh, gave a sanction to his own view of the question: he consequently argued that a man who married his deceased wife's sister would actually marry his own sister. wish, however, to put this case to him. If the wife's sister be the husband's sister she must also be the sister to the hus

EARL GRANVILLE: Your Lordships will readily believe that it is not an agreeable thing for me to address you on this occasion, since I must speak in support of a measure with respect to which two of my Colleagues have expressed themselves in language of such emphatic disapprobation. I do not wish to intrude myself upon your Lordships; but having frequently voted in favour of this measure, I do not like to give-as I have done on previous occasions--a perfectly silent vote. Without travelling over the arguments which have already been so ably discussed during this debate, I desire to say a few words of protest against some of the reasons which have been brought forward this evening to induce your Lordships to reject the Bill. It is necessary, I think, that we should have those reasons placed very clearly before us, when it is proposed to reject a measure which is ardently desired by a not inconsiderable section of our fellow-subjects, and which has been twice approved by the House of Commons as the representatives of the people. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has, indeed, made some remarks on the fluctuating character of the Divisions in the House of Commons. I am afraid I cannot agree on this point with my noble and learned Colleague, and still less with the right rev.

The Lord Chancellor

I

greatest benefits that have been effected
by the legislation of this country have
been brought forward by small bodies of
rich men. What I ask myself is, whe-
ther it is just and expedient that we
should adopt the measure that is pro-
posed to us to-day.
So far from any
blame attaching to those gentlemen, I
think that when they found themselves
and their poorer fellow-subjects under a
grievous restriction, and one the justice
of which is not believed by some of the
most learned men in both Houses of
Parliament, they ought to have strained
every nerve to carry a measure of relief
in this way. I know that your Lord-
ships do not approve of any reference to
the "intelligent foreigner;" but when
you have a question of this sort, and
you know that in Catholic France, in
Protestant Germany, and in perfectly
unsectarian America, there exists such
a law as you are now asked to pass, and
that no evil such as is predicted has re-
sulted from the change that has been
experienced in those countries, you ought,
I think, to regard what has been said
in favour of this Bill. My noble and
learned Friend talked of wishing to re-
tain the purity of home; but that is al-
most begging the question, for will any-
body pretend that the existing law pre-

band's brother, and therefore it is not competent for the husband's brother to marry her—that is, two brothers may not marry two sisters; although this is permitted by the existing law. The right rev. Prelate did not admit that we were to be so much afraid of imposing the principles of the Church of England upon the other communities in this country, but said it would be very hard if we inflicted injustice and hardship upon that Church. He said that if we pass this Bill we shall oblige a clergyman to hurt his conscience, by his not being able to refuse the rites of the Church to those who wish to contract a marriage that in his opinion is not lawful. I imagine that the consciences of clergymen have been tried in other ways, and once, when the law was passed to enable civil marriages to be solemnized; while some clergymen, I believe, hold that first cousins ought not to marry, and do not like to be called upon to marry persons in that relation. But, my Lords, you must not legislate in a large way merely to avoid scruples which may be exaggerated, and I must consider that the conscience of a clergyman is not really hurt if he carries out that which is the law of the land. What I think is the most important part of the matter is the question-"Is this Bill just and ex-vents a profligate or vicious man from pedient?" The noble Duke (the Duke of Marlborough) has argued that if, in this instance, we make a concession, it will be impossible to limit the demands that may be made upon us; but I do not admit that we shall break down any principle by passing this Bill. The Levitical law is not clearly understood, and there is certainly no concurrence of opinion among the whole body of Christians; and, therefore, we should not be kept in an iron mould with regard to legislation by that book. A large portion of the speech of my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack was directed against the society which promotes this measure, and I cannot help thinking that he forgot himself, and spoke rather as an active member of the rival society than as one who discharges a duty in your Lordships' House. Everything that he has said against that society was, in my opinion, quite irrelevant to the question that we have to decide. I do not care whether this measure is promoted by rich men or not; because I remember that some of the VOL. CCI. [THIRD SERIES.]

going further than he ought in his intimacy with some of his near relations? Can anyone bring any instance against the evidence that has been brought from those other countries, where the state of the law does not, in the slightest degree, affect the relations between husbands and their wives' sisters? It is begging the question to talk about the purity of home, and I entirely deny that all the weight of argument is on the side of those who wish to retain the present law. My noble and learned Friend said that there were fewer of such marriages among the poor than among the rich; but what does that mean? Why it means that the richer, the more intellectual, and the more respectable people marry, while the poorer are told by the clergy that there is a difficulty to their marrying; and to what does that lead? The poor man does that which I believe is not strictly illegal, but is most certainly contrary to the law of God. My noble and learned Friend spoke of his experience among the poor; and no one has, in the midst of a labo2 I

rious life, done so much for the poor | Powerscourt, V.
both in the metropolis and elsewhere.
But I cannot compare his experience
with that of the pastoral heads of some
of the large parishes in the metropolis,
who have signed Petitions, declaring
that they are obliged to ask for this

measure to relieve them from the enor-
mous amount of immorality that is cre-
ated by the present law. My noble and
learned Friend told us what were the
habits of ancient Rome; but I think that
the reference to a law which is now in
successful operation in the greater part
of Christendom is more to the purpose
than an allusion to the custom which
prevailed in a heathen State. I sincerely
vote for this Bill, because I believe it
to be wise, expedient, and, above all,
just.

LORD HOUGHTON, in reply, said, that so much had been said in the interesting debate that it would be impossible for him to summarize it in the time at his disposal. The sole object of the Bill was to bring into harmony the law and the conscience of the people of this country; and he asked their Lordships, as wise legislators, to grant what the He left this matter in people desire. the hands of their Lordships in the full conviction that, by passing the Bill, they would be doing nothing which would tend to destroy the existing security of domestic life, while they would be complying with the opinion of an enormous majority of the House of Commons. If the measure were now rejected, it would come again before their Lordships, when the voice of the people would be heard still more strongly in its favour.

On Question, That ("now") stand part of the Motion? their Lordships divided:-Contents 73; Not-Contents 77:

Majority 4.

Beaufort, D.
Cleveland, D.

Saint Albans, D.

Normanby, M.

Townshend, M.

CONTENTS.

Ripon, Bp.
Abercromby, L.
Balinhard, L.(E. South-
esk.)
Belper, L.

Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Penzance, L.
Orrery.)
Calthorpe, L.
Camoys, L.
Carew, L.
Carrington, L.
Dacre, L.
Ebury, L.
Erskine, L.
Gage, L. (V. Gage.)
Houghton, L. [Teller.]
Hylton, L.
Lawrence, L.
Keane, L.
Leigh, L.

Sheffield, L. (E. Shef-
field.)

Somerhill, L. (M. Clan

ricarde.)

Stanley of Alderley, L.
Suffield, L.

Lismore, L. (V. Lis- Truro, L.
more.)
Lurgan, L.
Meldrum, L. (M.
Huntly.)

Templemore, L.

Vernon, L.

Wentworth, L.

Westbury, L.

Wolverton, L.

Wrottesley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Hatherley, L. (L. Chan- Chichester, Bp.
cellor.)
Ely, Bp.
Gloucester and Bristol,
Marlborough, D.
Bp.
[Teller.]
Northumberland, D.
Richmond, D.
Somerset, D.
Wellington, D.

Exeter, M.
Salisbury, M.

Aylesford, E.
Bathurst, E.
Beauchamp, E.
Carnarvon, E.

Devon, E.
Effingham, E.
Erne, E.

Lichfield, Bp.

Lincoln, Bp.

Llandaff, Bp.

London, Bp.
Oxford, Bp.

Peterborough, Bp.

Rochester, Bp.

Salisbury, Bp.
Winchester, Bp.

Graham, E. (D. Mont- Colonsay, L.

rose.)

Congleton, L.

Crewe, L.

Dinevor, L.

Romney, E.

Rosse, E.

Selkirk, E.

Albemarle, E.

Morley, E.

Shaftesbury, E.

Sommers, E.

Kesteven, L.

Lyveden, L. [Teller.]
Northwick, L.

Oranmore and Browne,
L.

Penrhyn, L.

Resolved in the Negative; and Bill to generally was, that the stores were in be read 2a on this day six months.