up. He thought the people were already | mind the hon. Member that it had been resufficiently taxed, and that this Bill would commended by a Committee of last Session, open the door to increased and indefinite and numerous petitions had been presented burdens being placed upon them. He had in its favour. Indeed, he was sure that the no desire to curtail the amusements of the borough of Reading would approve of the people; if he could add to them he should Bill, unless, indeed, it was not a "reading" be happy to subscribe money from his own borough. He would make the hon. Genpurse, and not exact funds from those who tleman a present of the joke, as he considcould not afford to pay. He thought the ered it suitable to the nature of his opposiBill was partial in its operation, that it was tion. He had, in the alterations which he not demanded by the petitions which had proposed to introduce into the Bill, endeabeen presented; and as, moreover, he voured to conciliate opposition and meet thought it had been brought forward to the objections of hon. Members. He progratify the whim of some parties and posed that notices should be affixed on the the vanity of others, he should take the doors of churches and chapels, and should advantage of a fuller House to move its be advertised in the newpapers also, and rejection. he was willing to introduce any further provisions into the measure which would remove all objections to it, unless those objections were of an unreasonable kind. He regretted that the hon. Gentleman opposite the Member for Reading had imputed motives to him which did not actuate him in bringing forward the Bill. He had brought it in on public grounds only, and for a public purpose; and feeling that conviction he did not think it necessary to reply to those who said to the contrary. He believed that the introduction of the clause which he proposed would have been more properly done on another stage of the Bill; but as the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department had given an opinion that it would be better to do so then, he was willing to accede to his suggestion. If the hon. Member for Reading was really desirous that the measure should pass, and would give to him (Mr. Ewart) his support, he would willingly agree to any proposition which might be made to make the Bill more perfect.

one.

MR. STANFORD said, when the Bill was introduced there was a distinct understanding that it was a permissive Bill. It was, however, subsequently found that the Bill was not a permissive but a compulsive The hon. Gentleman the Member for Dumfries then gave notice of a clause of a permissive nature; but that clause, so far from assuring the sanction of two-thirds of the ratepayers of boroughs or towns, with a population of, or exceeding, 10,000 persons, simply stated that the adoption of the Act should be authorised by two-thirds of the burgesses assembled by a notice not earlier than ten days. He had opposed that clause, and moved an Amendment to it, and when six o'clock, the hour of adjournment, arrived, the further progress of the Bill was postponed till the present occasion. He would support the Bill cheerfully if the hon. Member would modify it so that its provisions should be of a permissive and not of a compulsory character. The Bill in its present state had a very insinuating title, but nothing else. Take away the title and there was no Bill at all. A more crude or ill-digested piece of legislation he never saw, and he felt convinced that it would not give satisfaction to the country.

SIR G. R. PECHELL said, he had instructions from the town he had the honour to represent, to put in a clause to extend the provisions of the Bill to towns with local Acts. At present it was confined to corporate towns, and he saw no reason why it should not extend to large towns which were not incorporated.

MR. EWART must make exception to the manner in which the Bill had been attacked by the hon. Member for Reading, SIR G. GREY said, there appeared to and would remind him that, if there were be considerable confusion with respect to crude, crotchetty, and ill-digested Bills, the mode of proceeding with the Bill. The there were also crude, crotchetty, and ill- main question they had to determine was, digested speeches. Neither did he think whether the ratepayers had a sufficient it redounded to the credit of the hon. Gen- control over the town councils. In order tleman that he should mark his noviciate to give such a control, the hon. Gentleman by making an attack upon a Member for the Member for Dumfries had proposed a having introduced a Bill of this sort. The clause; and to that clause the hon. Gentlehon. Gentleman had said the Bill was not man opposite, the Member for Reading, maturely considered; but he begged to re-objected, and proposed an Amendment.

Upon that the clause was withdrawn, and | in favour of it; that a powerful firm of a new one was substituted, to which the London attorneys, paid by a gentleman Amendment did not refer, and he would well known in that House, were sparing therefore suggest that the Amendment no pains to promote the Bill, for the purshould be withdrawn, and that the Bill pose of effecting some marriages and of should be committed pro formá, that the legalising others. It was not proper that new clause might be considered, and that he should then reopen the discussion of hon. Members might have an opportunity last year, or any former discussions; but of seeing how it affected the Bill. it was impossible for any one who heard the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Abingdon to avoid feeling that it was their duty to stop at the stage which the Bill had now reached, and not oppose themselves to the deliberate sentiment of the men, and still more of the women, of England. It appeared to him that, in a social point of view, a more mischievous Bill had never been presented to Parliament.

MR. HUME was of opinion that the most important part of the Bill was that which gave a check to the ratepayers over the funds raised under the Bill, and as the new clause referred to that important point, he hoped the House would allow it to be introduced pro forma, for the purpose of its being considered.

MR. STANFORD had no intention whatever of imputing any sinister object to the hon. Member who had introduced the measure, for he entirely acquitted him of any such object. He would be the last person in the House to impute improper motives, and his own opposition arose entirely from his sense of public duty. He had no objection whatever to the course suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department, and he would not, therefore, any longer persist in his Amendment.

The House resumed. Bill reported; to be printed as amended; recommitted for Thursday, the 13th of June.

SIR F. THESIGER said, they had now arrived at that stage of the Bill at which all discussion with regard to its principles should be suspended, and they should confine themselves entirely to a consideration of its details. He mentioned this in order that his position might not be misunderstood, and that when he stated his objection to certain portions of the Bill, it might not be supposed that he was in any degree waiving the right which he had to object to its principle at some future stages, which he should most unquestionably do if an oppor

MR. DIVETT rose to move, as an Amendment, that the House do resolve itself into Committee on the Bill that day six months. In his opinion it was a scandalous and an immoral Bill, and he was astonished that a man of the learning and ability of the right hon. Member for Bute-tunity should be afforded. What he proshire should have been induced to take charge of such a measure. In all his Parliamentary experience he had never seen anything of the sort; and, remembering the place which the hon. and learned Gentleman represented, he could not avoid noticing the fact, that there had that evening been presented from Buteshire a petition signed by 152 of the electors against the Bill. It might truly be said that Scotland and Ireland were both against the Bill. Every one knew that great efforts were made to get up petitions in England

posed to submit to the Committee was, the Amendment of which he had given notice, that marriages with a deceased wife's sister, which had been contracted since the year 1835, in direct violation of a known law, should not by this Bill be rendered valid. It would easily be observed by hon. Members who were of opinion that the law with respect to these marriages ought to be changed, that they might quite consistently vote for his Amendment, because they might be of opinion, with him, that the Act should not have the operation which the clause,

as it at present stood, would give it. He wilfully and deliberately violated a known thought it would be admitted that all retro-law. Referring to a letter at page 143, active laws were, in general, a violation of of Appendix No. 18, he found the writer the principles of legislation. They were very stating-" I knew, of course, that I was sparingly to be resorted to, and not to be running counter to the Act of Parliament." adopted unless there was something which In No. 19, a party says-" I did not imaamounted almost to a moral necessity. gine that Acts of Parliament could either There were some instances where the Le-create or annul moral obligations. [Mr. gislature had stepped in for the protection of parties who had through ignorance inadvertently violated the laws, and incurred penalties; but no instance could be found where persons guilty of a wilful violation of the law had found protection and indulgence from the Legislature; and more especially could no instance be found of such legislative interference where the important rights of others would be affected by such legislation. As illustrative of the mode in which the Legislature had interfered by retroactive laws, he would refer to the most recent instance of that kind-the Act passed in 1845 to exonerate the printers and publishers of newspapers who, in violation of the law against advertising foreign lotteries, had inadvertently inserted advertisements of that description in their newspapers, and thereby incurred penalties of 501., half of which went to the informer, and half to the Crown. The Legislature interfered and saved them from those penalties; but it was a remarkable instance to show how careful it was not to interfere with the rights of individuals which had accrued, though merely by putting themselves forward to institute proceedings against the offending parties, that, although it declared that from the time of passing the Act, no proceedings should be instituted by a common informer, and referred the whole matter to the Attorney General, yet in the suits which had been instituted and carried to judgment, it would not protect the parties who had offended against what was considered the vested rights of those who had commenced proceedings; and those suits were only terminated on payment of costs by the parties proceeded against. That Act specially recited that those who had offended against the law, had done it through inadvertence. Taking the principle that the Legislature would only interfere in cases of ignorance or inadvertence, or where something like a moral necessity existed, let the Committee look at the position of those parties who, since 1835, had contracted marriages with a deceased wife's sister, and inquire whether they had erred through ignorance or inadvertence, or whether they had not

S. WORTLEY: Finish the sentence.] The writer adds—“Though I so far respected them as to have the marriage solemnised in a country where the union was legal." But that was not the object for which he had cited the passage. Though it might be doubted whether an Act of Parliament could annul a moral obligation, there was no doubt whatever that it could create one; for in the case of any law that was passed, not in opposition to the Divine law, there was a moral obligation to obey it. They were now dealing with wilful transgressors of the law, who knew perfectly well that the Act had rendered these marriages null and void; and there was no instance of the Legislature interposing for the protection of such parties. He might be referred to the Act of 1835, as an instance in which persons who violated the law, and knew they were violating it, had been protected by the Legislature, and their act rendered valid. It was, therefore, important to explain the circumstances under which that law was passed; and it would be found not to have the bearing contended for on the other side. Up to 1835, the law as to marriages within the prohibited degrees was this-Although these marriages, which he held to be contrary to the Divine law, might be annulled by a suit in the ecclesiastical court during the lives of the parties, yet, on the death of either, the ecclesiastical courts could not interfere to invalidate the marriage, and render the issue illegitimate; or, if the ecclesiastical court was put into motion, the common law would interpose by prohibition. It had been erroneously supposed that the law made a difference between marriages within the prohibited degrees of affinity and those of consanguinity-that the latter were void, but that the former were voidable only. That was an entire mistake. Both were on precisely the same footing prior to 1835. Even had the shocking and revolting case of a brother marrying a sister occurred prior to 1835, if either party were dead, there was no possible mode of invalidating that marriage; for all practical purposes for conferring legitimacy and succession on the chil

dren, the marriage was a good one. The and void. [Mr. S. WORTLEY: No!] He law had not, in opposition to the Divine maintained, with great submission, that law, declared those marriges valid, but had that was the general impression, and that merely, for the sake of the innocent chil- was the reason why the Legislature had dren, prohibited the ecclesiastical courts excepted Scotland. In order that parties from invalidating them. But, to show that should have no excuse for ignorance in it gave it no sanction whatever to these future, and that there might be no doubt marriages, there could be no doubt what- what was the law, the Legislature declared, ever that, after the death of one of the in direct and positive terms, that for the parties, the ecclesiastical courts might have future marriages within the prohibited deproceeded to punish the survivor for incest grees, whether of affinity or consanguinity, -showing that the reprobation of the ori- should be null and void to all intents and ginal prohibition was still stamped on mar- purposes whatsoever. After that, there riages of that description, and that they could be no possibility of doubt as to the were never sanctioned by any law. During state of the law. The circumstances unthe whole lives of the parties, not only der which it was introduced were notorious; might any person interested in the succes- persons interested had their attention dision have instituted a suit to annul the rected to the Act, and to the proceedings in marriage, but the parties themselves, had Parliament; and the express and positive they become tired of the union, or found it terms of the enactment shut out all fair or convenient to dissolve it, at however late a legitimate excuse for contracting marriages period during their joint lives, might have of that description. The parties well knew instituted a suit, and the marriage would that the death of either of them would not have been instantly declared void. This prevent the ecclesiastical courts from anbrought the state of the law to the atten- nulling the marriages, and that all the fatal tion of the Legislature, and they had one and painful consequences of illegitimacy in of three courses to adopt, either to leave their offspring must follow. It was in those marriages in the state in which they favour of these parties, who, since 1835, were, to render them void, or to make in defiance of the law, had chosen to conthem binding. The first course was quite tract marriages of this description, that his out of the question; with regard to the right hon. and learned Friend proposed to second, it would have been a harsh and interfere by a retroactive law rendering all cruel thing for the Legislature to have those marriages valid, and investing them taken away from the children the chance with all the rights, privileges, duties, and which they had, if no suit were instituted sanctions which belonged to a legitimate during the lives of their parents, of be- union. Would any one venture to assert coming for all important purposes of life that they had the smallest title to such inlegitimate. There remained nothing else terference? Upon what ground, then, but to declare these marriages valid; ought the House to interfere? [Mr. and as the Legislature was about to pro- HUME: The House has done so once, and nounce an authoritative decision that for will do it again.] He must say it was in the future they should be avoided, a con- vain to attempt to make any distinction insideration of all these circumstances and telligible to the hon. Member for Montrose. the advantage of defining the law for He had endeavoured to show the circumthe future, induced the adoption of that stances under which the Act of 1835 had course. He was incorrect in saying that been passed, and the distinction between the Act of 1835 declared these mar- what was done then and what was proposed riages valid. It did not do so in terms; now; but, from the remark of the hon. but it enacted that they should not be an- Member, he utterly despaired of making nulled by suit in the ecclesiastical court, his proposition intelligible to him. It had with a reservation, however, as to the suits been suggested to him that the hon. Memthen pending. Thus, while the Legisla-ber was going to vote in favour of his proture meant to prevent these marriages be- position; and he thought it very possible, ing annulled, it took special care not to as he had made an observation against it. declare them valid, as though reluctant to As a reason for interference, the hon. and interfere with a divine prohibition. It was learned Member for Southampton had very remarkable that Scotland was except-pealed to the compassion of the House, in ed from that Act. Why? Because, by favour of the innocent offspring of these the law of Scotland, marriages of that de- marriages. Compassion was a most amiable scription had always been considered null quality, and it ought to be indulged, ex

ap

cept when higher considerations intervened. | out the stain of fifteen years-to put the Were they to legislate in reference to the parties precisely in the same situation, children of these marriages, they should be with regard to all the rights and consecarried, if the principle was of any validity quences of those marriages, as if they had at all, to an extent in the same direction been legal from the beginning, although which they could hardly anticipate. In they were utterly void to all intents and the course of inquiry into this important purposes-and to do that which no legislaand interesting subject, the feelings of all ture had previously done, to render that a must have been revolted by learning that holy union which, for fifteen years in some marriages had taken place between per- cases, had been one unhallowed by any sons related within very near degrees of legal or divine right whatever. If the consanguinity. There were the inno- right hon. and learned Gentleman was cent offspring of these marriages; and if actuated by compassion for the children, the House was to be consistent, and if they let him consider whether it was discreet to interfered merely for the sake of the chil- weaken any of those motives which induced dren, and not of the parties themselves, men to abstain from disobedience to the could they stop short without rendering all law by a tender regard for those near and these marriages valid, for the purpose of dear to them-whether it was at all congiving legitimacy to those innocent chil- sistent that those persons who had openly dren? Throughout the country there and flagrantly violated the law should rewere many more illegitimate children than ceive-not the punishment, not the pardon the fruit of marriages of this description of their offence even-but should receive, all innocent victims of the shame produced as a reward from the Legislature, the very by the guilt of their parents; would they fruits which they had derived from their push legislation to the extent of rendering offence. The right hon. and learned Genall these persons legitimate? To legislate tleman had made a strong appeal to the on the ground of compassion would open House on the ground of the number of so wide a field in this direction, that it persons guilty of this violation of the law. would embrace every case in which the If a few insignificant persons only had criminal law imposed a punishment upon been found to have offended, he believed parties; for in most cases, the effect of Parliament would never have been troubled crime extended beyond the criminals them- with this question at all. Was it a conselves to all who stood in a near relation sistent and just principle of legislation to to them. He submitted these considera- say, that because the examples of offenders tions to induce the Committee to exclude were multiplied-because the offence was from the Bill those who had wilfully vio- rendered more dangerous by the numlated the law, and who therefore could not ber of persons guilty of it-that therefore be considered proper objects for this in- the law was to retire before the numbers terference of the Legislature. He would of those who had invaded it? On such a appeal on this subject to his right hon. ground was the House to interfere for the and learned Friend who had brought in protection and the reward of these parties, the Bill, who was actuated by no inter- by placing them in the very same position ested motives, but had been induced to in which they would have been had no come forward by the sincerity of his con- offence against the law been committed? victions. He would ask him whether it Objecting as he did to the principle of the was at all within the purpose of ordinary Bill throughout, he felt that there was legislation, that parties who had acted in such a violation of all principle in the atknown, direct, wilful, and express violation tempt now made to render marriages of of the law, should be put in precisely the this description valid, that he could not same position as they would have occupied discharge his duty without fairly and fully had the law been different, and the mar- laying before the Committee the grounds riages which they had contracted lawful. on which they ought to abstain from the Their position was this: they had con- proposed interference. Unless it could be tracted no marriages; their marriages con- shown that, under circumstances at all ferred no rights, imposed no duties; no similar, with wilful and known violators of succession or legitimacy could follow from the law, the Legislature had ever interthem. They were unions of a meretricious, fered and protected them in the way proand not of a matrimonial character. This posed, he must condemn this legislation Bill proposed, without any religious sanc- not only as being against principle, but tion, without any legal ceremony, to wipe as a dangerous invasion of existing rights.