proposed the insertion of some words, the effect of which was to prevent marriages with a deceased wife's sister being considered as valid in cases where adulterous intercourse had taken place between the parties previous to their marriage.

then said, that there could not be a greater proof of the general dissatisfaction felt at the arrangement which his right hon. Friend proposed to make, than the fact that he now thought it necessary to propose exceptions to the validity of marriages, which, under other circumstances, he proposed should be lawful, though they had, heretofore, been held to be incestuous. He understood his right hon. Friend to propose, that in cases of marriages with a deceased wife's sister, there should be an exception made, if the husband could be shown to have committed adultery with his second wife, during the lifetime of his first; that then his marriage with his deceased wife's sister should be deemed illegal. But of such a state of the law, he apprehended that no wife would take advantage; and it was manifest, that the exception had been introduced for the purpose of inducing the public to accept a measure otherwise repugnant to their feelings; it was a delusion. How could the guilt of a husband be proved, unless his wife brought him into court? A wife might be strongly irritated against her husband, but, for the sake of her own offspring, to prevent the disgrace of her sister, of all her sisters, she would refrain from going into a court of justice to prove her husband's guilt; no woman of the least delicacy would do such such a thing, and the proposed exception would be no protection to any wife. The introduction of it only showed what extremes the promoters of the Bill had been reduced to, for the purpose of rendering it acceptable to the public. The attempt would not be successful; no alteration would render the Bill palatable, and the more they endeavoured to improve it, the more strong did the objections to the measure evidently appear.

did not think the proposed exception liable to the strictures of his right. Friend. The exception was proposed in deference to the opinion, that a change in the law would afford temptation to illicit intercourse between the husband and wife's sister. For his part, he utterly disbelieved that it would have that effect. On the contrary, judging of the high character of English women, and the high tone of their social system, he believed, that so far from affording any temptation to an increase of that evil, it would have directly the contrary effect. Personally, he did not attach much value to the exception, as he thought the cases would seldom or ever arise.

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

On Clause 3,

, on the part of Mr. Roundell Palmer, moved, in line 14, after the word "that," to leave out to the end of the clause, and insert instead the words following:—

"Nothing in this Act contained shall he deemed or construed in any civil or ecclesiastical court of this realm to alter or in any wise affect any doctrine, canon, or law ecclesiastical of the United Church of England and Ireland, or of the Church of Scotland, whereby the degrees of consanguinity and affinity, within which marriage is now held to be prohibited by the doctrine and discipline of the same Churches respectively are settled or defined; and no clergyman, minister, or officer of either of the said Churches shall be required or authorised, by virtue of this Act, to solemnise or grant any license for solemnising any marriage contrary to the doctrine or discipline of the Church of which he is such clergyman, minister, or officer; nor shall any such clergyman, minister, or officer who may hereafter solemnise or grant any license for solemnising any such marriage, be exempted, by virtue of this Act, from any spiritual or ecclesiastical censure or punishment to which he would by law be subjected if this Act had not been passed."

admitted, that the Amendment referred to a very important and very difficult part of the question. His desire had been to remedy a great social evil, with as little interference as possible with the authority of the Church; and, with that view, he had framed the present clause; leaving it to the free unfettered judgment of the clergy to celebrate the marriages or not as they should think fit. He had hoped, that the clause so framed, would have met with the general sanction of the established clergy; and he had in his pocket the expressed approval of the clause by a large number of them. He desired as much as possible to consult the wishes of the clergy. He thought, that in that respect, he had been somewhat successful; and he might instance the authority of Dr. Hook, in support of that assertion. Dr. Hook stated, that if he were a member of convocation, he should not hesitate to move the repeal of the 99th canon; but, of course, as long as that canon remained in force, neither Dr. Hook, nor any other clergyman, who felt himself bound by it, could celebrate marriages contrary to its injunctions. As to the Amendment, he desired to consult the wishes of the House, and he should certainly not give up the Bill, even supposing that Amendment carried. He begged further to observe, that it did not appear to him, that the canon prohibited the celebration of any marriages, excepting such as were against the law of God. The canon was not of undisputed authority; it was one of the canons of 1603, which were passed—not by a convocation—but by a mere provincial synod of Canterbury, which had never been confirmed by Parliament, and which had been resisted by many of the clergy. The Bishop of Llandaff, in his History of the Church , stated, that these canons were not held to bind the laity, except when they spoke the language of the previous law; and, that many of them had been superseded by Acts of Parliament. He (Mr. Wortley) considered, then, that the best course would be to leave that clause as it at present stood.

observed, that the Amendment amounted, in point of fact, to the substitution of a new clause. The Amendment, therefore, must take this form. The hon. Gentleman must first move the omission of the present clause, and, subsequently, move the insertion of his own clause.

said, the question at issue appeared to him to lie within very small compass; and to be, whether they were to take their own exposition of the Bible, or that of the canons of the Church. For his own part, he would never concede to any man the right of expounding to him what was the proper translation and exposition of the Bible; and he had never seen anything in the Bible which led him to believe, that there was any religious objection to a man's marrying his wife's sister. He had known many cases where such marriages had taken place, and he had seen great advantage derived from them, even in his own family. He considered, that if the Amendment were carried, the better plan would be, to withdraw the Bill, as the adoption of the Amendment would, in his opinion, destroy the whole advantage of the measure.

said, that some of those organs of public opinion which were supposed to be connected with the opponents of this Bill, had lately begun to find out that not only were marriages with a wife's sister permitted by the Levitical law, but that they were absolutely ordered and enjoined; and that a man might have his face slapped with a slipper—no doubt a great indignity—if he neglected to execute the Mosaic law by marrying his brother's widow. Hon. Members had heard of a mistake which was committed during the existence of the Star Chamber, when one of the commandments was printed without the word "not." "Thou shalt commit adultery" was the reading given of the commandment; and many were said to have been those who went by that copy. The same was the case now; in the appeals made to Scripture before that House, there was always a "not" put in, or a "not" left out. Now those who read for themselves, would find that there was a Mosaic commandment that in certain cases a man should marry his brother's widow; and what God commanded to some, He left free to all. He might quote to them the memorable instance in which the Author of Christianity was pressed with a question on this very point, as to what was to become in a future state of the widow who had married seven brothers in succession. And did He say that was a thing contrary to the law? No; He said coolly and without intimation of blame, that there were circumstances in the future state which were not connected with man's associations in this world. He (Colonel Thompson) was glad to express his opinion of the necessity for passing the present Bill; for he believed that the existing law was a source of great distress, and immorality too, to a large number of persons in this country. He must say, however, that he thought it was unnecessary to extend the permission to marrying a wife's niece; for he had not heard of anybody who wanted to marry his wife's niece, though many persons wished to marry their wives' sisters. The position of the two were anything but the same.

considered that the adoption of the Amendment would destroy the whole force of the Bill. There were many clergymen of the Church of England who had no objection to celebrate these marriages, but the Amendment would put an unnecessary burden upon the consciences of ministers of that Church. He thought the clergy ought to be left to the guidance of their own minds as to whether the canon was obligatory or not; and he hoped therefore that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Buteshire would resist the introduction of the Amendment.

observed, that he thought a most extraordinary principle was involved in this Bill—namely, that it should be left to every clergyman to determine the force and validity of the laws under which he was placed, and which he had sworn to obey. The consequence of that proposition would amount to the solemn establishment of perfect anarchy, possibly a little aggravated by perjury. He proceeded on the assumption, that the canons were Church laws—he meant in the narrow and confined sense of clergy laws. Surely, after these canons had been acted upon in courts of justice for nearly 250 years, it was a little too late to say that, because certain individual clergymen objected to them, it was doubtful whether they were binding or not. Neither could it be contended that because some of these canons were obsolete, they were not therefore law; for there were on the Statute-book many statutes which were obsolete, but that circumstance did not in the least degree diminish their legality and binding force. Could there be a doubt about the validity of these canons when not a year passed without a clergyman being suspended or deprived under their authority? The right hon. Gentleman who introduced this measure had stated that these canons were adopted in a mere synod of the province of Canterbury; but they had not had such a thing in this country as a convocation; there had been nothing beyond a synod of the province of Canterbury, which passed laws which were accepted by the synod of York. The 99th canon merely declared what was the sense of the word of God, and there was nothing ambiguous in its terms. It was in these words:—

"No person shall marry within the degrees prohibited by the laws of God, and expressed in a table set forth by authority in the year of our Lord 1563."

This was not a canon of mere ecclesiastical law; it was a canon declaring the sense of the word of God. He maintained that the present Bill would create perfect anarchy with respect to the law of the Church; for the principle the Bill would establish was this—that Parliament might, of its own sole authority, establish a perfect anarchy and disregard of law with regard to any doctrine of religion whatever. But if hon. Gentlemen thought the force of the canon was doubtful in England, he would take the case of Scotland, where there could be no doubt as to the law; and he would say that the effect of this Bill would be to establish anarchy in the Church of Scotland with regard to this particular point. He considered that the Amendment, which entirely disposed of the ecclesiastical question, would greatly mitigate the social objections to the Bill. He feared that the consequences of the Bill as it stood would be to destroy altogether the recognition in the law of the country of the true Christian and Scriptural standard with regard to marriage; but, if the Amendment were adopted, the Scriptural and Christian standard would still be recognised by the Churches of the three countries. He would therefore support the Amendment.

said, that it appeared to him that the clause as it then stood was preferable to the Amendment. The first portion of the Amendment appeared to him inconsistent with the second clause of the Bill, to which they had already agreed, by which it was provided that no marriages sanctioned by that Act should be annulled or pronounced void by any sentence of the ecclesiastical courts. The effect of the Amendment would be to exempt ecclesiastical courts entirely from the operation of the Bill, and he thought it would be very dangerous to insert that Amendment without duly considering whether, by so doing, they would not virtually repeal the only valuable portion of the measure—namely, that these marriages should not be annulled. The second portion of the Amendment proposed to go further than was proposed in Clause 3. That clause provided that no clergyman should be compelled to celebrate these marriages, and should not be held liable to penalties if he did. The Amendment proposed, that any clergyman celebrating such marriages should be subject to ecclesiastical censure or punishment to which he would by law be subject if this Act had not been passed. He thought, if a proviso of that kind were adopted, it ought not to induce the right hon. and learned Gentleman to throw up his Bill. There were two words in the Amendment to which he also objected, they were "or authorised." He thought that marriages ought clearly to be valid, whatever punishment the clergyman might be liable to for celebrating such marriages; it would otherwise be a great hardship upon the parties who might form such unions. If the hon. Member divided the House upon the question, he should certainly give his support to the original clause.

said, the result of the discussion which had taken place on this subject, was to satisfy him that he ought not to consent to the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford had referred to the 99th canon. Now, he (Mr. Stuart Wortley) had expressed no doubt as to the intention of the parties who drew up that canon; but he held, that in the case of a criminal suit against a clergyman, the court, putting a strict construction on the terms of the canon, would be bound to say that no clergyman should be visited with any penalty unless they conceived it was clearly proved that the marriage was not only contrary to Bishop Parker's table, but also against the law of God. The right hon. Gentleman had said that no laws of the Church had been imposed otherwise than by the provincial synod of Canterbury; but he (Mr. Stuart Wortley) found that the Articles of the Church of England were passed in convocation in London, and were agreed upon by the archbishops and bishops of both provinces. He was informed, also, that the 99th canon was not one of those canons subscribed by clergymen at their ordination.

observed, that his right hon. Friend, in order to defend his Bill, had been forced to impugn the authority of the whole of the canons. The right hon. Gentleman told them that those canons were not passed by competent authority, and that the clergy might obey them or not, as they pleased; and he proposed to overthrow the whole law by which the clergy were governed. This was one of the evils incident to that wrong step in legislation which the right hon. Member for Buteshire had advised the House to take. He recommended his hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone not to take the sense of the House at present on the Amendment, because there might be objections to it as it stood, and further time required for consideration.

said, that he had presented a number of petitions from the constituency which he represented, in favour of the Bill, and a great number of them were signed by the clergy—clergy of the highest standing; and he was quite sure those clergymen would not have signed these petitions unless they had taken all the bearings of the case into their most mature consideration. The Bill, as it stood at present, was to relieve the minds and quiet the consciences of a vast number of persons; and he trusted the House would pass it, on the ground of the opinions entertained in its favour by the large constituency which he represented.

would withdraw his opposition to the clause, on the distinct understanding that the discussion should be taken on the question of bringing up the report.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

rose to propose a clause which had for its object the exemption of Scotland from the effects of this Bill. The hon. Member for the West Riding had just stated that he appealed to the House to enact this Bill on the ground that he represented one of the largest constituencies in England, and that the voice of his constituents was in favour of this measure. He (Mr. Fox Maule) spoke confidently in the name of the whole people of Scotland, and, for the reason stated by the hon. Member, entreated the House to exempt Scotland from the operation of this Act. He stated here, without fear of contradiction, and in the presence of the Lord Advocate, that this Bill was abhorrent to the feelings of the people of Scotland; there was not a clergyman in Scotland connected with the Presbyterian religion who was not ready to raise his voice in opposition to this measure. He stated, without fear of contradiction, that a high legal authority had stated that the law of the land, as well as the law of the Church in Scotland, pronounced these marriages, not, as in England, merely to be voidable, but to be totally null and void. The only ground that he had heard of for extending this Bill to Scotland, was for the purpose of establishing uniformity of law between the countries; and he asked the House whether, for the mere purpose of establishing uniformity of law, they should at once violate the feelings of the whole country? The subject now before the House had been so fully discussed on its merits as an ecclesiastical question, that into that part of the question it was not his intention to enter; but this he might state, that it was considered in its ecclesiastical view in Scotland by the best authorities Scotland ever bad on the subject; by those men who took part in the Reformation, and through whose instrumentality the Confession of Faith was originally framed. He stated further than that, that after the word of God had been reviewed and explained by the authorities of the Reformed Church, that the civil authorities in Parliament simply ratified that view, not, as had been stated, as a law of the Church, but, in 1567, as the established law of the land. He went further, and stated that by the treaty of 1689, the ratification in the Confession of Faith was further ratified, as part of the law of Scotland; and by the treaty of union, the Sovereign of this country was bound to maintain that law inviolate. He could not see what evil or difficulty was to arise from want of uniformity of law between the two countries, when it was perfectly well known that from 1567 to 1835 there was no uniformity of law between the two countries on this subject, and no evil arose. He admitted that if the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Maidstone had been carried, he should have been deprived to a certain extent of argument on this occasion; but as the matter now stood, what were the facts? This third clause said, that no clergyman celebrating one of these marriages should be liable to any pains and penalties of any court, civil or ecclesiastical. The result of this was that, contrary to the Act of Union, it was a direct interference with the authorities of the Church of Scotland, and enabled a clergyman to set at defiance his vows to obey the Confession of Faith , and the penalties which were attached to the non-observance of those vows. He had thought that this House and this country had had a lesson by which they ought to profit, of the extreme sensitiveness of the clergy and people of Scotland as to interference with their ecclesiastical law. Whether it were right or wrong, he belonged to a body who, thinking that Parliament had interfered with the ecclesiastical law as settled in the Confession of Faith , and ratified by the Act of Union, to the number of upwards of 400 clergymen, and 700,000 or 800,000 persons, had seceded from the Establishment, and given it a blow from which it would never recover. Let them beware how they again started the same elements of discord in what remained of the Church. Let them beware how they put in the power of any clergyman to set at naught his vows to obey the Confession of Faith . If they did this, the consequences would be not only further disruption in the Established Church, but it would be the utter annihilation of the Established Church in Scotland altogether; and he confessed he did not went to see that. He therefore called on the House not to take the step of extending this Bill to Scotland: first, as these marriages rarely took place in Scotland; secondly, on the ground that the idea of these marriages was abhorrent to the people of Scotland; and further, on the ground that they were making an unnecessary and rash attack on ecclesiastical authority in Scotland; and, lastly, that they were introducing a practice of marriage which had never yet had ground there. In every instance where these marriages had taken place, so offensive was it to the neighbouring people that the parties had been obliged to quit the neighbourhood. He therefore moved to bring up the clause of which he had given notice, to exempt Scotland from the operation of this Bill.

was ready to give his right hon. Friend credit for sincerity in the representation he had made of the possible consequences of the Bill, and he was ready to admit that the people of Scotland generally—not all the people absolutely—had an aversion to marriages of that kind; but then such an admission was only an argument to him against making this Bill the law of England, or of Ireland, or of any one part only of the kingdom. The Bill, if it were passed into a law at all, must become the imperial law for these realms. He said, the prohibition which first appeared in the Confession of Faith in 1690, did not change the law of the land, which continued, as before, to depend on the construction that was given to the xviiith chapter of Leviticus. He did not allow, though he was aware that the general opinion of lawyers went the other way, that these marriages were bad by the law of Scotland; and when it was said that they were unknown in Scotland, that circumstance, instead of operating as a reason for excluding Scotland from the effect of the Bill, only showed that they might without fear include that country within it, unless they gave to the Scotch people but little credit for the sincerity of their religious feelings. What he wished his right hon. Friend to consider was, what the consequence would be if his clause were to be passed. Then, by the law of England a woman should be regarded as a wife, who, on passing into Scotland, would be received only as a concubine; and the issue would be legitimate on the one side of the border, who were illegitimate on the other; and all the arrangements of property would be disturbed by this anomalous state of the law. Nay, marriages received as valid in England, would be viewed as incestuous in Scotland. With these as the consequences of the clause of his right hon. Friend, he would much rather ten times that the Bill were entirely rejected, than that the law of the two countries should be reduced into such a state of contradiction.

said, that, admitting that confusion, such as was described by the learned Lord Advocate, was likely to arise, he did not think that the happiness of the whole mass of the people was to be sacrificed for the disturbance of the property of one or two individuals. He trusted that for the sake of the happiness of the great body of the people—for the sake, especially, of the poor—the House would exempt his country from the operation of this Bill.

was surprised that the hon. and learned Lord Advocate did not remember that the state of confusion was precisely the state of the law at the present moment. The ecclesiastical reformers of former days were much more modest than the ecclesiastical reformers of this day; they did really and truly moan to reform the Church, by taking away all the evil, and leaving all the good; but Gentlemen in these days wanted to give us a new Christianity altogether. That was by no means the intention of the Reformers. The Reformers held the Christian doctrine which had been held without one dissentient from the beginning, and acknowledged the unanimous voice of the Church as the only voice of God to man. The right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge had said that the measure would introduce considerable confusion into every parish in England. He was surprised that it should have escaped the observation of his right hon. Friend, that that was precisely the thing which gave it so many powerful supporters in this House. They had no intention whatever of supporting the authority or preserving unity in the Church; on the contrary, every single measure, directly or indirectly, which could be propounded which tended to subvert and destroy that unity, they did most indefatigably support. There was also a very great confusion concerning the law of marriage as connected with the Church. All they had any business with in this House was to ascertain and direct to whom property should go. If they pleased that property should descend to the descendants of incestuous connexions, make it so; but what they called marriage in the Church had nothing to do with marriage in the State. Persons who thought there was something very solemn in that union, would certainly have their respective ministers ask the blessing of God upon that union; but would any law of theirs alter the law of incest? Would any law of theirs make a blessing descend upon that union which God had prohibited? Most unquestionably not; and they could not, by any excuses for clergymen, or any absolution from the penalties which they might incur, alter the effect of the law of God. They were wholly wide of the mark in entering into such questions; but he should confine himself at present to the clause before the House, and reserve the rest for the third reading of the Bill.

said, that it was not only the deliberate opinion of the people of Scotland, but it was the deliberate faith, that these marriages were incestuous, and it was, in the most distinct manner, so laid down in the formularies which were in the hands of every peasant in Scotland. There were 1,294 congregations in Scotland which held to the Confession of Faith . There was, in Scotland, the Larger and Shorter Catechism . In the 139th question of the Shorter Catechism , the dispensing with unlawful marriages was said to be forbidden by the seventh commandment. In chapter 24, sec. 4, of the Confession of Faith , these unlawful marriages were enumerated; and in the Larger Catechism unlawful marriages were referred to. If the hon. and learned Lord Advocate would refer to the Directory for Public Worship , he would find that persons about to marry were solemnly engaged to declare whether there was any disqualification. This book lay beside the Bible in every cottage in Scotland. If they passed this Bill, they would pass a Bill which no person in the House connected with Scotland had supported except the Lord Advocate. There had been examined before the Committee no laymen or clergymen connected with Scotland except the Lord Advocate. As the second reading of the Bill had passed, all he could do was to endeavour, by supporting the Amendment, to save the country from what he thought a great evil.

said, the sincere respect which he entertained for his right hon. Friend the Member for Perth and the people of Scotland, induced him to remove the misconceptions which appeared to prevail, and to explain how far the Bill would affect the law of Scotland. He felt, if he were trenching upon the Confession of Faith , he should be justly exposed to that wholesome jealousy with which the people ever since the Reformation had been led to guard it. But then it seemed to be entirely overlooked by some, that the Bill by no means forced those marriages upon the people of Scotland, so that their opinions and feelings were left intact. He granted there was a great distinction between the law of Scotland and the law of England; but he thought it would be very advisable that no such distinction should remain between different parts of the united kingdom. Now, as to Scotland itself, what happened? Why, that, year after year, clergymen of the Church of Scotland were in the habit of celebrating marriages of this nature. That was a fact which they had upon proof—upon oath—before them. At the same time, he did not mean to say that the Church approved of it. He would here take occasion to correct a misrepresentation which had unintentionally been made as to Principal Lee of Edinburgh. He said an individual had told him that marriage between himself and his wife's sister had been celebrated by the very rev. Principal, who, he said, was cognisant at the time of the circumstance. As he (Mr. Stuart Wortley) was incredulous about that part of the story, he had written to Principal Lee, who, in his answer, positively denied all knowledge of the circumstances of the parties. He said the clause of the Bill which protected from being sued, in the ecclesiastical or other courts, any clergyman who had celebrated a marriage of this kind, would still leave the Church of Scotland and her laws intact; and for this reason, that the courts of the Church of Scotland were not the courts of Her Majesty, and were, therefore, left possessed of all the power which they could ever claim. He opposed, then, any clause which tended to limit to a part of the kingdom the operation of this Bill, which, if it passed at all, ought to be an imperial measure.

said, he was opposed to the principles enounced by the right hon. Gentleman—principles that were covered by the Amendment, which, through the assistance of an hon. Gentleman, he had proposed that day, and which he would renew at a future stage of the Bill. He said he never had heard with greater astonishment any statement than that made by the right hon. Gentleman, when he said that this Bill, containing the 3rd Clause, if it were to pass into a law, would still leave them the power of proceeding against a clergyman. His argument was, that they could not proceed against him for the affinity of the parties, but, by a legal quibble, for his violation of his oath. He (Mr. R. Palmer) was certain no court, after the passing of that Bill, could countenance a suit either on the ground of the Confession of Faith , or of the violation of the ordination vows of the clergyman. Why, that clause, in express words, protected the clergyman celebrating such a marriage from any suit in any of the ecclesiastical or other courts. It was the affinity of the parties only that made the marriage illegal; and the clergyman might openly set at defiance the vows he had taken, seeing that Parliament had relieved him from doing his duty to the ecclesiastical law of the country. That would be the effect of the clause as it stood. And it appeared to him that the Church of Scotland would have as good reason to complain of a Bill that would have such an effect, as of the strongest violation of the Act of Union. It was a matter of doctrine affecting both religion and morals.

said, that the Bill merely provided that the affinity of the parties should not be a ground for proceeding against the ministers who might solemnise them; but it did not provide that they should not be liable to be proceeded against for any other cause.

said, he was anxious to support the Bill, as applied to England, because it went to remedy many complaints and evils; but, as regarded Scotland, he must say, that every man he had been in communication with in that part of the kingdom was altogether averse to it, and prayed that that House would not meddle with the law of marriages in Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman said that what was good for England was good for Scotland. But, if so, was he prepared to suggest that the Court of Session should be brought up to Westminster, or to propose that there should be a uniformity between the laws of the two countries? The right hon. Gentleman admitted even that he did not intend to apply the Bill to Scotland generally: applying it to a small part of Scotland only, made the anomaly still greater.

moved the addition of words including Ireland in the exemption from the operation of the Bill, believing that it would inflict a heavy social evil upon that country. Reference had been made to the dispensation of the Pope, as a justification of the measure. But the present law was in favour of that of the Church of Rome. Dispensations were the exceptional cases; and if he had to choose between them and the law, he would prefer the law.

said, he had no objection to do for Ireland what he would do for Scotland. He had not heard a word to shake his determination to take the sense of the House on the question. The right hon. Gentleman had said that his wish was to relieve the clergymen of the Church of Scotland from the difficulty to which they were subjected year after year by celebrating marriages of this description. But if a clergyman was so careless as to celebrate marriages without making due inquiry as to the parties, and satisfying himself respecting them, he would leave him to suffer the full penalty of the law.

, on the same principle as that just enunciated by the right hon. Gentleman, could not concede to Ireland an exemption which he wished to refuse to Scotland.

said, that he was not aware of any single Protestant, Roman Catholic, or Presbyterian minister in Ireland, who had asked for such an interference with the law of marriage as the Bill proposed to effect.

said, that the hon. and learned Gentleman could not have read the report, or he would not have made such an assertion. There were several letters from ministers of those religious denominations contained in the report: amongst others one from the Archbishop of Dublin.

said, that the evidence of the right rev. Dr. Wiseman was in favour of the Bill only in England, his reason being, that as the Roman Catholics in England were only a minority, it was desirable to encourage intermarriages.

Clause as amended:—

"And be it enacted, That this Act shall not extend to Scotland or Ireland, nor shall anything therein contained alter, or be construed to alter, the Law relating to Marriage in either of those two Countries."

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, he added to the Bill."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 66; Noes 119: Majority 53.

House resumed.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered on Friday.

appealed to the hon. Member for Cockermouth whether at this hour in the afternoon (half-past four), and at this late period of the Session, he seriously intended to proceed with the measure? If the Bill were to pass, it would be giving the sanction of the House to a direct interference with private property. That being the nature of the Bill, the question involved was far too important to be disposed of at this period of the Session, and within an hour and a half of the adjournment for the day. It was a measure which was compulsory on the side of the landlord, but not on the side of the tenant, and it was, therefore, partial and one-sided. It was now proposed to compel an individual to part with his property under an arbitrary arrangement, whatever value he might place upon it, at a price which certain commissioners might choose to award him. He had received strong representations against this measure from a great part of his constituents in Lincolnshire, where a great number of copyhold tenures existed, and upon all these grounds he should oppose the further progress of the Bill.

Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words, "this House will, upon this day three months, resolve itself into the said Committee," instead thereof.

also opposed the Bill as a one-sided measure. He had had communications with many lawyers on the subject, who were all opposed to the Bill.

, in answer to the appeal made to him not to prosecute the measure, said he had satisfied his mind that it was a just and equitable one; that it was one most desirable to the country; and that it was not an undue interference with the rights of property. Convinced of this he should, so far as his abilities extended, endeavour to pass the Bill this Session; and if he failed in that, would certainly introduce it in the next. He objected to the time which the opponents of the Bill had selected to declare themselves. The second reading was the usual stage at which objections were taken to the principle of a measure; and if the adversaries of the Bill had taken that course, and the House had agreed with them, his own time and that of all hon. Members would have been saved. There were no objections made which could not be met by alterations to be made in the Committee and as to the complaints which had been made against the form of the Bill, the plain truth was, that whatever the form in which he might have introduced a Bill for the enfranchisement or commutation of copyholds, he should have been mot with precisely the same opposition. The feeling of the country was with the principle of the Bill, and by the division upon the Amendment the people would know who were and who were not in favour of a measure so much demanded.

said, that in his opinion the measure was founded on a most unjust principle; and after adverting briefly to the origin of copyholds, he observed, that in a long series of years that tenure was become much stronger than had been originally intended; so, in consequence of that increase of strength, the hon. Member thought it justifiable to compel the lord of the manor to abandon his rights. The hon. Member, by his Bill, gave no right to the landlord to obtain possession of a copyhold by paying an equivalent value; not that he (Mr. Goulburn) so much objected to that omission, because the landlord being, generally speaking, a person of greater power than the copyholder, might, having that right, use it to detach property in cases where it had been very long held in copyhold. But, on the other hand, it was unjust to give the tenant power to compel the landlord, under all or any circumstances, to part with his property, at whatever inconvenience, in a pecuniary or any other point of view. If he had been aware this Bill was coming under discussion, he should have been prepared to show how this power would operate most injuriously upon the property of the lord of the manor. There were cases in which copyholds ought to be enfranchised; but this had always been done by mutual agreement, and the injustice lay in compelling one side only to part with his property, whether he desired to do so or not. It appeared to him that if the Bill passed, neither more nor less injustice would be done, than if the landlord of a farm were to be compelled to sell that farm to the tenant of it upon the valuation of commissioners. For these reasons he should oppose going into Committee.

said, he should indeed be extremely surprised if such a Bill as this proceeded one step further in this House, for he could scarcely bring himself to believe in the possibility of even the attempt at such unjust legislation having been made. It was, at all events, a one-sided Bill. What he should like to see was, an endeavour, if it were just and equitable, to get rid of all copyholds by making landlords and tenants agree to a commutation; but this Bill proposed no such thing. It only gave the option to the tenant, and none to the landlord. He must say, he thought the measure nothing less than a confiscation of property. They were living in times in which interference with property had been carried very far, and he believed that there was no instance in which the rights of property had been so far invaded as in the case of railways. But in that case there was a great public necessity, or at least a great public convenience. Facility of conveyance was hold to be a great national object; but he appealed to the House to decide what great national object was involved in landlords being-forced to give up their copyhold rights. The only pretence put forth was, that it would be a convenience to tenants; but even if that were so, why should the landlord be denied a corresponding right on his side? He believed that this Bill was framed in direct opposition to the report of the commissioners in 1838. That report recommended a compulsory measure to get rid of copyholds; but this was not a compulsory measure. He could wish to abolish the copyhold courts, which were in a deteriorated and degraded position; formerly they were held at the court-house, but now too generally the courts were held in alehouses. But this Bill did not even do that; for it would force the lord of the manor, after compelling him to give up his rights, and when his interest in the property had ended, to hold this miserable court for the benefit of the interests of some other persons. The Bill perpetuated all the abuses of these copyhold courts.

said, he did not know much about the north, but certainly the feeling of the south of England was against this Bill; and if the hon. Member for Cockermouth persisted in forcing it before the House, he would find there were always Members enough to oppose unjust legislation. He opposed the measure as palpably one-sided.

expressed his astonishment that hon. Gentlemen interested in copyhold property should not be anxious to put an end to the troublesome and expensive system with which it was connected. He did not think this the very best Bill which could be devised for that purpose; but let them go into Committee, and they might amend it.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question.

The House divided:—Ayes 60; Noes 71: Majority 11.

Words added; Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

Bill put off for three months.

moved the Second Reading of this Bill. He said, that notwithstanding the appalling number of accidents that bad taken place during late years in collieries and mines, nothing whatever had been done by the Government to put a stop to them, or to introduce a better system. The present Bill had emanated from the working colliers and miners themselves. It had been discussed and agreed to by deputations from the mining districts in Scotland, England, and Wales, and they had asked him to submit it to the House for their approval and consideration. The principle of the Bill was merely that there should be legislative interference in favour of colliers and miners. With regard to the details, it was hardly necessary to discuss them at present. He would merely say of them, that it was proposed that Her Majesty should be cm-powered to appoint inspectors, who were to visit all collieries and mines at least four times a year, and to order such improvements in them as they should think necessary for the protection of the lives of those employed in them. The Bill also proposed that the men should work by weight instead of by measurement, as at present. The coalowner sold his coals by weight, and there was no reason why the working colliers should not be paid by weight also. He believed that in Northumberland and Durham this system had been adopted; but in some of the midland counties the system was to bring the coal to the surface, where it was measured, and the men were sometimes not paid for three or six weeks after the work had been done. Again, if stones or other foul matter were detected in the coal, penalties were imposed, which left hardly any wages whatever to the men. It was not necessary for him to call the attention of the House to the appalling loss of life that was constantly taking place in collieries. During the last two years, since he had first given notice of a Motion on this subject, no less than 5,000 lives were computed to have been lost in the coal mines of this country. In some cases it was no doubt beyond the power of man to prevent accidents, but he thought that, as far as human skill and experience could go, there was no excuse for not providing a remedy.

seconded the Motion. The question was one of vast importance, as it was notorious that there were more lives actually lost in the coal mines of England every year, than by all the shipwrecks that took place among the vast mercantile marine of the country. Considering the number of families thus left without support, it was most important that some measure tending to prevent this fearful destruction of human life should be adopted. He was against any legislative interference between masters and men as regarded wages, and there were, therefore, some of the details of the Bill which he could not approve of; but the great question of ventilating mines was another matter, and one that could be at once carried into effect. At some of the inquests lately held on these dreadful accidents, remedies had been pointed out that were easy of application, and when the Government neglected to apply those remedies, he thought the House was bound to take into its serious consideration a measure emanating from the working colliers themselves.

Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

said, that he had received communications from persons in the colliery districts on the subject of this Bill; and he had paused before rising to address the House, under the impression that those parties would have instructed their representatives to bring forward some of their objections in the House. As they had not done so, however, he would proceed to consider the nature of this measure. But before going further, he begged to express the satisfaction he felt, and in which he was convinced the House generally participated, at seeing his hon. Friend able once more to take his place among them, and his earnest hope that the hon. Gentleman's health was so completely restored that he would be able to take an active part in all their future deliberations. He fully agreed in what his hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Montrose had said as to the great importance of providing some remedy against the recurrence of these most disastrous accidents; but he thought his hon. Friend had rather considerably overrated the number of deaths from accidents in collieries when he fixed it at 5,000 in two years. But, without minutely criticising that statement, it was obvious that a great number of deaths did take place, and that it was most important to diminish the number as far as possible. He used the word "diminish," because when coal mines were worked on so extensive a scale as in this country, it was impossible to guard against accidents altogether. Within the last two years the attention of Government had been repeatedly directed to this subject, and much valuable information had been collected and laid on the table of the House as to the practice pursued on the Continent with regard to the inspection of mines. There was one passage in Mr. Tremenheere's report to which he wished to draw the attention of the House:—

"In this country, if the compulsory powers of the continental system of inspection were adopted, no one would be able to open a new colliery without first submitting his plans to a Government inspector for approval. This would involve the necessity of such a number of inspectors, and such an amount of minute interference, that I apprehend it would be deemed entirely at variance with the principle of private enterprise and individual responsibility in this country, however applicable it may be on the Continent, where various usurpations from time to time upon private rights have transferred all mineral property from individuals to the hands of the Government."

As to the compulsory inspection, he had no objection whatever to it. He begged to observe, that when he spoke of having had communications from parties interested in the matter on this subject, he did not mean merely those who were interested in mines as owners. His opinion was that it was better to have, in the first instance, inspectors appointed who would make a general report on the mines, and more especially on the system of ventilation adopted, after which the House would, he believed, be much better able to legislate on the question than otherwise. In the meantime, he thought it was extremely desirable that no portion of the responsibility which justly attached to the owners, should be transferred to the Government or to Parliament. If the inspectors discovered any defective system in any of these mines, immediate notice should be given to the managers, to the public, and the persons employed in it, and to the Government. There ought to be a power also given to those inspectors to call for the production of maps and plans, in order to enable them to make their inspections more perfect; but there would no doubt be great objections entertained, from the jealousy often existing among those parties to having the maps and plans of the mines open to the inspection of the public generally. The objection he most entertained to this Bill was, that it proposed to establish a very extensive and a very expensive machinery to carry it into execution, whilst it would transfer the safe management of a large number of collieries from their owners and managers to the Government. His hon. Friend proposed that every colliery should be visited four times in the year by inspectors. Now, in order to effect that purpose, an enormous staff of inspectors would be necessarily required, who must be paid out of the Consolidated Fund. He (Sir G. Grey) was not without a hope that some means might be found for providing the charge of inspection without placing it upon the Consolidated Fund; at all events, he thought the system of inspection ought not to be upon the extensive scale proposed by his hon. Friend, for it would involve an expense far beyond the necessities of the case. He further objected to any mixing up of clauses for inspection with clauses for regulating the payment of wages. He recommended his hon. Friend, in this or any future measure of which he might take the charge, to separate these two topics, for he would find it inexpedient to lay down a general rule which could not be applicable to the various mining districts in the country. A very important point was referred to in Mr. Tremenheere's report. It had reference to the education of the colliers. The Bill of his hon. Friend contained a clause providing that the inspectors should have practical experience in mines for ten years. But what was wanted was this qualification in those who were overlookers. On this subject, Mr. Tremenheere said—

"No one can be conversant with the great benefit that the admirable schools of mines in France, Belgium, and Germany confer on those countries, without a regret that this country has so long neglected such obvious means of usefulness. The foundation on which such a school might be established has been already laid in this country in the Museum of Economic Geology, which corresponds to the valuable Museum of the School of Mines in Paris."

He (Sir G. Grey) had had frequent communications upon the subject with Sir Henry de la Beche, and he was bound to say that no man could be more anxious that means should be taken, through the medium of the Museum of Economic Geology, of diffusing information and promoting education in connexion with mining pursuits. Mr. Tremenheere further said—

"The circumstance of the low qualifications of the persons entrusted in this neighbourhood with such important and responsible duties as underground steward, has now attracted the serious attention of all the principal owners and managers of collieries around Barnsley, and it was represented to me as their unanimous opinion, that immediate measures should be taken to create a class of men of greater knowledge and ability."

And he added—

"I believe that, with the disposition existing in all the mining districts of this country to benefit by the progress of knowledge in such matters, the information which would be diffused by the inspectors, the emulation which would be created among colliery managers (as was observed by one of the witnesses at the late inquest), the force of public opinion, and in the last resort the fear of a coroner's jury in case a mine pronounced dangerous by the inspector was left unimproved, would in a very short time produce as good effects as the compulsory system of the Continent, reducing greatly the number of mines in which the principle or the amount of the ventilation is defective, and, therefore, leaving less opportunity for those accidents which are attributable to the carelessness and recklessness of the men."

A system of inspection, without compulsory powers for calling upon owners to produce maps, to enable the inspector to make the inspection in a manner that would be effectual as well as desirable, would, in his opinion, be inefficient; but he also thought it would be inexpedient to go beyond a general provision for that purpose. Public opinion, operating upon these reports, would, he believed, be found more effective for the purpose than any measure that House could produce of a restrictive character. With regard to the experiments lately made by Mr. Gurney, for the improvement of ventilation in mines, he had been asked why the Government did not enforce ventilation by law. His reply was, that if that system seemed likely to be successful, it would be the direct interest of owners and managers to adopt it. It would be wrong, in his opinion, for the Government to take up any proposal of that kind, and ask Parliament to render its adoption compulsory by owners and managers of collieries. The subject, he admitted, was one of great importance; but it was one requiring very delicate treatment, and he thought that by proceeding by slow degrees in enacting-such laws as were found necessary, they would ere long be successful in providing measures that would be satisfactory in their application.

characterised the Bill as full of repressive requirements, without being likely to realise its object. The right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary had omitted to say whether he would support the second reading—a point upon which the House ought to be informed. There was no specific for ensuring that explosions should not take place in mines; and if hon. Gentlemen would refer to the inquests upon the bodies of those who had perished in them, they would find that in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred the catastrophe had arisen from the carelessness of the men themselves. He knew a case in Lancashire, where a workman insisted upon opening a certain part of the mine, where he knew that five men were at work. The consequence was that ignition instantly took place; and, though the lives of the men were happily saved, it cost the proprietor between 300 l . and 400 l . to extinguish the fire. Until there was some better knowledge upon these subjects among the miners, no legislative enactment ought to take place. He objected to the details of this measure. Who was to bear the expense of the proposed weighing of the coals at the pit's mouth? That operation would cost 6 d . per ton; and it must either be paid by the workman or the consumer. There was, however, no need whatever for such a clause, for the men themselves know how much they got. He objected, also, to the proposed interference with the system of paying wages, as uncalled for and unnecessary. The Bill referred to the appointment of three inspectors. But how could three inspectors visit every colliery in the country, as they would be required, four times in the year? There were 1,500 collieries in the country, which would make 6,000 inspections in the year. To comply with the Bill, then, every inspector must make 2,000 inspections in the year, or seven every day. It would be impossible for any men to perform the labour. The Bill was objectionable in many other respects, and he should give it his decided opposition.

seconded the Amendment. He hoped the Bill would be withdrawn, for it was impossible the House could pass a measure which interfered so much with labour and its wages. If a good practical measure was introduced, the great mining interests connected with his own constituency would give it their support, for they were as anxious for practical legislation as any one of the parties who promoted this Bill.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."

Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

also wished to recommend the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the Bill. The parties interested in the question felt considerable alarm at the legislation proposed by the hon. Member, believing that it would be impracticable, or that if practicable it would do very great mischief. After the promises held out by the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Home Department, he was sure the hon. Gentleman would be serving the interests he had taken in hand better by withdrawing the Bill, than by pressing the second reading, which, very likely, would be rejected by a considerable majority. As the representative of the most important mining district in Scotland, he was most anxious to secure the main objects at which the hon. Gentleman aimed. The only doubt was as to the means for carrying out those objects; but under the circumstances he was quite certain the hon. Gentleman would be taking the most judicious course by withdrawing the Bill for the present Session.

said, his name was at the back of this Bill along with that of his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury, and the sole object of pressing the second reading was, that the principle might be affirmed. The details might be reserved for future consideration. There certainly was a necessity for legislation to protect workmen in mines from the fearful accidents which of late years had been so frequent.

, Jun., remarked that the Bill made it compulsory to alter mines in any way laid down by the Government inspector. If an accident occurred after proprietors had so altered their mines, and an action was brought to recover damages, who was to be liable? Were they or the Government to be liable?

said, that the right hon. Baronet the Homo Secretary had not stated what course he meant to take with regard to the Bill. The principle laid down by the right hon. Baronet was one which the House, he believed, unanimously agreed to. That principle was, that there should be some system of instruction, and that miners should have the means of obtaining all the information that science could afford them. By these means they hoped for a better management of mines. But this was not the principle of the present Bill. It was of a totally different character, and the hon. Member for Fins-bury would himself acknowledge that. He was in favour of the principle laid down by the right hon. Baronet, but he was not in favour of the principle of this Bill. He hoped, therefore, the right hon. Baronet would not press the House to a division, and oblige Members to vote against the Bill, which would have the appearance that they were opposed to any inspection, which, however, was not the case.

said, he did not move that the Bill be read a second time that day three months, because he merely wished to suggest reasons which might influence the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the Bill. But if he pressed it to a second reading, he would vote against its further progress.

was willing to leave the question in the hands of the Government, provided he understood the House to be favourable to legislation for the protection of life in mines. Voluntary inspection would prove absolutely nugatory. To be effectual, it must be compulsory; and if the Government were not prepared to affirm that principle, he would take the sense of the House upon the subject. All the objections to the Bill as it stood had come from the master class; and the hon. Gentleman opposite the Member for Bodmin had stood forward as the organ and champion of the fire-damp interest. No doubt all the masters were against the measure; but he did not see why there should not be an inspection of mines as well as of factories.

Amendment and Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill withdrawn.

And it being Six of the clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House till To-morrow, without putting the Question.