said, he rose to ask the Chief Commissioner of Works, If his attention has been directed to the Monument now in progress of erection at the entrance to Westminster School, and to inquire if he has any power to prevent such erection?

Sir, the answer to the question of my hon. and gallaut Friend depends on the construction of an Act of Parliament. It appears that it was assumed that this work of art, being called a monument, did not come within the provision of that Act, which declares that no public statue shall be erected in a public place without the written assent of the First Commissioner of Her Majesty's Works. I presume the subscribers to this monument had grounds for that assumption, though it might be urged on the other side that, as the monument consists of the statues of public personages, namely, four Sovereigns who especially favoured the school of Westminster, and St. George and the Dragon, it is not exempted from the operation of the Act. But, however that may be, supposing the promoters were incorrect in their construction of the Act, I think it would be a harsh step on the part of the Commissioners of Works to remove the monument on that account. At the same time, I must say that if my assent had been asked to this monument I should have hesitated to sanction the extraordinary incongruity of placing statues in the mediaeval style on a classical column. The incongruity has arisen from the struggle which prevails in this House and elsewhere between the advocates of the Gothic and the advocates of the classical style, and I presume they came to a compromise, which like other compromises, has been less successful than a frank adoption of either alternative.

said, he rose to move as an Amendment, that the Bill be committed on that day six months. The Bill appeared to him so objectionable in principle, so dangerous and unjust, that he felt it his duty to oppose it at every stage. He would not repeat the objections he had urged to the measure on the second reading, though, if he might say so without presumption, he thought that those objections had not been met by any sufficient and valid answer. He wished to call attention to two circumstances which had occurred since the debate on the second reading. One was the general expression of a wish made on several occasions and in different quarters of the House that on questions likely to involve the elements of religious controversy, an attempt should at least be made to carry into effect a policy of compromise and conciliation. Now he thought that those hon. Members who were in favour of such a policy should, considering the large measure of compromise and conciliation already passed in reference to endowed schools, show by their votes that they regarded that measure as at least worthy of a fair trial. But if it was to be treated, as it had been on a previous occasion, as an argument for further aggression, there would then be no encouragement for proceeding in a course of further concession. The second circumstance, to which he had alluded, was of a still more satisfactory nature, and proved the correctness of his assertion, that the present Bill, when properly understood, would be found to be as dangerous to the rights of the Dissenting communities, and as distasteful to them as to the members of the Church of England. More striking evidence of that could not be afforded than by the fact that the Wesleyan Conference, representing more than one-third of the whole body of Dissenters, had by the unanimous vote of their committee resolved on petitioning against the further progress of the present Bill; he could not doubt that a petition from such a body would be received with the respect which was due, not merely to their numbers, but to the exertions which they had made to relieve spiritual destitution at home, and to their numerous and successful missionary enterprises abroad; and the circumstance that their petition had been presented by him as one of the Members for the University of Cambridge was quite sufficient to show that he was right when he had stated that there were parts of the present measure which would rally upon one side all friends of religious education to whatever church, sect, or denomination they might belong. Upon the other side there were the political Dis- senters and their fitting organ, the Liberation Society. But he could not, with such allies and with such opponents, feel any doubt of the result, and he was confident that the small majority of seven for the second reading would be converted into a large majority against the Bill.

rose to second the Motion. As the Bill before the House would in its operation be felt by several foundations in the borough which he had the honour to represent (Leeds), he had been desired by his constituents to oppose it. It might not, perhaps, be considered quite irrelevant to the important question now before the House if he ventured to allude in a very few words to two free schools in the neighbourhood of Leeds which would be seriously affected by this Bill. The first school to which he would refer was the free school at Bingley, in the West Riding. In 1838 was brought forward the question of the admissibility of Dissenters on the trust on the occasion of the trust having to be filled up. The question was brought before the Court, not on the ground of any doubt on the part of the Churchmen, but to satisfy the Dissenters by an authoritative declaration of the Court that they were not admissible. And what was the decree (after argument) of the Vice Chancellor? With the permission of the House he would read it from the Act which he held in his hand—

"And it was also declared that the trustees so to he elected, and all future trustees, of the said charity estates, ought to be members of the Church of England as by law established."

The other school to which he begged to refer was the free school at Wortley, in the borough of Leeds. It was decided in November last by the Vice Chancellor that none but Churchmen were eligible as trustees of that school. Now, it so happened both these schools were founded by one who fought, and perhaps bled, for the cause of the King and Church, against the predecessors of those very persons to whom it was the object of the Bill to give control over his endowments. Might he ask the supporters of the Bill if such a person, could he now speak among us, could look with anything but disgust at such a perversion (as he would think it) of his charitable bequest? Nor were these soli- tary instances where this Bill would go against the clear intention of the founder. Would any one acquainted with the history and feelings of the times for a moment suppose that the foundations of Edward VI. or of Elizabeth had any view but one with regard to religious education? Would the proud noble of Henry VIII., the brilliant courtier of Elizabeth, or the loyal cavalier of the First Charles, look upon such a Bill as this as anything but a downright spoliation? He need not argue from such expressions in the founder's bcquests, as "fear of God," "Godly manner," "Godly and discreet persons." There never had been more than one opinion as to their meaning. Surely it would be but honest and fair to leave to our courts of law, conducted as they are on the strictest principles of equity, impartiality, and justice, to decide on the animus of the founder, and not by a rapacious and tyrannical act try and injure the Church even at all sacrifice of truth and justice. That could alone be the object (no matter how mistaken) of the Bill, and while he upheld the principles of religious toleration he was convinced that he should not aid that religious liberty which hon. Gentlemen opposite spoke much of, were he to support the Bill. He thought it his duty to oppose the measure, because he thought it was violently overturning the clear and expressed wishes of the founders in the reigns of Edward VI. and Elizabeth. He thought it most contemptuously reversed and set aside all known legal decisions for hundreds of years back. He thought it opposed to every known law of evidence, and he thought it in the majority of instances clearly subversive of everything short of a decisive negative on the part of the to under. But, more than all, he opposed it because of what he believed would be the miserable consequences which would result if it were made law. For he could see but two results. There would be introduced confusion worse confounded by the stirring up of jarring and discord, of jealousy and strife, in hundreds of foundations where hitherto there had been, if not entire unanimity, yet at any rate harmony and good feeling. But its ultimate result would be still worse; it would, if he mistook not, bring about an overthrow of all religious education, and would assimilate our schools to the common schools of America, which had been found to be full of evil, the reports of which, as they reach us, showing the truth of the saying of that great man, the Duke of Wellington, "Dissever religion from education, and you make men clever devils." This he (Mr. Beecroft), was sure would never be the wish of the Parliament of a Christian country, and, therefore, as long as this House wished to support the cause of religions education, it would refuse to receive the Bill before them.

said, he could not but express his astonishment at the tone of the observations made on the other side of the House. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University and his Seconder appeared to suppose that they and their supporters monopolized all the religion and all the respectability of the House. He (Mr. Mellor) hoped that he was influenced by feelings of attachment to religion as sincere as either of those Gentlemen in the support which he gave to this measure. The object of the Bill was simply to make eligible poisons who might be chosen trustees on account of their fitness, notwithstanding their religious opinions, but it did not force Dissenters into the management of the schools. A trustee so elected would be as much under the control of the Court of Chancery, even though he should be a Dissenter, as his colleagues who happened to be Churchmen, while the constant litigation which, under the present law, prevailed—litigation, owing to which £ 3,000 or £ 4,000 out of the funds in question had, in many instances been expended, would be avoided. The Bill arose altogether out of the Ilminster School case, of which Lord Chelmsford himself, in pronouncing judgment, said that he regretted that the friendly feelings which had so long existed should be disturbed, and that the Court should have been called upon to put a legal construction upon the deed. He certainly was surprised to hear such terms as audacious and tyrannical applied to so simple a measure. He did not suppose that the admirers of Henry VIII. or Charles I. would approve of the Bill, but he thought that was rather a mark of its excellence. Something had been said about toleration. He thought it was rather late in the day to use that word. He believed that now all persons were equal in the sight of the law, whatever might be their religious opinions; and by this Bill that principle was simply applied. Its object was to enable the best men to fill the offices to which they were chosen. What special virtue was there in a Churchman? What was a Churchman? He had been described as "the best Churchman who subscribed to the most, believing the least." And were they to insist upon the appointment of such a man as that in place of a conscientious Dissenter? The real test of the value of a man was his history and past conduct, and surely men who had a good character in that respect were the men who ought to be made eligible to be chosen to have supervision over schools. Then it had been said that the Bill would interfere with schools which had been Church schools for three centuries. That depended almost entirely upon an artificial presumption. Every school which was founded by a man who did not profess any particular religion, was supposed to be a Church school. This Bill did not really interfere with that presumption. He assured hon. Gentlemen opposite that they need not be alarmed that the Bill was brought forward in the interests of the Liberation Society. That was not the fact. But even if it were, would it not be judicious to put a stop to the scandals and litigation which were caused by the present state of the law? He urged the House to agree to the Bill which indicated no hostility whatever to religion; and, having had some communications with the Wesleyans with regard to it, he could affirm that they objected to the Bill because it did not include certain exceptional provisions on the subject of their Sunday schools and chapels, which he considered that it would be inconsistent with the scope of the Bill to introduce into it in their favour.

said, he did not for one moment seek to impute to the hon. Member for Swansea nor to the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just spoken unworthy motives, but when he found them associated in dealing with the question before the House with the great advocates of the voluntary principle he could hardly avoid being reminded of the well-known saying, "Noscitur a sociis." The opponents of the Bill were, he might add, accused of want of toleration, because of the objections which they offered to its enactment, but his own experience went to prove that the only person who had never of late years received toleration in that House was the Churchman. No one on that side had ever insinuated that the religious belief of Dissenters was not a conscientious one; but how different was the language which the upholders of the Bill directed against Members of the Church. They were usually spoken of by some hon. Members as if they could be animated by no sincere faith in the creed which they professed. That the contrary was the case was, however, proved by the fact that religious instruction was the primary object of almost every school founded by them. Nor was this confined to schools founded by Churchmen, but the denominational principle was mainly acted upon throughout England. If that position were a good one it seemed to him to be absolutely essential, in order that the unity and efficient working of those institutions might be duly promoted, that they should be managed by persons holding the same religious tenets as the children for whose education they provided. It was all very well to say that a Dissenter better suited for that management by his general character and the estimation in which he was held by his fellow citizens than a Churchman whoso reputation was not so good, might be found, but it should be borne in mind that the religion of the former, if he were really the excellent man he appeared to be, must be presumed to be pervaded by sincerity and earnestness; that he must be supposed conscientiously to condemn the doctrines of the Church from which he dissented, and that his views and objects must be regarded as in entire antagonism to the religions teaching in those schools, with a share in the conduct of which some hon. Members seemed so solicitious that he should be intrusted. It was, of course, true to say that there were Churchmen whose lives were not in conformity with the creed which they professed—few men's lives were—but, then, so long as they were externally in communion with the Church, they must be looked upon as more interested in the maintenance of its doctrines than those who, upon principle, were opposed to their extension. It was rather curious that those who were the loudest in proclaiming the voluntary principle should be ever trying the hardest to get at endowments. It was, indeed, contended that the operation of the Bill could do no harm, Lady Hewley's case was an answer to that; but he should like to know what good it would effect? It was supported, on the one hand, on the ground that it would prevent litigation; while, on the other, it was argued in its favour that the trustees of schools—differing, be it borne in mind, in religious opinions, as in many instances must be the case—would be under the control of the Court of Chan- cery. Now, whence he should ask arose the necessity for the proposed change in the law? How far was it proposed to carry the doctrine which the Bill embodied? Was it intended to apply it to wills and instruments of that description; thus providing that the real intentions of testators might never he carried out at all? The arguments that had found weight with the Wesleyans ought to find weight with all other Dissenters. What said Mr. Perceval Bunting, in a correspondence with the hon. Member for Leeds on another subject, with respect to this Bill—

"I have just read a Bill, which if I read it rightly, in a single clause redolent of mischief and injustice, proposes to enact that unless the deeds declaring the trusts of your chapel or of that belonging to my denomination in Brunswick Street have been so carefully drawn as to declare the contrary, the profession of the Roman Catholic religion shall not for the future be a disqualification for the trusteeship of either chapel. Where are we to stop?"

If it was not expressly laid down in the deed relating to any proprietary chapel that the trustees were to be of a particular religion they would be liable, instead of orthodox Evangelical trustees, to have trustees whose religious opinions were ever changing. For his own part, he objected to the Bill very strongly in itself; but he was still more strongly opposed to it viewing it in connection with all those other measures of a similar class, the discussion of which rendered Wednesday the most disagreeable day in the proceedings of that House. He should beg the supporters of such measures to pause in their career, and not to attempt to strip the Church of that which lawfully belonged to it, and which it used for the best purposes. Having given them that advice, he should only add that he should cordially support the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cambridge.

deprecated the language which had in the course of the discussion been used by the opponents of the Bill, as not tending to foster that spirit of conciliation which they professed to he anxious to promote. Language almost offensive had been applied to the hon. Gentlemen supporting the Bill, and they were charged in a very broad manner with the most evil designs. No notice had been given to him of the opposition to his Motion for going into Committee on the Bill. The Bill having been fairly argued on the occasion of the second reading, after full notice, the day for it having been, indeed, fixed by arrangement with the opposition leaders, and having been then carried by a majority. He would put it, then, to hon. Gentlemen opposite, whether it was, consistent with the usual practice of the House, or likely to promote harmony amongst Members, practically to impose upon the supporters of the Bill the necessity of carrying the second reading over again, and, as in this case, by attempting to take members by surprise? It was not until the orders of the day had been circulated on the proceeding day that he learned that the Motion for going into Committee was to be opposed, notwithstanding that he had taken every means to ascertain the intentions of his opponents. He had not come down that day prepared to argue the question upon legal grounds, for he had regarded the principle of the Bill as recognised. Still he should have no difficulty in furnishing evidence as to the grievanco of the existing law. He, therefore, would express a hope that the House would not sanction the course taken by the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University, but would at once pass to the consideration of the Bill in Committee. He denied that the Bill was one of spoliation, and asserted that its only object was to do an act of justice to Dissenters. In reply to the appeal which had been made to him to point out the grievances which existed under the law as it now stood, he would refer to two cases which had recently arisen, one in the city of Exeter, and the other in the town of Tenterden, and which showed that the Church had of late years assumed an aggressive attitude towards the rest of the community. In the Exeter case, the rector of the parish in which the foundation existed, although the trust deed expressly declared that the trustees should consist of "the chiefest of the inhabitants of the said parish," had secured the appointment of gentlemen who were not only not among the chiefest of the inhabitants of the parish, but who were actually not inhabitants of the parish at all, and had persuaded the Charity Commissioners to set aside the names of another set of gentlemen, on the ground that some of them were Dissenters, although they were all inhabitants of the parish, and although he had himself in the first instance concurred in their appointment as trustees. In the Tenterden case, although there was some reason for believing that the testator was himself a Dissenter, and although it was quite certain that one of the first set of trustees was a Dissenting minister, the clergyman of the parish had endeavoured to convert the foundation into a Church school, thereby giving rise to a vast deal of disturbance and litigation, and the matter had not yet been finally settled, though he believed a compromise more or less satisfactory was in course of being effected. He denied that he had ever joined in unprovoked attacks upon the Church, or that he had any wish to deprive her of the property which rightfully belonged to her. Since he had been in that House he had mixed himself up pretty constantly in these so-called attacks on the Church. But what were those attacks? The questions of church rates, of the burial of Dissenters in consecrated ground, and of endowed schools, were the three most important questions he could at that moment call to mind. In the case of church rates the attack began on the part of the Church, and the same might be said with respect to the other two subjects. So far as he had seen the Church had ever been the assailing party, and all those measures were those of defence and not aggression. He regretted that the Church had assumed an insolent tone of superiority over the rest of the community, and earnestly desired that she should amend her services, abandon all projects of aggression, and act in future with the humility and charity prescribed by her founders; as by so doing she would best vindicate her own position, and would, as he believed, soon find herself recovering the ground which he was sorry to think she was fast losing in public estimation. He had no reason to be ashamed of his connection with the Liberation of Religion Society, which he had always found to be fair, conciliatory, and trusted that the Church, instead of attributing the worst motives to others, would recognize the necessity of discarding a policy which was as injurious to herself as it was dangerous to the peace of the country.

said, he regretted that the debate had become rather a defence of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down than a vindication of the Bill before the House. The hon. Member, it appeared, regarded the Liberatian Society as fair, moderate, and conciliatory.

said, he thought he had not used the word "moderate."

said, he was sorry to say that his recollection differed from that of the hon. Gentleman; but he was glad to know that in his calmer moments the hon. Member acknowledged that the Liberation Society was the reverse of moderate.

said, he did not acknowledge anything of the sort.

said, he would take the liberty of advising the hon. Member, if he wished to carry either the present or any other Bill, not to give the House the impression that he was less moderate, less conciliatory, or less fair than the Liberation Society. The hon. Member had complained that sufficient notice was not given to him of the opposition to his Motion for going into Committee. Did the hon. Gentleman really suppose that any stage of a Bill which proposed to strip the Church of all her endowed schools, and the second reading of which was carried by a bare majority of seven, would be allowed to pass undisputed? He could not say that the hon. Member had been fortunate or happy in the selection of his cases of grievance under the existing law. In the Tenterden case a clergyman of the Church wanted to do precisely that which the present Bill, if passed, would enable every Dissenting minister in the country to do—namely, to change the character of a trust, and thereby to create no end of confusion and bad feeling. But the accusation which seemed to have given most offence to the hon. Gentleman was that of rapacity and irreligiousness in education. How far was that charge justified by facts? Dissenters constantly asserted that they would not take advantage of their position as trustees to propagate their faith; but he might ask whether that character of Dissenters was borne out by what was seen of them even in that House. He had no hesitation in saying that the Dissenting Members, as a rule, were restrained by no ordinary scruples, and left no stone unturned when they wished to effect a purpose, and that they never neglected an opportunity to assail the Church, to shorten her privileges, and to seize her property, and, directly or indirectly, to propagate their own tenets. That which the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield) was ready to do in his place every Dissenting Minister in every part of the country would do whenever an occasion presented itself. Such a course, no doubt, would be honestly taken as being in accord with their principles, but still it was a course which would be detrimental to the Church. What, then, would be the consequence when Dissenters became trustees of schools? Why that if Dissenters were admitted they could no longer exclude Roman Catholics from the trusteeship of those schools. And yet those who knew the ardour with which, in and out of season, Roman Catholics propagated their faith would agree with him that no sincere and earnest Roman Catholic could be the trustee of a school without trying to colour with his peculiar doctrines the teaching of that school. Other Dissenters would do the same, because they were honest men, dissenting from the Church, not merely to spite their neighbours, or because it was an amusement to dissent, but because they believed there was some error or falsehood in the Church which they were bound to rectify if they could. What, again, would be the effect upon the designs and intentions of testators? Where the trust deed had left the matter in doubt—when nobody could say with absolute certainty what the testator meant, and still less what he would have meant if he had lived at the present day—it might be taken for granted that one object which the testator could not have had in view was the teaching of a divided, mutilated, emasculated religion, such as would follow the introduction of Dissenters into trusteeships. Dissenting trustees, by cutting off a little hero and paring away a little there, would convert the religion now taught in endowed schools into a sort of negative faith, presenting nothing plain to the eye or solid to the grasp, which to children would not be much better than no religion at all. He regarded the present Bill, therefore, as one of spoliation, not merely because it affected the property of the Church, but likewise because it applied endowments to purposes which the testators would have least desired—to the teaching of a kind of vague philosophy, most hostile to a definite faith, and most certainly ruinous to the interests of true religion. It had been said, indeed, that few changes would follow the proposed alteration of the law, but those who knew the practical character of the hon. Member for Swansea would admit that he would not push forward his Bill with so much earnestness and zeal if he believed it would have no result. The Bill would operate extensively, not only because Dissenters were honest men and anxious to propagate their faith, but also because there existed a society whose duty it would be to take care that it should not remain a dead letter. The Liberation Society took advantage of every loophole. Only a fortnight ago it put an advertisement in The Times exhorting every parish throughout the kingdom to oppose the imposition of churchrates to the utmost extent of its power. He was not going, of course, to discuss the churchrate question; but the fact he had mentioned proved the utter recklessness of the Liberation Society in the means which it used and the passions to which it appealed. It did not care how much harmony it might destroy, how much wholesome Christian worth it might interrupt, how much confusion and ill-feeling it might create, if it could only advance one inch nearer the attainment of its own political designs. What it had done in the case of churchrates it would do in the case of endowed schools. Let the House pass the present Bill legalizing the election of Dissenters to trusteeships, and it would throw a firebrand into every parish where there was an endowed school to be contested. The Liberation Society would issue its mandates, its professional agitators would be set in motion, no money would be spared, and every conceivable legal quirk and quibble would be employed in order to give the keenest possible edge to the weapon which Parliament was now asked to provide; and the result—the inevitable result—would be the destruction of pure religious teaching in every endowed school throughout the country.

said, he wished to ask where the attempt had been made by Dissenters to touch property not belonging to them? What was the rapacity alleged against them? In his opinion the question was far less one of property than of prestige. The Dissenters did not seek to lord it over Churchmen, as Churchmen lorded over Dissenters, but they did claim to enjoy the same rights. Why not abolish the profane Declaration Test Act and get another put on the Statute Book, requiring every Dissenter to take off his hat in the presence of a Church of England man? This would be better than profaning the name of the most High as was now done—and then they would know what to do. The supposition seemed to exist that Dissenters were a very peculiar people. The noble Lord (Lord Robert Cecil) evidently thought that the term "Churchman" implied a honester and a better man than a Dissenter—that he was a superior and more moral man. A clergyman so stated before a Committee of the House of Lords, but he admitted, it might be, he was prejudiced. It was true that they wanted the church rates abolished. Was there any rapacity in that? Had there been no rapacity on the other side? Had distress warrants never been levied in the houses of Dissenters, and their furniture and even a sick man's Bible, sold to pay these rates? Had no rapacity been exhibited there? Did any one hear of Dissenters oppressing any class of Her Majesty's subjects in their religious worship? The noble Lord was very much displeased that Dissenters should be nominated trustees of a grammar school. Why, the Court of Chancery had nominated Dissenters. In the case of the Manchester Grammar School which had been founded by a Roman Catholic Bishop a complaint had been made of the bad management of the school by the trustees who were Churchmen, and a decree was obtained against them, and they were removed, and the Court appointed six Churchmen and six Dissenters as trustees—and the school was conducted in a business-like manner, and better than it bad been before. he reminded the House that Dissenters had existed in England ever since Protestantism had existed, and they had always relied on their own efforts to maintain their institutions. They neither cared for nor wanted any endowments. It was a fact worthy of consideration that out of the 25,000 places of worship that Dissenters had in Great Britain, only 100 or 200, and those were of old standing, had received an endowment, and even these were from private benevolence. In more modern times the Dissenters did not endow their places of worship, but trusted to the voluntary principle.

said, he must deny that there had been any understanding that no objections should be made to the Bill in its present stage. The hon. Member had introduced a Bill upon the same subject in 1859, when there was something like a real grievance to be dealt with; but that Bill, upon being referred to a Select Committee, was so changed—all the clauses and lastly the preamble being recast—that the hon. Member declined to proceed with it. In 1860 the hon. Member introduced another Bill, but failed to carry it; and, in the same Session, a Bill was passed by Lord Cranworth which removed the real grievance that did exist, and permitted the children of Dissenting parents to receive the benefits of endowed church schools withdraw- ing their children if they pleased from the religious instruction. But upon that very concession the hon. Member based his demand upon the present occasion, contending that, as the children of Dissenters were now to be admitted to the schools, Dissenting trustees should be admitted to look after their interests. The adoption of such a principle would not fail to eliminate all religious instruction from the schools. Upon a former occasion the hon. Member, when asked what was to be done when there was a difference among the heterogenous trustees as to the nature of the religious teaching to be imparted, had replied, "Let it be put to the vote." But was it intended that the religious doctrines taught should be ever varying—fluctuating according as the majority of trustees adopted one set of views or another? It was said that the foundations were in many cases originally Roman Catholic, and had been transferred to the Church of England; but that was no reason why the schools should be opened to every species of Dissenters. The religion of the country was at that time Roman Catholic, and when it ceased to he so the schools as Church of England schools ceased to be so also, just as they would to-morrow become Roman Catholic schools again if the national religion became again Roman Catholic. There was a more important principle involved in the Bill bearing on law rather than religion, and he appealed to the Government, and to the law officers of the Crown, to say what the effect of it would be. Is a whole class of questions in litigation to be deprived of the ordinary rules of evidence which are still to be used in all other cases? A petition, unanimously adopted by the Wesleyan Conference, had that morning been presented against the Bill, which that body had declared would endanger their own institutions. The right hon. Member for Calne (Mr. Lowe), who was not then present, was the only member of the Government who had spoken upon the subject, and upon a former occasion that right hon. Gentleman had said that the Court of Chancery ought to be allowed to exercise a discretion as to the eligibility of trustees, and that, as the children of Dissenters were admitted to the schools, Dissenters should be allowed to become trustees. With such views he (Mr. Adderley) could not regard the right hon. Member as a safe Minister of Education, nor as one who ought to be charged as he was as the Parlia- mentary Charitable Trust Commissioners with the interests of all charitable trusts. The Bill itself was short, consisting only of one clause; but of all Bills one-clause Bills were the most suspicious. They have, however, the advantage of immediate contrast between the preamble and the Bill; and in this case the preamble referred to certain imaginary doubts for which the Bill enacted a certain legal violence. The hon. Member for Swansea had repudiated all connection with the Liberation Society; but he had unconsciously, perhaps, acted and spoken distinctly as their agent. To that society Churchmen were more indebted, than to any other body in the kingdom. It had rendered the abolition of church rates impossible, and caused every subject which it had taken up to be regarded with disgust by the country, as nothing was so hateful to the Englishman in general and to this House in particular as a body, in a large and central town, seeking by noise, money, and agitation to represent itself as the organ of public opinion.

said, his speech would probably be thought to tell one way, while his vote would be the other; but for that anomaly, if it existed, he could quote many precedents in that House. He must say he had been very much influenced by the representations of the Wesleyans—a very numerous and respectable body, always prominent in forwarding the religious welfare of the country. When that body intrusted their petition to the hon. Gentleman behind him it evinced a trust in him, notwithstanding the religious differences between them, which did them and him honour; and the statement of the Wesleyan body must have great weight in forming any opinion upon the subject, when they said that the measure was highly objectionable, and might admit trustees into their schools who were quite of a different persuasion to those who founded the endowment. He would not join in any disparaging remarks on the Dissenters. His impression was that if it bad not been for the Dissenters the Church would not have been in anything like its present state of efficiency. He thought, however, that the Bill having been read a second time, and a division having been taken, the hon. Member for Swansea was justified in asking the House to go into Committee, and he should support that Motion, though at the same time he admitted that he had some doubts as to the wisdom and pro- priety of the measure, because he was afraid that a hostile feeling might be created among trustees of charities, which he feared might drive many of those charities into the Court of Chancery.

said, the hon. Member who had just spoken had offered a signal example of a speech going one way and the vote another. A speech more condemnatory of the measure he had never heard. What had been stated quite justified the Amendment moved by the hon. and learned Member for the University of Cambridge. When an hon. Member said that between the second reading and the present stage of the Bill circumstances had come to his knowledge that induced him wholly to change his opinion of the measure, the same reasons might have acted on other hon. Members also. It was, therefore, quite legitimate to give those hon. Gentlemen an opportunity of expressing their changed opinions by their votes. The hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) had informed the House that he had received many communications since the Bill had passed its second reading, and he had referred to the case of the charities, one at Exeter, and the other in the county of Kent. The first case which the hon. Member had quoted did not bear much upon the Bill; but he (Mr. Henley) wished to refer to the one that had occurred in Kent. There a school had been built, partly by the aid of the National Society, but when it was completed, it was found that it was built upon land belonging to the Dissenters. Application was made to the Master of the Rolls, and his decision very properly was that the school could not be held to he a Church school. At the last meeting of the National Society, at which he (Mr. Henley) was present, the case was brought forward, and they concurred in thinking that the Master of the Rolls had acted rightly. Why then, he would ask, should the attempt be made to deprive the Court of Chancery of the power of dispensing justice? He thought the better way was to scotch evil at the head. He did not like to hear these cases argued in the interests of the Church or of dissent. He thought that such questions ought to be left to the ordinary Courts of Law for decision; they would interpret justly the documents laid before them. The House should not attempt to meet special cases by a partial Bill. There should be no special exemptions from the law. He was very glad the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge had given them another opportunity of voting on the Bill. The whole difficulty arose from the House having, by the "conscience clauses" of the Bill of last year, admitted the children of Dissenters to endowed schools. Now, Dissenting trustees were demanded for the endowments. That was a warning how they took the first steps in questions of this kind. He felt the difficulty, because the governing body of schools ought to be of the same religious principles that were to be taught in them. It was a modern fashion to proclaim that young people were to have no principles; but he hoped that theory would not spread. If children did not acquire religious principles when they were young they would never get them at all. He had no faith in the principles acquired in after life. The governing body of a school ought to be sound; if they mixed up principles as opposite as oil and vinegar the result would be the children would have no religious education at all. He should heartily support the Motion of his hon. and learned Friend against going into Committee on the Bill.

said, that he had intended to support the Bill, but the discussion had had the effect of compelling him to oppose it. He did not think the advocates of the measure had made out any ease. The greater part of the endowments were left to the Established Church, and Dissenters had no right to control them. It appeared to him that it would be a great evil to have the question of religious instruction in the schools decided by a majority of trustees. The only grievances of the Dissenters had been removed by the Bill of last year; they had nothing to complain of that made a sufficient ground for establishing a claim on these Church endowments.

said, he hoped that the example of the hon. Member who had just spoken would weigh with other Members who had acted upon mistaken views on this question. He rose, however, to complain that the Government bad not afforded the House the assistance of the advice of the law officers of the Crown on a measure that affected the institutions of the country and revolutionized the law of evidence. Suppose the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield) wished to found a charity based on his hostility to the Chinch of England, but had not expressed his opinions in his will, when he was removed from the scene of his labours, what would he think if the Court of Chancery, in construing that will, did not in order to ascertain his intent take into account evidence of the hon. Member's opinions, life, and conduct? Why, it would be enough to make his ghost rise to rebuke it. If the language of an endowment was ambiguous, the courts of law interpreted it by reference to the usages of the time and the opinions of the testator. Now it was proposed that whenever nothing was distinctly said in the will or deed these rules of evidence should be overthrown, and principles of interpretation introduced that were contrary to reason and justice. He hoped the House would negative the Bill.

moved the second reading of the Marriage Law Amendment Bill.

said, he rose to move the following Amendment to the Motion:—

"That, in the opinion of this House, any measure that would have the effect of placing the Law of Marriage, with regard to the prohibited Degrees, on a different footing in different parts of the United Kingdom, would be highly inconvenient."

He took leave to say that his Amendment was addressed to those hon. Members who, agreeing with the principle of the Bill, might yet be induced to think that it ought not to be carried out in its present shape until the common opinion of the United Kingdom agreed with them; and he ventured to urge that the clause which provided that the Bill should not extend to Scotland or Ireland, would create such an anomaly that they had no right, for the purpose of carrying out their views, to disregard it. He did not intend to confine his remarks to the particular ground of objection pointed out by his Amendment, but in arguing the question generally it must he understood that he had to presume the arguments which would he used in favour of the Bill, as the House had not been favoured with them during the present Session. It might be said that his Amendment was a question to he considered in Committee. But was that so? The Bill proposed an important alteration of the law of marriage, to be confined in its operation to one part of the United Kingdom. And why? Because its promoters well knew that their only chance of carrying it was by confining its application to one part of the United Kingdom, and, having so tar succeeded, to extend its operation to the other parts. Without the limiting clause they would have no chance of success, for if they struck it out they would have to encounter a fierce opposition from Scotland and Ireland. If the Bill passed in its present shape, it would be possible for a man by marrying his deceased wife's sister to have a lawful wife in England and another in Scotland; for in Scotland the English wife, in such a case, would be no more than a concubine. That he stated on the authority of Vice Chancellor Sir Page Wood. He appealed to the Scotch and Irish Members. He warned Scotch and Irish Members that if they allowed the Bill to pass it might be extended to their own countries, and he hoped they would help him to throw it out. He did not intend to enter into the Scriptural arguments in regard to the Bill, as such a discussion might be inconvenient in that House. He said that marriage with a deceased wife's sister was prohibited by the laws of this country on the ground that it was contrary to the law of God, and in support of that view he referred to the decision of the Lord Chancellor in the recent case of Brook v. Brook. Lord St. Leonards expressed a similar opinion, and it was decided that such marriages were contrary to the law of England. A very large portion of the people of this country were of the conscientious opinion that they were contrary to the law of God. That such was the case was shown by the petitions which had been presented, by the fact that the Lower House of Convocation declared against these marriages with only two dissentients, and that Scotland and Ireland were almost unanimously opposed to the measure. Those persons who did not take that view ought to respect the conscientious opinions of their fellow subjects, and not force on the country a law which they believed to be unscriptural. If the Legislature passed a law which was opposed to the scriptural and conscientious convictions of a large majority of the people of England, all laws would be weakened and their authority impaired. One great argument which had been used in favour of former Bills was that in hundreds of cases the law had been broken, and, therefore, to prevent the law from being broken it was advisable to alter it, and that a great many persons were now living in concubinage with their deceased wives' sisters. If that argument were to be allowed, Parliament ought to go a great deal further, and marriages within the degrees not only of affinity but of consanguinity, ought to be sanctioned. Then it was said to be a poor man's question, but he distinctly denied it. The cases where poor men had married their deceased wives' sisters were very few. Owing to females in the lower walks of life marrying more frequently at an earlier age than those of the middle-classes, it it was not often that a poor man with a a family married the sister of his deceased wife. He would refer to the Commission appointed in 1847 to inquire into the subject. Professional gentlemen were employed by those who were personally interested in procuring the alteration of the law as proposed by this Bill, and they gave evidence of 1,648 cases that they had ascertained in which the law as they said was a hardship and it was found that out of the 1,648 cases of this kind there were only forty labourers and mechanics who had formed such a connection. The fact was that it was an upper and middle-class question, for a poor man could rarely obtain the services of his deceased wife's sister, and generally employed his own mother or his wife's mother to look after his family. The House should remember that if they gave relief to hundreds by passing such a Bill, they would produce much greater social misery and inconvenience to thousands of the rest of the community. All that familiar and pure intercourse between a man and his sister-in-law, to which at present no censure could attach, would be at an end; and in hundreds and thousands of cases women would be prevented by delicacy from taking charge of the children of their deceased sister. It was said that the sister of a deceased wife was the natural guardian of that sister's children. Was she a worse guardian as their father's sister or their father's wife? And if she became a wife did she not at once become the injusta noverca, whoso reputation was proverbial? If a man was permitted to marry his deceased wife's sister, why not her mother, her aunt, her neice, or her daughter by another husband? Where was the line to be drawn? And, taking the converse of the case, why should not a woman, then, marry her husband's brother? He challenged the promoters of the Bill to answer that question. He objected to the Bill because he believed it was opposed to the conscientious opinion of a majority of the people of the country, and because he believed the social inconvenience it would cause would be much greater than the advantages it professed to confer; and, lastly, because by the restriction of its operation to England only it would create a most in- convenient anomaly. It was, therefore, a Bill which the House had no business to sanction.

seconded the Amendment.

said, that, judging from the petitions which had passed through his hands on this subject, he thought the advocates of this change rested it upon moral and social grounds. He would not enter into the theological argument further than to say that, as far as Providence had given him the power to read the plain instructions of the Bible, he could not see the law contained in it which prohibited those marriages. As to the moral part of the question those parties who were in favour of the Bill composed a large portion of the respectability and morality of the country. Their testimony ought to be regarded, and a consideration shown for their social interests. As to the expediency of the Bill, what was founded upon a right interpretation of the Scriptures, and was morally for the benefit of the community, must be expedient, and, therefore, he felt bound to give his support to the Bill. He would refer the hon. Member who introduced the Amendment to some remarks which had been made on the subject by the late President of the Poor Law Board.

said, that he had hoped that after the departure from the House of Mr. Stuart Wortley, who used to represent those gentlemen who were anxious to marry the sisters of their wives, they should have heard no more of this painful subject. A society had, however, been formed for the purpose of keeping alive the agitation. Constant advertisements in The Times and offices in Parliament Street were expensive luxuries, and proved that the persons who composed that society were at any rate wealthy. These advertisements stated that those marriages might be contracted in Denmark, and would be viewed as legal in this country. Now, that was a mistake; and such statements had already occasioned considerable evils and disappointment. Who proposed this marriage law amendment? The only information afforded on this point was by an advertisement signed by an M. A. and Hon. Secretary. A society had now been formed for preserving the law, and its members at least were not ashamed of their names and of their organization. Their president was the Dean of Westminster; they had on their committee noblemen, gentlemen, and clergymen, and on two occasions they had met in Willis's rooms large assemblages of their countrymen and countrywomen, who had given an unanimous opinion against any alteration of the law. ["Hear, hear!"] He could understand that cheer. True, a few persons had been refused admission, but they were turned back by the detective police; and he did not suppose that hon. Gentlemen opposite would wish that those who differed from them in opinion should have their pockets picked. Certainly the Marriage Law Reform Association had been very fortunate in obtaining the services of able and eloquent men in that House; but, somehow or other, they had not retained those services. Mr. Stuart Wortley, having been unable to get returned for an English constituency was elected for a Scotch county, and thereupon he ceased to advocate the cause of those who wished to marry their deceased wives' sisters. So with the noble Lord the late Member for Norwich (Viscount Bury), who took refuge with a Scotch constituency, and whose name no longer appeared on the back of the Bill. Probably be would not even be found in the division lobby; and if the hon. Member (Mr. Monckton Milnes) should ever be so unfortunate—which God forbid!—as to be rejected at Pontrefract and have to seek a Scotch constituency, he too would abandon this great question of social justice and this poor man's question. He (Mr. Ker Seymer) refrained from entering into the religious arguments, not because they were abandoned, but because the House of Commons was of all assemblies in the world that the least suited for such a discussion. The more the question was considered, however, the more strongly did it appear that these marriages were opposed to the Word of God. He would certainly not go through the chapter of Leviticus, but he could only say that, if these marriages were not forbidden in it, neither were many other marriages of affinity and consanguinity, and the rules there laid down were merely a string of unconnected and arbitrary prohibitions. While he would not deal further with the religious, he might be allowed to say a word or two upon the ecclesiastical question. In his opinion it would be very impolitic to place the law of the land in opposition to the law of the Church. Here was the "Table of Kindred and Affinity, wherein whosoever are related are forbidden in Scripture and our laws to marry together." But if the Bill passed it would be necessary to insert here that such marriages were forbidden by Scripture, but that some of them were allowed by law. For such a step there ought to be a strong necessity. If it were taken many persons would still be of opinion that these unions were opposed to the law of God; and clergymen would look upon parishioners who thus married as living in sin. These were only a few of the inconveniences which would follow a change in the law. He had stated what was the opinion of the Church of England; and the Church of Scotland, in the Scotch Confession of Faith, laid down the law with particular clearness, declaring a man might not marry any of his wife's kindred nearer in blood than his own, nor the woman any of the husband's kindred nearer than her own. It was said, "Oh, but the prohibition is only one of councils, and canons, and Popes, and is not based on the Bible;" but there was no church which cared less about councils, canons, or Popes than the Church of Scotland, which yet declared that in marriage consanguinity and affinity were identical. Again, he had heard it said, "This is a Puseyite objection." Well, if so, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Earl of Shaftesbury were Puseyites, as well as the whole Scotch nation, which was absurd. With regard to the Roman Catholic Church, these marriages were for many ages considered contrary to the law of God; and the first dispensation in respect to them was granted by the infamous Pope Alexander Borgia. But dispensations were now equally granted to the marriage of an uncle and niece; and, therefore, the Roman Catholic Church on that question was no guide to them, although he believed that the Roman Catholic population of the British Islands were strongly opposed to unions with a deceased wife's sister. It was said that these marriages were made illegal by Lord Lyndhurst's Act, but they had been always illegal, and were before that time not only voidable but actually void. They were blamed for calling such marriages incestuous, but when so pertinacious an attempt was made to procure a repeal of the law, it was necessary to call things by their right names. Nor could he in any way assent to the argument that as the law was not obeyed, therefore it ought to be altered. The fact was that the law had never had a fair chance. As Lord Campbell observed, the people had been taught that these marriages were lawful, and then the breaches of the law thus occasioned were brought forward as a reason for altering the law. The recent decision in the case of "Brook v. Brook" had, it was said, made many thousands of children illegitimate, But who made them so? Who sent these unhappy persons abroad by means of a lying advertisement, which declared that marriages with a deceased wife's sister celebrated in Denmark were valid here? Many of the unfortunate women had, he was told, gone to the offices of the society, and complained there of the way in which they had been deceived. He deeply deplored their position, but he could not alter the law of England to please them. The fact that the law was only partially obeyed afforded no good reason for altering it. As to the Commission which had reported, there never was a more one-sided one. A witness examined before it, the hon. Member for Rochdale, said that he never met with a person out of Parliament who approved the existing law. Where could the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cobden) have lived, if that was his opinion? The hon. Member was now in Algeria, but there could be no impropriety in stating that that gentleman's sister had formed one of these marriages, and that the hon. Member sanctioned and even strongly advised it. That, perhaps, accounted for his views upon this question, for, under such circumstances, no well bred person would be likely to express to him a disapproval of such marriages. Instead of public feeling being in favour of a change in the law there was a stronger opinion against the change outside the House than in it. If they altered the law because it was not obeyed they must sanction polygamy, inasmuch as there was said to be more cases of bigamy in the country than of these marriages. Were they going to sanction polygamy and all intercourse between the sexes which they could not prevent? If so, the whole morality of the country would be entirely destroyed. Had this been only a poor man's question, they should never have heard of it; but clergymen who had made inquires could find no such cases among the poor, and, if in Yorkshire they were of frequent occurrence, Yorkshire must be an exceptional district. Then, it was said that to forbid these marriages was an interference with natural right; but, if Parliament once went into the question of natural right, he did not know where they would be landed. What right had the Legislature to fix time and place and age with regard to marriage? What right had they to say that a person should not marry until twenty-one without the consent of the parents? That was a clear invasion of natural rights imposed by the State for the good of society; and the State for that end had a right to impose such restrictions. Now could they trust to the influence of civilization; for instances had been known of highly civilized communities who had permitted marriage between brothers and sisters of the half-blood, and other practices from which we should shrink with abhorence. It was said that a disconsolate widower turned to his wife's sister as the natural guardian of his children. But disconsolate widowers who married again did not seek guardians for their children, but wives by whom they might have another family. He thought that, instead of the children losing an aunt and finding a stepmother, it was much better for them to retain the aunt. Why, he asked, were the great majority of the people who obeyed the law to have their laws altered in order to meet the views of a comparatively small minority? No one had a right to call on them for such a sacrifice. It was said that to sanction such marriages would not make the least difference as regarded the whole nation; but a letter from a clergyman showed that in the United States this innovation had brought about a change for the worse, had prevented the unreserved communication which formerly took place between a man and his sister-in-law, and, instead, had introduced a painful constraint; and this gentleman added that the public mind had become alarmingly unsettled on the whole question of marriage, owing to the approval given in America to marriages of this sort. Then the example of Protestant Germany was quoted, but foreign Protestants had never furnished us with an example. Were we prepared to treat the Bible as they did, to spend the Sunday as they did, let our Government establish gambling places kept open the whole Sabbath, to give the facilities for divorce which existed in those countries, and to permit the marriage of an uncle and niece by consanguinity? Unless we were prepared to do this the practice of foreign Protestant countries could be no guide to England. We had unhappily much vice and much crime to lament in this country; but there was one thing in which we had no reason to envy foreign countries whether Protestant or Roman Catholic, and that was the relations between husband and wife. The Bill itself was in some respects better and in others worse than former Bills. It did not impose upon the clergy the alternative of disobeying the law of the land or the law of the Church, but it sent the parties to be married before the registrar. But it was worse, inasmuch as legalized ex post facto the marriages of those persons who had wilfully broken the law of the land. It would lead to all sorts of complications by excepting from its operation Ireland and Scotland. Some time ago the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary, anticipating what was now the common practice of his colleagues of speaking against a Bill and voting for it, made a speech in which he stated distinctly that if the Bill passed it would be impossible to stop here. If they considered the case of the man they would have soon to consider the case of the woman. That was an irresistable inference, and it was because he believed that this Bill was but the commencement of a downward course of legislation, in which he believed it would be found impossible to stop, that he earnestly entreated the House to say with regard to this Bill, what had been said on another occasion centuries ago, Nolumus leges Angliœ mutari.

said, he was desirous of stating the views of Nonconformists on this question; they were about half the population, and their opinions were entitled to be heard. They were so far as he could ascertain, generally in favour of the proposed change, and they asserted that there was nothing in religion or morals contrary to such marriages. With regard to the social aspect of the question, he looked at it as principally a poor man's question. He did not know what it was with regard to the higher classes, to whom the hon. Gentleman who last addressed the House referred. He knew that among the people in his own employment the law was constantly violated; and he thought the hon. Gentleman could not have had much intercourse with the poor when he stated a contrary opinion. When a poor man lost his wife, and had five or six children to look after, he naturally turned to the wife's sister as the best guardian to place over them, and out of a feeling of gratitude eventually married her. This was the poor man's view of the question. It was not what the rich might think of it with regard to their own position that the House should so much consider, but what was best for the largest number of the people—and on this account he should warmly support the Bill. The hon. Member for Dorsetshire had referred to a recent unanimous meeting which had been presided over by Vice Chancellor Wood. It was easy enough to have an unanimous meeting when all who were admitted shared the same opinions. He was anxious to attend the meeting, and he presented himself at Willis's Rooms, but he was refused admittance, although he did not think there was anything in his appearance which should arouse the suspicions of the detective police to whom an hon. Member referred. He was asked if he had a ticket? He said, "No;" but he promised not to interfere. The doorkeeper said, I am very sorry, sir, but I cannot admit you without a ticket," and pointed out a notice to that effeet in the advertisement of the meeting. He added, "Are you in favour of the society? He (Sir Morton Peto) replied that he could not say he was. "Then," replied the man, "I cannot allow you to go upstairs." He (the hon. Baronet) had not the slightest objection to having meetings against the Bill, but let them not be paraded as having any particular bearing on the question as referred to as public meetings. The Dissenters thought with him. They found nothing in the Divine word against these marriages, and nothing had made them in any way inexpedient. On behalf, therefore, of the Nonconformists of England he called on the House to read the Bill a second time.

said, that he was able to say of his personal knowledge that tickets had been sent to the secretary of the Marriage Law Association, and it was, therefore, the hon. Gentleman's own fault if he had not provided himself with the ordinary means of admission to a public meeting. Reading over the Report of the Petitions Committee he had come across a curious petition, presented only three years ago to the House, which had not been printed nor noticed at the time in any way. It seemed so germane to the present matter that he would read it to the House. It professed to come from the communicants of a sect of Protestant Dissenters in the Royal burgh of Dundee. It began by setting forth—

"That the sect whereof your petitioners are members believes that there is Scripture warrant for the continuance of the family institution as it existed in patriarchal and Jewish times—namely, the state in which the head of a family may have one or more wives. That your humble petitioners do not adopt such a principle from any other than the purest and most enlightened motives, and because they believe it to be in accordance with the Word of God; and, further, that your petitioners so long as they are resident in this land, and subjects of the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty, never will attempt contravention of its laws. That your petitioners would, nevertheless, respectfully state to your honourable House that they feel it to be a grievance that they should, by the laws of this well-governed realm, be debarred from exercising their rights of living in conformity to the dictates of their conscience; and that, while not wishing to impose their views on others, they yet think that others should allow them to live in conformity with their own views, and not impose their views on them. That your petitioners would call the attention of your honourable House to the fact that the prayer of this petition is not without precedent in Her Majesty's dominions—that is to say, Her Majesty's colonies, for that the Natives of India and other un-Christian subjects of Her Majesty, are permitted to have more wives than one. That your petitioners regretted to observe that the Bill which your honourable House passed into a law in your last Session for the better regulation of the laws of divorce and matrimonial causes, did not contain any such provision as would meet the peculiar case of your petitioners."

They then went on to pray—

"Your honourable House to pass a law to remove these wrongs, by providing that if a man, the husband of one wife, shall present himself before a magistrate, and solemnly swear that his conscience believes the lawfulness of the Divine institution of polygamy, and he therefore wishes to marry another wife or other wives, the magistrate shall be empowered to issue a licence for the celebration of such marriage, which shall be a legal marriage, according to the law of this country, and the issue thereof legitimate; your honourable House annexing to the said law such provisions as your honourable House, in your wisdom, shall think fit and necessary to prevent its abuse. That thereby your honourable House will right the wrongs of a considerable number of Her Majesty's subjects, and approach one step nearer to absolute perfection in legislation."

That was exactly the train of reasoning used by the advocates of this Bill. They, in like manner, deny that the permission they seek was forbidden in the Bible; they allege the purity of their motives, and they dwell on the grievance to which they are subjected in not being permitted to act on their own conscientious opinions. If anyone had intended to indite a pungent satire on the proceedings of the Marriage Law Association he could not have done it more neatly or concisely. Nothing certainly could exhibit in a clearer right the legitimate consequence of the arguments used in behalf of this measure.

said, he was almost inclined to suspect that the hon. Gentleman, from the gusto with which he had read the petition to which he had referred, must have had some hand in its concoction. But that petition was presented either in earnest or in fun. If it were in earnest it evidently proceeded from the body called Mormonites, and it was hardly worthy of the serious matter in hand to impute to those who were in favour of the Bill that they were as wrong and erratic in their notions as the Mormonites. If it were in fun it was still less a subject for introduction on the occasion of the discussion of so serious a matter. Having given long and anxious consideration to the subject, he had come to the conclusion that the present law was inexpedient, and that it ought to be altered. The religious ground had almost entirely been given up by the opponents of the measure. Even Vice Chancellor Wood, in his recent pamphlet, did not lay much stress upon it, and all he would say upon it, therefore, was that he did not believe there was anything in Scripture to condemn them. It was not simply calling these marriages by the ugly name of incestuous which would make them so. By incestuous he had always understood that against which the feelings of the great majority of men revolted, or which was clearly forbidden by Scripture—but these marriages did not come within either of those categories. To say that the law had not had a fair chance was simply to affirm that it had not recommended itself to the feelings of the people, and, therefore, they had attempted to get rid of it. Had the corn laws a fair chance? For forty years we had kept up that great grievance, and it might equally in that case be said that the law had never a fair chance. The hon. Member for Dorsetshire (Mr. Ker Seymer) said if they altered the law in this respect they might as well have a Bill to allow bigamy; and the hon. Member who last addressed the House said they might as well introduce a Bill to legalize polygamy. But was it so? There were a million names to petitions in favour of marriage with a deceased wife's sister, whereas there had been but one petition in favour of polygamy, and not one in favour of bigamy. It was, therefore, an insult to the people of England to say that those who were in favour of these marriages were also in favour of bigamy and polygamy. He freely admitted that in this country there had been many cases where it had been a great blessing to a man on being deprived of his wife to be able to have her sister in his house to occupy her place, to take care of his children without any scandal, and he further admitted that this freedom would be impaired by the passing of this Bill—but he had taken pains to ascertain what was the feeling and practice in foreign countries where these marriages prevailed, particularly in Norway, and he found that there a sister-in-law could take the place of the mother with as little scandal as in this country. But if in making the proposed change they would lose something, society would also gain something. They would get rid of the concubinage which now existed to a great extent. The pamphlet of Vice Chancellor Wood, issued by the Marriage Defence Association, admitted the fact. It stated that among 40,000 people in the parish of St. Margaret and St. John, Westminster, there were three couples who acknowledged they had contracted these marriages. He thought this was no criterion for judging of the actual number, as there might be many living in that state who would not like to disclose the fact to a Vice Chancellor, or any other gentleman making the inquiry. But, taking it as the basis for a calculation, three marriages among a population of 40,000 would give them 1,500 for the whole country; so that they had 3,000 people who married in this way, or lived together unmarried contrary to the law. It might be said that people who violated the law were not entitled to sympathy; but was no sympathy to be felt for their children, who were in no way to blame. Surely they had a right to some consideration. The less they bastardised children the better, and, therefore, he should give his cordial support to the Bill, and hoped it would pass into law.

said, that no one knew better than the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down that the highest legal authorities had pronounced a strong judgment against the principle of this measure. At the time of the Reformation the marriages in question were declared to be null and void. Afterwards an opinion grew up that they were only voidable; and that state of things remained down to 1835, when Lord Lyndhurst's Bill, while confirming past marriages, declared that thenceforth such marriages should be void; in other words, re-enacted the ancient law of Henry VIII. After that law had passed persons went abroad to get married in countries where these marriages were legal; but the House of Lords had recently decided in the case of Brook v. Brook that persons thus temporarily changing their domicile did not get rid of the incidence of the English law. He could not bring himself to believe that the House would pass the Bill. Though we were supposed to live in an united emipre, and the law of marriage was the foundation of our social existence, Ireland or Scotland were excepted from the Bill. There was to be one law of marriage for England, and a totally different law for Ireland and Scotland. A man was to be married in England, and unmarried in Ireland or Scotland; and a child legitimate in one country was to be illegitimate in the other two. He was sorry the law officers were not here, they were sometimes present when there was no need of them and absent when their presence would have been desirable. The Government generally seemed to have abdicated its functions on Wednesdays and let the House of Commons do what it liked on those days with the laws and institutions of the country. Certainly there were many questions—the one before them among others—which were in much safer keeping in the hands of the House of Commons than with the Government. But surely on a question of that sort the great legal officers ought to be present to inform the House what would be the effect of the Bill on the laws of inheritance. A great legal authority had said it was necessary, in order to perfect the union of marriage, that the husband should take the wife's relations in the same degree to be the same as his own; and the wife vice versa. If they were to be the same persons as were intended by the law of God they could have no difference in relations; and, by consequence, the prohibition touching affinity must be carried as far as the prohibition touching consanguinity; and when they considered who were prohibited from marrying by the Levitical law, they must not only consider the mere words of the law, but the fair and just inference that might be drawn from them. Chapter XVIII. of Leviticus must, therefore, be expounded in the same way as in the table of degrees of the Reformed Church with regard to incest. Blackstone said the canonical disabilities were either grounded on the express words of the Divine law, or consequences plainly deducible from them. It was for those, therefore, who sought to set aside the law to adduce adequate reason; and that he thought had not been done. The great argument advanced in favour of the Bill was that it was habitually broken, but he could not accept that as a reason for a change in the law. That men disobeyed a law which was clearly expressed was only a proof that they would disobey any law, and not that the law should be repealed. The hon. and learned Gentleman had told them of a Norwegian friend who did not understand the usages and customs of this country. Did he ever find any gentleman abroad who did? He had himself tried to explain to a foreigner our system of trial by jury, but when he mentioned the sheriff and the jurymen the foreign gentleman exclaimed, "God be thanked we have no such thing hero. We have no sheriff to summon jurymen, and no jurymen fit to try a cause." When he heard that other countries did not agree with us, it was proof to him that they were in the wrong and that we were in the right. It did not satisfy him that our ancient laws were founded on mistake, but that foreigners should study our laws and imitate them. But how had the Chamber of Turin settled the law of marriage? He quoted from the Quarterly Review —

"It is well worthy of remark that this law appears to rest on the same basis as our own. Its prohibition limits to the ascending and descending degree. It makes no difference between the two sexes. It treats affinity as consanguinity, spurious as legitimate relationship, and forbids dispensations."

Therefore, if they looked to a country which had achieved freedom, and would, he hoped, preserve it by its moderation and wisdom, they found that it had adopted our law, and thus shown its own good sense and the good sense of the law itself. An argument was founded upon the number of petitions which had been presented in favour of the Bill. But a letter had been printed in the Clerical Journal, and never been contradicted, quoting from a circular signed J. Stanbury, who begged to be informed whether the gentleman to whom the circular was addressed would give his aid, and offered £2 2s. for 400 signatures, the society finding the forms, papers, &c. Petitions of that kind would not induce Parliament to allogate a law of vast consequence to the country, unless the objection to it were founded in reason and Christianity. It was said that the opponents of the Bill had abandoned the religious part of the question It was not so, but in deference to the feelings of the House they had not entered into those arguments. A few words briefly conveyed the opinion of a Bishop remarkable for his moderation—the Bishop of St. Asaph, who said he had formerly some doubts upon the matter, but after most anxious consideration his opinion was that these marriages were forbidden by the law of God. In the edition of the Scriptures by Low, Whitby, and others chiefly read by the masses, it was laid down for their edification and instruction that these marriages were forbidden, because persons who were wont to live together would be sorely tempted to lewdness one with another if their marrying together were not severely forbidden. In Scott's edition of the Bible the note showed fully and clearly that these marriages were forbidden by the principles of Christianity. If, with these warnings, people would form these marriages against the law of the land, his answer to the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman was that they must take the consequences. They were appealed to on behalf of the children; but, because in some countries illegitimate children were made legitimate by the subsequent marriage of their parents, would the hon. and learned Gentleman have them alter the ancient law of inheritance in England? Upon the social question he would ask the advocates of this change what was the opinion of the women of England, Scotland, and Ireland. He hesitated not to say that they were in the mass opposed to that mischievous Bill, and in giving that opposition they furnished the strongest of all arguments against its adoption. As the Bill would make one law for England and another for Ireland upon a vital question, and as it had not been shown how property would be effected, he submitted that it was unsafe, that it was not justified by expediency, that it was contrary to the principles of Christianity, that it was clearly contrary to the law of the land, and, therefore, that it ought not to be adopted by that House.

said, he was astonished that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, fresh from his recent experience and his recent triumph, should insist on parity of law between England and Ireland. When Ireland had a register of marriages and the law was in conformity with that of England, the argument that the Bill did not apply to Ireland might have some bearing upon the question. He asserted that public opinion in favour of the Bill was increasing, and he believed that petitions would accumulate until even the right hon. and learned Gentleman was convinced that such an opinion did generally prevail, because this was a country in which they were not in the habit of putting restrictions on the intimacy of private life. There was nothing in the habits, the life, or the religion of the English people why there should be imposed on them a penal statute totally different from that which was imposed upon all other Protestants in every part of the world. The austere Puritans of America did not impose such a restriction, and an American citizen of eminence said the Protestants of England were inflicting a deep injury and insult by presuming as they did by this restriction that they alone could interpret Scripture. When hon. Members talked of incestuous unions, they should remember that they were talking of the union of the people with whom they had daily intercourse and whose society they were glad to enjoy. They might postpone the change, but their children would be as much astonished at such a prohibition as they were at the celibacy of the Catholic clergy or any other restriction which the advancement of civilization had declared to be unnecessary.