1804, obliged even the liberal Napoleon and the council of France to bring back the law to its former state, as being more in conformity with their feelings and wishes. ledge the evils complained of, I must claim to throw the responsibility for them from my own shoulders on those of legislators whose acts I think it necessary to consider with a view to their amendment, and I leave it to others to apportion the burden between Lord Lyndhurst and Henry 8th, who, I think, may more justly bear it than myself. I have next to notice the observations of my noble Friend the Member for Dorsetshire, to whom I listened with the attention and deference which 1 always give to anything that falls from him, especially in any matter into which considerations of religion or morality can possibly enter. My noble Friend has drawn his principal conclusions from the state of society and the state of the law in two different countries of continental Europe, Prussia and France. With regard to Prussia, he traces to the state of the law in that country,—which, as he rightly says, permits, under certain restrictions, the marriages of collateral affinity which I desire to legalise here, -a laxity of morals which he considers to prevail in that country. He tells us, that the state of society there is such, especially with respect to the relations of marriage, as to make moralists and patriots sigh for a return to the old canon Lord F. Egerton said, I have in the first place to thank my right hon. and learned Friend, the Judge Advocate, for a correction which his legal knowledge enabled him to apply to an error of mine on the instant. I have not any distinct recollection of the expressions of mine which called for that correction, but I have no doubt that they were such as to imply my belief that the marriage law, up to a recent period, had rested entirely on the canons of 1603, and had no foundation in statute. It was not my intention to lay down such a doctrine. I have said that I do not recollect, or at all defend my expressions, but what was in my mind and intention was this, that there was no statutory definition of the prohibited degrees now in force. I will not now proceed to illustrate this position by a detailed reference to statutes, because the operation would be a tedious one, and the object after all, of little consequence. I admit that, though the acts of Parliament of the 25th and 28th of Henry 8th, which alone contain a positive enumeration of the pro-law. Sir, I am reluctant to draw in genehibited degrees, are repealed, yet the 32nd of Henry 8th, which has survived various tamperings of Henry's successors, implies a reference to the degrees of affinity so prohibited. On the other hand, I think that if we look to the origin and motive of these two statutes of Henry 8th, it will be admitted that they have not that character of sanctity about them which should make us hesitate to alter or amend them if we see ground of reason, justice, and expediency to apply such amendment. Having made this acknowledgement, and bowed to the just correction of my right hon. Friend the Judge Advocate, I beg also to assure another of my opponents, the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that I have felt the force of his observations when he pointed out the evil and inconvenience of stirring this subject at all in this House. No man is more alive than myself to the delicacy and difficulty of the proceeding, but in this instance, as in many others, it seems to me that the discussion, with its attendant evils, has been unavoidable. I have known many subjects discussed here which I, for one, should have been glad to have suppressed. The Reform Bill itself was one of them; still, while I acknow ral uncomplimentary comparisons between the state of morals in my own country and any other,-such comparisons are often deceptive. I am nevertheless inclined to believe that between ourselves and Prussia a comparison would result to our advantage, and, knowing that my noble Friend has good sources of information, I attach considerable weight to his opinion, and I believe that the evils of which he speaks exist. I am however by no means so sure that the state of the Prussian law with regard to the degrees within which marriage may be contracted has as much to do with those evils as my noble Friend's argument would make us suppose. I strongly suspect that the facilities with which marriages may be dissolved contribute far more to any social irregularities or laxity of morals which may exist in Prussia than does the absence of that particular restraint on the contraction of marriages which I wish to remove in England. And is not my noble Friend well aware of other causes of the evil at work in that country? I know not whether its subjects would be well advised or not to return to the old canon law, but this I know, I wish they could return to the bible. I fear I do not overstate facts when I say that in Protestant Germany | as it is in most of the countries of Protestthe influence of that volume has been ant Europe, in which the sovereign ceralmost nullified by the systematic attack tainly assumes a discretion which a Roman which for the last century and half has Catholic can only attribute to the pope. been conducted by rationalists and neolo- Of course I presume that the strict Roman gists against its inspiration. The denial of Catholic in France, as elsewhere, would that inspiration has for at least that pe- think it necessary to procure a further disriod been the purpose and object of a series pensation from Rome, but with this the of able and laborious men, whose names law has nothing to do. In all these inare as unpronouncable as the catalogue stances it is clear that such marriages are would be interminable, and that catalogue not considered as conflicting with religion has reached its climax in a name at this or morality. The restrictions imposed upon moment of the greatest notoriety in Eu- them have reference only to the circumrope.* These are circumstances which may stances of the individuals; they seem to well account for any features we may re- me such as would not be practicable in this gret, if such exist, on the social condition country, but they leave untouched the great of Protestant Germany. I know that the principle that neither pope nor temporal efforts of wise and good men, with one of sovereign can claim a right to dispense with the best of modern sovereigns in their van, a positive law of God. With regard to are raised against this mighty evil. God Scotland, I am far from saying that parties send them success, but the task is one which desirous to contract the marriages rendered will tax those exertions to the utmost. void in England by the act of 1835, can do The disease lies too deep, in my opinion, so effectually by resorting to Scotland for to be reached by legal changes, but in so the purpose. But this I know, that such far as legislation can reach it, I doubt an opinion prevails, and that parties do rewhether the cure should not rather be sort to Scotland with such intent. I have sought in a revision of the Prussian law of a letter in my pocket from one of them, divorce than in any restriction upon the who seems content with the success of his degrees of affinity within which marriage proceeding. I fear that much confusion may now be contracted. Following my may arise from this state of things, and I noble Friend to France, I find myself at may say in passing, that I should think issue with him on the fact that the mar- this discussion, with all its possible evils, riages now in question are really prohi- well bestowed if it could direct the attenbited in that country. That such prohi- tion of the Legislature and the Governbition is to be found in the code Napoleon, ment to certain incidents of the marriage I am well aware, and I have no doubt my law of Scotland, and its possible effects noble Friend is correct in his history of the upon English property and inheritance, introduction of the regulations he quotes, which call loudly, in my opinion, for conand that Napoleon and Cambaceres were sideration. My hon. Friend the Member its immediate authors. I venture, how- for the University of Oxford, has rested his ever, to assure the House that my noble opposition to the principle of my measure Friend is mistaken in supposing that these mainly on the practice of the early church. prohibitions are now in force. I hold in I regret that the lateness of the hour opemy hand a legal statement, which I have rated to make my hon. Friend compress the better right to quote because it is not materially his observations on a subject only drawn by an unexceptionable autho- which he has deeply studied. I can claim rity, the legal adviser of the British em- for myself no such profound acquaintance bassy at Paris, but it fulfils the condition with it as I attribute to him, and as he was which, in the opinion of the hon. Member under such disadvantage in discussing it, I for Finsbury (Mr. Wakley), gives weight wish to touch it now no further than to to legal advice, it is paid for. It states show that I have not altogether neglected that, marriage with the deceased wife's its consideration, and that if I demur to his sister may be and is contracted in France conclusions it is not from any want of reby permission of the sovereign, and it points spect for the authorities on which he reout all the forms and regulations under lies, or from a presumptuous contempt for which that permission is obtained. The antiquity. My own general impression is present law, therefore, in France, I state just this, I think that for the first three positively, is precisely on the same footing centuries of the church we have little direct evidence of its practice. Towards the fourth century we have two facts in evidence. * Dr. Strauss. First, that the practice prevailed to a certain extent, at least; this is clear even from Basil's famous letter against it: further, that when it came to attract the special attention of the heads of the church, when, if I may use the expression, they went to division upon it, the ascetic tendency of the age to restriction prevailed, and that various prohibitions were enacted, principally however, applied to the clergy. My hon. Friend, however, is well aware how many objects were embraced in these prohibitions, how many restraints were enacted by the same councils which he would be the first to disclaim and the last to revive. He is well aware that the marriage with the first cousin is forbidden under the same penalties. I have mentioned the name of Basil, who, I am sure, would be quoted by my hon. Friend as a very leading individual authority in his favour. No name ranks higher for learning and piety, and yet there is none in my mind who shows more distinctly to what an extent uninspired wisdom and learning may be misled by the circumstances of the time in which it flourishes. Take that prelate's opinion on slave marriages. What does he tell the slave who contracts a marriage without leave of the master. Does he say, as a Christian you should bow to the laws, however tyrannical, of the state in which you live? Had he confined himself to this, he would have, perhaps, spoken wisely and well. No, he says, you who contract a marriage without the leave of the heathen master who has fixed the chain on your neck, and the brand upon your brow, to the male he says, You are a fornicator; to the woman, You are an harlot. Sir, I have great respect for Basil, but I cannot admit him as an unquestionable authority. In conclusion, Sir, allow me to say, that if I felt myself possessed of any of that influence which has been kindly and flatteringly attributed to me by one of my opponents, the hon. Member for Northampton, I would not use it on such a subject as the present, to sway the deliberate judgment of any individual who hears me. There are many points of the question of expediency which hardly admit of argument or proof on which individuals must and will be guided by the results of their own reflection or experience. There are parties pleading at your bar for release from a restraint which they consider unreasonable and unjust. Give your unbiassed verdict, but if it be an adverse one, give it not in lightness of heart, or with that pardonable exultation with which you go into the lobby to raise perhaps to power and office the idol of your political predilections, or to remove from them the minister you distrust; give it rather as the jury, when its foreman returns into court with the capital sentence on his faultering lips, for rest assured that to some at least of your fellow-subjects the death warrant it will prove of peace of mind and happiness on this side the grave. The House divided on the question, that leave be given to bring in the bill. Ayes 100; Noes 123 :-Majority 23. List of the AYES. Aglionby, H. A. Berkeley, hon. C. Bernal, R. Blewitt, R. J. Borthwick, P. Bowring, Dr. Brotherton, J. Bruce, Lord E. Buckley, E. Buller, E. Childers, J. W. Cobden, R. Colborne, hon. W. N. Colebrook, Sir T. E. Harford, S. Wyun, rt. hn.C.W W. TELLERS. Whitmore, T. C. Egerton, Lord F. Bailey, J. Cholmondeley, hn. H. Chetwode, Sir J. Christmas, W. Clerk, Sir G. Cochrane, A. Cowper, hon. W. F. Darby, G. Dawnay, hon. W. H. Douglas, Sir C. E. Dickinson, F. H. Drummond, H. H. Duffield, T. Duncombe, hon. O. Egerton, W. T. Escott, B. Esmonde, Sir T. Estcourt, T. G. B. Goulburn, rt. hon. H. Hatton, Capt. V. Howard, Sir R. Jermyn, Earl Patten, J. W. Smith, rt. hon. R. V. Greene, T. Grogan, E. Hamilton, W. J. Hardinge, rt.hn.SirH. Vernon, G. H. Hardy, J. Welby, G. E. TELLERS. Wilbraham, hn. R. B. Inglis, Sir R. H. CHILD MURDERS.] Mr. Colville moved for returns of the number of convictions for the murder of illegitimate children in England and Wales in each of the years from 1828 to 1841, both inclusive, and similar returns of the number of convictions for concealment of the birth of illegitimate children. Mr. Wakley said, it could not be possible to frame a return which would give more incorrect information than that just moved. The number of convictions would not give one-tenth, one-fiftieth of the number of illegitimate children who had been destroyed; and as, of course, the object must be to arrive at a correct knowledge of those numbers, he hoped the motion would be withdrawn and remodelled; for, as at present framed, the result must deceive the House and the country. Nothing was more common than for children to be exposed in roads, and he had sometimes three or four such cases in one day; but in many instances, although it could be seen that murder had been committed, no convictions for murder took place; consequently the return of convictions would not at all indicate the extent of child murder. Mr. Colville said, his object was to arrive at a knowledge of the effect of that part of the New Poor-law which regarded bastardy; but if the hon. Member thought the object would not be attained by this motion he would withdraw it, provided the hon. Member would give his assistance in framing one more efficient. Motion withdrawn. Adjourned. HOUSE OF LORDS, Thursday, March 17, 1842. MINUTES.] BILLS. Public.-1. Criminal Jurisdiction of Private.-1 Stalybridge Gas; Bristol Boundary; Clee 2a. Brewood Free Grammar School; Liebert's Naturali- 3. and passed:-) Bunsen's Naturalization. PETITIONS PRESENTED. By the Marquess of Lansdowne, the Marquess of Downshire, and the Duke of Richmond, from Armagh, Narrowwater, Middletown, and other places, for the Marriage (Ireland) Bill-By a noble Lord, from the Members of the Relief and United Secession Churches of Glasgow, for the Repeal of the Corn and Provision Laws.-By a noble Lord from Minchinhampton, for the Prevention of Idolatrous Worship in India.—From Moira, for Encour- | House, could for an instant entertain the agement of Education (Ireland). shadow of a doubt as to the entire com POOR-LAWS.] Earl Fortescue begged petency and regularity of this proceeding. to put the question to the noble Duke of It was a vain and idle imagination to supwhich he had given notice. At the late pose that the House was precluded by any form of the constitution from exercising change of Government an impression went its judgment upon whatever financial meaforth that great and fundamental changes sures might be introduced into the other were about to be made in the Poor-laws House of Parliament. It was a vain and in England and Ireland. Statements re- idle imagination to think that the House cently made in another place had tended to remove that impression, but there still of Lords had not the same right to consider remained sufficient doubt on the subject to questions of revenue and taxation as they create a disposition in some quarters to dis-had to give their decisions on any other pute the authority of the Poor-law Commissioners. The questions, therefore, which he wished to put, and to which he hoped the noble Duke would find it convenient to give a clear and explicit answer, were, first, whether in any measure about to be introduced to Parliament, the general principles and leading provisions of the present law would be adhered to; and, secondly, whether it would be proposed to continue the administration of the law in England and Ireland under the direction of the Poor-law Commissioners, whose perform-bills and sent up to them from the other ance of their duties had fairly entitled them to the confidence of Parliament and to general approbation. The Duke of Wellington was understood to say that it had been announced in another place that it was the intention of Government to propose a measure for the continuance of the Poor-law Commissioners. As that measure would be introduced at the earliest moment, and as their Lordships would have a full opportunity of knowing and discussing its provisions, he thought it would not be doing justice to the measure or to the public to make any partial statement of its nature or con tents. matters which affected the interests of their had constantly exercised-which they had fellow-subjects. It was a right which they never abandoned. It was a right from which, when not insisted on, they had voluntarily abstained; but, whether insisted on or abstained from, the right was theirs by the law of the land. This being on all hands allowed, it might, perhaps, be said that in practice they did not interfere with measures of taxation or finance. In geneuntil such measures were embodied in ral (he would admit) the Lords waited House of Parliament; but nevertheless they were habitually called on, in speeches from the Throne, and in messages from the Crown, to take into their consideration grants of money, and that, too, at the very same time, and in the self-same terms, in which similar recommendations were made to the Lower House. Indeed, he never remembered any message sent to one House, recommending grants of money, without the same message being sent to the other at the same time; and as lately as the commencement of the present Session, when they were assembled at the be ginning of last month, the Lords and the Commons were, by the speech from the Throne, and in the same words, informed of the deficiency in the revenue, and were INCOME TAX FINANCE OF THE asked to take special measures for making COUNTRY.] Lord Brougham said, that that deficiency good. He found that the in rising to bring under the consideration course he now took of calling their Lordof their Lordships the important subject ships' attention to matters of finance, while of the resolutions which he had laid on under the consideration of the Commons, the Table last Monday, he thought that was the course pursued in the best of he should hardly be justified, certainly was times, and by the best of statesmen ; above not called upon, to vindicate the course all, by men who were fully practised in the which he had deemed it necessary to take forms of both Houses of Parliament, as on this occasion. None but a very superficial well as eminently conversant with the and ignorant person-none but a person principles of the constitution. When he most superficially acquainted, if acquaint-mentioned the late Lord Grenville, he ed at all, with the history of parliamentary named one, who, to his profound political proceedings, especially in their Lordships' knowledge, and varied acquirements, Subject at an end. |