"He must express his decided protest against a Bill fraught with infinite danger to the country and to society." With regard to my Predecessor, when young man at Rugby, he signed a Petition in favour of the Bill, and in the later years of his life he regarded this as a youthful indiscretion. I am able to state, on the best authority, that if he had ever had to give a vote on this question it would have been given with heart and soul against the Bill. So far, therefore, as authorities are concerned, I think that the testimony so boldly put forward will not be much respected. I shall vote against the Bill. LORD CARRINGTON said, that, in asking the indulgence of the House for a very few moments, he should not venture to offer any opinion of his own on the subject; but he begged leave to call their Lordships' attention to the remarkable speech which closed the debate last year, and which, delivered by the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Peterborough), ought not to go unchallenged. He ought to remind their Lordships that the right rev. Prelate came into the House when the debate was all but over; and, apparently, he was induced to speak by what fell from his noble Friend opposite (the Marquess of Waterford), as his first words were to be in their places, and to ac- sophical Connop Thirlwall, his speech is quaint the country with their views. happily extant, in which he declares The Diocesan Conferences have been thatspoken of as if they were mere instruments of the Bishops. On the contrary, it is well known that they are largely composed of independent laymen; and, therefore, great weight ought to be at-a tached to their opinions. There has recently appeared a very touching letter from an American, in which he says that large sections of society on the other side of the Atlantic are watching with anxiety the fate of this Bill, because if it be carried their depressed tone of morality on the subject of marriage must be still further depressed; but if it be rejected it will be a signal warning to them that their common tone does require to be elevated. Among those who are to-day named in the widely-circulated document of the Marriage Law Reform Association as supporters of the Bill have been Dr. Hook, Dr. Prince Lee, the first Bishop of Manchester, Dr. Thirlwall, Bishop of St. David's, and my own revered Predecessor. Now, the biographer of Dr. Hook has told us that he objected to the proposed change of the law on Scriptural grounds and grounds of expediency; and that, although, for a time, he was led away by fallacious arguments about the help it would give to the poor, he "ultimately returned to his first opinion." As to Dr. Lee-and those who knew what he was as a scholar, a thinker, and a lover of truth, would be much moved by this statementI wrote to his son-in-law and most intimate friend, who replied that he re-. membered the Bishop's opposition to the Bill in 1850, and had not the slightest reason to believe that he had changed his opinion. I communicated this to the Secretary of the Marriage Law Amendment Society, who replied that the opposite statement had long remained unchallenged; he added in support of it that Dr. Lee's distinguished pupils followed his authority; on my asking after them, he informed me that two of them were well-known clergymen who were expecting promotion from their Bishops, and whose names he was, therefore, unable to give, and the third distinguished pupil of Dr. Lee was an ex-Colonial Minister. I am assured that Dr. Lee never had such a pupil, and the reference to the well-known clergymen is no less hazy. As to the liberal and philoThe Archbishop of Canterbury 66 Strange as it might appear to their Lordships he had really no intention of addressing them when he came down to the House." And then he went on to say that— "He had never been able, in the course of his opposition to this measure, to take what Peeresses of England, he implied that the Bill was sought for by the rich for an evil purpose; and he conveyed this terrible accusation in words that were not reported in the public prints, which, spoken by another, he would have been among the foremost to condemn, and which, used by himself, he would, on reflection, be the first to regret. The right rev. Prelate, towards the end of his speech, struck a right chord, when he said he held that the deep convictions and rooted sentiments of the great ma he would wish to deal with it as a "question of sentiment." It was not as a clergyman that he opposed the Bill, but as a clergyman he claimed a right to speak on the requirements of the poor; and he then went on to state" that it was not in the interest of the poor man that the Bill was really moved for." The expression, "the poor man," he (Lord Carrington) took it, signified those who lived by their own labour and industry, and who were usually styled the working classes. Now, did the views of the right rev. Pre-jority of Churchmen were entitled to late represent in any way, shape, or form those of the artizans, mechanics, and labourers for whom he had taken upon himself to raise his voice? The working classes gave their answerevery one of their Representatives in the Commons House of Parliament was in favour of the Bill. In the lobby of the Trades Union Congress, held at Manchester in the autumn of last year, a Petition was signed by the delegates of Trades Unions throughout the United Kingdom, representing 500,000 members of associations-which meant, at least, 2,000,000 of the working classes-from which the following was a brief extract : "We are convinced that the working classes of this country have a large interest in the removal of the existing restrictions in England, and that the statements to the contrary lately made in Parliament misrepresent the actual facts. Your Petitioners are men whose whole lives have been spent in circumstances peculiarly fitted to inform them of the sentiments entertained by the great mass of the people on social as well as industrial questions; and as regards those sentiments and exigencies of the poor in respect of the question of marriage, they cannot admit the claim of the Bishops to speak with the authority so often assumed by them in their places in Parliament." The right rev. Prelate then said the Bill was brought in for the interests of the rich. He would ask their Lordships how many persons there were among their relatives or acquaintances now living who had either expressed a wish to marry, or who had married, the sister of their deceased wife? Three noble Lords had told him they knew one, and they all three mentioned the name of the same person, a well-known master of foxhounds in the Midlands. And then the right rev. Prelate clearly showed that he was speaking on the spur of the moment, without preparation, when, in this House, and in the hearing of the some consideration; with this everyone would entirely agree; and he (Lord Carrington) went much further, and fearlessly stated that it would be a lasting regret to the advocates of this Bill if any language was used calculated to shock the religious or the sentimental opinions of those who opposed it. But the consideration which they meted should be measured out to them again; and he thought he was justified in saying that public opinion in the House and elsewhere would sternly condemn speeches made on the spur of the moment, especially coming from the Bench of Bishops, which contained ridicule and jokes, or thoughtless allusions, calculated to raise a passing laugh, but which deeply wounded the feelings of all those to whom the passing of this Bill was a matter of social existence and recognition, whose fate was trembling in the balance, and who were awaiting at that moment with such anxiety the verdict at their Lordships' hands. LORD COLERIDGE said, that as he had, on a former occasion, stated his objections to the measure, he did not now propose to trouble their Lordships at any length on the general considerations which at that time and still appeared to him to be of weight. It seemed to him that, at least in matters of marriage, men and women were entitled to be treated as absolutely equal; but this Bill treated them as unequal. This was a matter in which women must be prosumed to be equally interested with men; and yet their Lordships were asked to legislate-he would not say in known opposition, for that was not proved, to the opinions of the great majority of English women; but, at least, not in proved agreement with them, and without much consideration for them. He contented himself with reminding their ex Lordships of the great advantage it was to the whole community that in this matter the general balance of advantage, convenience, and expediency should be weighed. The prohibitions of affinity and consanguinity in matters of marriage greatly enlarged the number of those with whom we might have the most intimate and affectionate relations, into which, nevertheless, passion did not enter. He preferred to call it passion, though his noble and learned Friend had thought fit to use a coarser pression. That passion we shared with the brutes; but passionless affection had been the great humanizer of society, and the great civilizer of mankind. As long as he had been able to think upon this subject, these considerations had appeared to him to be entitled to weight. He would not trouble their Lordships with details of the arguments upon them; but there were two or three isolated or separate points on which considerable stress had been laid. It had been put to them often enoughand to-night by his noble and learned Friend in his amusing speech-that they were supporting in this case, not a legal, not a natural, but an ecclesiastical and a theological prohibition. In a certain sense, no doubt, that was perfectly true; but it was not true in any such sense as should make them hesitate for a moment to maintain it. From the very earliest times, in this country at least, all matters of marriage had been considered matters of ecclesiastical cognizance; and in this country and in Ireland-differing in this respect from all other Christian and European countries-their Lordships held, in a solemn case brought over from Ireland about 50 years ago, that the marriage contract was not in these Islands as it was in all other European countries-a purely civil contract, but an ecclesiastical contract. It was also true that the prohibition they were now defending rested upon ecclesiastical authority; but it rested neither more nor Iess on ecclesiastical authority than the prohibition of every other degree, even the closest blood relationship. It rested upon ecclesiastical authority, supported and enforced by Acts of Parliament and Common Law; but even if it were otherwise, he failed to recognize the fairness of endeavouring to determine a grave argument of this sort by the introduction of an unpopular expression. Lord Coleridge The question for their Lordships was, whether it were fit that this prohibition should be maintained, or that it should be abrogated? Was the law in itself good or bad? If it was bad, it ought to be abolished; if it was good, it ought to be maintained; and whether the authority were ecclesiastical or temporal, and whether it stood in the first instance on Canon Law or on Common Law, appeared to be wholly beside the question. He passed now to another point on which he would admit there was a good deal to be said for the Bill. He referred to the cases of individual hardship, which the present state of the law undoubtedly created in many instances. The persons who desired to contract this marriage must needs belong to one of two classes. They must either be persons whose desire to contract the marriage arose before the death of the first wife, or else persons whose desire to contract the marriage arose after the death of the first wife. He need not take up much time in arguing the case of the first class of persons. There might be men who watched over a wife's death bed, anxious only because the footsteps of death seemed to be so slow, and who were sometimes guilty of thinking of furnishing afresh the marriage table before the funeral meats had been baked and had had time to grow cold. There might be women who in the same way watched for a sister's death, and who were not ashamed to walk over a sister's tomb into a sister's place. Such things were related in works of fiction, and he would not deny that sometimes they might occur in real life. But these persons certainly needed no sympathy, and they were not entitled to the protection of an exceptional Act of Parliament. There remained, however, the other class of persons in whom the desire to contract this marriage arose after the death of the first wife. It would be unjust to deny that with such persons from time to time cases of great hardship did arise, although the extent to which the hardship went was extravagantly overstated; while, on the other hand, the reasonable grounds which ought to prevent the arising of cases of hardship were very much understated, and were sometimes wilfully forgotten. To begin with, every man knew that the marriage could not be legally contracted. Was it true that the widowers of England had no sisters of their own? In the supreme | to contract it, and did contract it. If so, sorrow of a man's life, would not the they contracted it in very painful cirsisters of England come and aid and cumstances. Therefore, the abominable comfort their brothers? Was it true law which forbade them ought to be that the great majority of widowers de- abolished. Then his noble and learned sired to marry at all-or, if so, that they Friend, with needless candour, said that desired to contract that particular mar- he did not go into the question as a riage with the particular person against theologian. Well, he had been furnished whom the prohibition was registered? upon the highest authority with the true Any candid man must answer those definition of affinityquestions in the negative; and, if so, what was the result? The practical result was that for the sake of a minority -or rather of a minority of a minority, who alone were entitled to compassion-it was proposed to destroy for the great majority of mankind that relation which they found infinitely profitable and delightful. The noble Earl, to whom he always listened with interest, and generally with amusement, had said that he did not think much of that kind of argument, because, he said, he was an example to the contrary. He had, he said, charming sisters-in-law, of whom he was very fond; but he did not wish to marry them. He could not help suggesting to his noble Friend that at present the advocates of that Bill did not propose that a man might marry two sisters at the same time. It was only suggested that he might do so in succession. The question only arose at a subsequent stage. Their Lordships had listened to a speech from his noble and learned Friend (Lord Bramwell), who always brought force, and freshness, and vigour of mind into any question which he approached. He approached everything that his noble and learned Friend said with some degree of diffidence-first, because he had been brought up to have a great regard and sincere respect for him; and next, because he had, at different times, suffered heavily at the hands of his noble and learned Friend. But he could not help thinking that the argument of his noble and learned Friend, apart from the manner in which it was delivered, and the jokes which it contained, resolved itself at last into nothing more than a powerful and pungent assertion of his own views, and vigorous and unmitigated, although good-natured, scorn of those who disagreed with him. His noble and learned Friend could not understand how any intelligent person could entertain a different opinion. His argument really came to this-Was it a prohibited marriage? A great number of people wanted "Affinity is terminated in the husband himself from the wife's kindred, and in the wife herself from the husband's kindred." His noble and learned Friend might say it was a thing which nobody could understand, but it was one which the Christian world for 2,000 years had had no difficulty in understanding; and he thought that if his noble and learned Friend had brought the great powers of his mind to bear upon it he would have found no difficulty in understanding it. But strong assertion, ridicule, and jokes were not the means by which that question could be decided. The relations between men and women, the deepest feelings of the heart, the most sacred obligations of religion, did not admit of being impaled upon the horns of a dilemma, or put aside by jokes, however good, or assertions, however strong. With respect to the law of our Colonies, all he had to say had been already stated by the noble and learned Earl opposite, with whom he entirely concurred. If the advocates of that Bill were sincere, if they desired to commend it to impartial minds, if they wished to remove from it the stigma of its being a partial and interested measure, let them apply it to both sexes equally, let them frame it on some broad and intelligible principle, let them make their proposals in such a way that affinity and consanguinity should no longer be considered for any purpose the same. He did not say that such a proceeding would induce him to vote for such a measure. As at present advised, he should strongly oppose it. But, at all events, it would then be a measure founded upon arguments far more worthy of consideration, and arguments requiring grave thought, and entailing much difficulty to answer. But the Bill, in its present shape, was the fruit only of an interested clamour, and was unworthy of Parliament, and most especially unworthy of their Lordships' House. THE BISHOP OF ROCHESTER said, he was sorry to stand between the House and a Division; but he conceived it to | be the duty of those Members of that House who had special information on a subject to communicate that information to the House. That must be his excuse for addressing their Lordships for the first time. Some years ago, he was incumbent of the parish of St. Gilesin-the-Fields, of which the population was 37,000, 25,000 of whom were under his own care. The parish included all grades of the working classes, from the costermonger to the journeyman baker. When he first went to the parish that question was rapidly coming to the front, and he wished to ascertain what the opinion of his parishioners was upon the subject, and how far they regarded the prohibition as a class grievance. For that purpose he availed himself of the services of eight men of intelligence and high character, who were well acquainted with all classes in the parish. Without giving those men any bias one way or the other-because at that time he had formed no definite opinion on the subject-he sent them among the poor of his parish and requested them to ascer tain within the next few months, by means of conversation, what their feelings were with regard to this measure, and to reply to three questions which were put to them. The three questions were-First-"Did you ever know the subject introduced by the poor themselves ?" Second-"Is there any bias among the women of the poorer classes in favour of this change in law?" And, thirdly-"Is there reason to believe that the existing state of the law is regarded by the working classes as a class grievance?" In answer to the first question, seven out of eight of his informants replied "Never," while one said that the subject had been introduced by the poor themselves on six occasions. To the second question, seven out of the eight gave a decided negative, and one said that it was looked upon as a matter of prudence; and where the marriage had already been contracted, especially if there were many in the family, both parties, but especially the woman, was decidedly in favour of the Bill. But, perhaps, their Lordships might be of opinion that the answer given to the third question was the most important of all. All the eight answered it decidedly in the negative. He had also an opportunity of discussing this question with a number of working The Bishop of Rochester men, in a friendly manner; and with candour he was perfectly willing to admit that out of these eight men four, as a matter of personal preference, were in favour of it, and four were against it. They scouted the idea, when he put it to them, of its being treated by the working men as a class grievance; and one of them, who advocated a change of the law, said with emphasis that working men had no intention to break the law; they were perfectly prepared to obey it as it stood. Of course, he was not going to be so preposterous as to ask their Lordships to take this evidence as conclusively in favour of the assertion that the working classes were opposed to the proposed change in the law; but they had a right to claim from those who stated that they had the opinion of the working classes on their side an exhaustive, honest inquiry of the kind he had made, and they would see the result. On Question, That ("now") stand part of the Motion (leave being given to the Lord Middleton to vote in the |