almost sure to result. The principle, to their patriotism or their consciences. therefore, of constitutional perfection was Those who sat above the gangway did not to check every class by another class. mean the same as those below it. It was If every one worthy of the franchise were clear that the public opinion on which they admitted to its enjoyment it would not be relied to discredit the Government Bill possible to stop at a £6 or £5 franchise, was not the public opinion with which they for at the rate at which education was sympathized or which would support them going on everyhody would soon be worthy hereafter. Every meeting that had been of it, and then the whole political power of held had advocated measures which the the kingdom would be launched into the hon. Gentlemen opposite would refuse to hands of a single class, and that the lowest grant. All the great towns had called for -a class which had the least stake in the manhood suffrage, triennial Parliaments welfare and prosperity of the country. [Cries of "No, no."] He repeated the Here intervened the fallacy of those who assertion; Nottingham, Manchester, and supported the second part of the noble all the Metropolitan boroughs had spoken Lord's Amendment, and who called for in favour of every principle advocated by the admission of the working-classes, or Mr. Ernest Jones, and it was quite clear those worthy of it, to what they called "a hon. Gentlemen opposite would not grant share" of the Government of the country. them. He would refer, not at any length, They perpetually used that word "share ;' however, to the speech of an hon. Gentlebut it was not a question of share at all; man well known in that House at a meeting indeed, there was no idea of "share" in the at Walsall reported in the Times of that subject. It was a question between them morning. Mr. Foster had stated his opinand the class at present enjoying the fran-ion with respect to the course that would chise. If they come in, all other classes be pursued by Lord John Russell and Mr. must abdicate. Their number was such Bright. A Mr. Duignan, a banker, wantthat every other class would be swamped. ed rather more explicit explanations, and Therefore it ought to be treated as a he askedquestion of absolute surrender or nothing at all. He admitted that the question was surrounded with difficulties of an extreme character. The working classes naturally felt sore at having this privilege denied them by an arbitary line being drawn, it was certainly felt by them hard that they should be excluded by a £10 franchise and those who came nearest to the line thus drawn, naturally felt it a very great privation. But it was necessary to draw the line somewhere, and however low it was taken there would always be a class below it as discontented as the last. The only way, therefore, of reconciling the impossibility of handing over to the working classes the political power of the kingdom seemed to be by maintaining that influence of the educated classes over the lower which it was the object of many modern Reformers to destroy. The great model of a modern voter was what was called an independent man, and as the lower classes consisted entirely of independent men, he did not see how, under such a representation, it was possible that any Government, except that of a democracy, could be carried on. He called upon those supporting this Amendment to consider the course they were taking, and to ask themselves whether supporting a mere party move was a course reconcilable

believe it will be found that John Bright and "What about John Bright ?-Mr. Foster: I Lord John Russell will sail in the same boat.Mr. Duignan: Who would have brought on this measure of Reform but for John Bright? - Mr. Foster: I can assure my friend Mr. Duignan that I should be the last person to deprive John Bright Three cheers for him, then.' The appeal was of the credit to which he is entitled. [A voice: not responded to.] But if my friend will only wait till next week he will see that there is perfect agreement between John Bright and Lord John Russell. I may say that John Bright fully concurs Lord John Russell. [A voice: 'Let John Bright form a Ministry.'-Laughter and confusion.]"

in the confidence which Reformers entertain in

The hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. Forster), was well known in that House as having played an important task last year, when he was selected to fulfil, in respect to a portion of the Liberal party, the delicate duty so long performed by the right hon. Member for Wells (Sir William Hayter). He presumed that the hon. Member for Walsall was fully in the confidence of his leaders, and his statement was, no doubt, based on good authority. Probably the hon. Member for Birmingham was too pure a statesman to have anything to do with so degraded a machinery as that of

whips;" but still the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Forster) must have had his information from high authority. Perhaps he would

OF WAR) BILL.

LEAVE. FIRST READING.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill "to amend the law concerning patents, with respect to inventions for improvements in instruments and munitions of war," said the measure was intended to accomplish a very important object. According to the present law, an invention when patented very soon became public, not only in this country, but, from the very liberal course adopted at the Patent Office, abroad, for communications took place with foreign Governments and foreign societies, and the specifications thus became known throughout the world. Now it was thought that inventions respecting munitions of war, or others of a character which it was for the public interest to conceal, should be vested in the Crown or some of the Officers of the Crown, say the Secretary for War. This, however, could only be effected by means of an Act of Parliament. The Bill would vest such inventions acordingly, and upon a declaration being made to the officers of the Patent Office power would be given to seal up all the papers connected with the invention, which would thus be kept secret as long as was thought advisable. To such a proposal there could, he thought, be no constitutional objection, because in ancient times it was the prerogative of the Crown to secure to itself an exclusive right to all inventions of a military character. The Bill was therefore only in furtherance of the ancient common law.

enlighten the House upon this remarkable | PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS (MUNITIONS conversion, but hon. Members oppositepointing to those above the gangwaywould do well to reflect upon this ominous alliance. Directly the sacrifice was consummated a test would be applied. If the noble Lord's Amendment was carried, he and his party no doubt would occupy the benches opposite, and then the House would see how far the hon. Member for Walsall was justified in his idea of the perfect unanimity existing between the noble Lord and the hon. Member for Birmingham; but it was quite clear either that Mr. Forster must be wrong, or the hon. Gentlemen who sat opposite would be the first to overthrow the Ministry they were endeavouring so laboriously to form. It was evident that both parties to the alliance opposite were trying which could get the best of the other -whether the moderate Liberals would climb to power on the shoulders of the Radicals, and then kick them into the gutter, or whether the moderate Liberals would consent to hold office with men whose political principles they opposed. Which would be the case he could not predict; but he might safely predict that out of that alliance would come no political credit to either party, and he thought they would regret it when that dark picture drawn by the right hon. Member for Stroud was realized when one of those impulses of confusion which occasionally afflicted the Continent should vibrate even to our own shores, and when, amid the various exciting causes that might exist, and which even the best Governments could not always be certain to avoid, they would be forced to consider a Reform measure under very different auspices to those under which they were now able to arrive at a deci

sion.

MR. WILSON moved the Adjournment of the Debate.

Leave given.

Bill to amend the Law concerning Pa tents for Inventions, with respect to Inventions for Improvements in Instruments and Munitions of War, ordered to be brought in by Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL, and General

Bill presented, and read 1o.

LUNACY REGULATION ACT (1858)
AMENDMENT BILL.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE- | PEEL.
QUER said, he thought that it would be
convenient that the debate should proceed
continuously, and therefore he would sug-
gest that it should be adjourned until the
next day. Of course he was in the hands
of hon. Members who had notices of Mo-
tions for that day. He had looked through
the
and though those notices were
paper,
of an interesting, yet he did not think that
they were of an urgent character. He
hoped that hon. Members would accede to
the course which he suggested.

Debate adjourned till To-morrow.
VOL. CLIII. [THIRD SERIES.]

LEAVE. FIRST READING. THE SOLICITOR GENERAL asked for leave to introduce a Bill to Amend the Lunacy Regulation Act (1853). The object of the measure he stated to be to secure a more efficacious inspection of those unfortunate persons who were found to be lunatics by inquisition. He might add that he proposed to refer the Bill to the same

R

marriages. The Bill relates only to civil | England. It seems to me, my Lords, that marriages, and it has been carefully pro- no person is more likely to understand the vided that there should be no power con- true interpretation of the Hebrew Scripferred by it of compelling clergymen to tures than the chief of the Jewish clergy. solemnize marriages to which they enter- These are the words which Dr. Adler used tain a conscientious objection. I think, in a letter which he lately addressed to the my Lords, that is a very important provi- Secretary of the Marriage Law Reform sion, and calculated to remove many ob- Association, as regards the leading point jections which have formerly been urged in this controversy. "I can only reiterate against the Bill. my former assertions that all sophistry must split, on the clear and unequivocal words, Levit. xviii. 18th, in her lifetime."" But it may be said, that on such a question as that before your Lordships, we should look, not to the Chief Rabbi of the Jews, but to the chief pastors of our own Church. I admit at once, that if from the Archbishops and Bishops of our own Church any clear and unanimous opinion could be gathered, I admit that would be entitled to very great weight with your Lordships. Now, my Lords, what is the opinion of the right rev. Bench? In 1835, the Act which was then passed went through this House, not only with the concurrence but with the co-operation of the right rev. Bench. That Act had for its object to render valid certain marriages. Well, what were the certain marriages which were to be rendered valid? Why, my Lords, they included the very marriages which you are now called upon to legalize. If the right

Now, my Lords, what are the objections which are entertained and urged against the Bill? I think they may be divided into two classes. One represents the religious view, and the other the social view of the question. I will first touch upon the religious objection by which it was assumed that there is a Divine command against these marriages; it is, however, happily not necessary for me to enter at any very great length into that argument, because the opponents of this Bill rely very much less upon it than they formerly did. When this measure was first brought into Parliament, and when it was first discussed in your Lordships' House, the whole of the opposition to it was rested upon a theological argument. We were told that the Divine command forbad these marriages. Now, I think, my Lords, that the opponents of the Bill have exercised a wise discretion in abandoning their arguments upon the theological ground; because that well-rev. Bench then thought these marriages known verse in Leviticus upon which, in the first instance, they founded their argument, has been found upon closer examination to favour the views of those who promote this Bill. I shall not stop to inquire whether the Levitical law be binding upon Christians. Much may be said upon that point, and many opinions and high authorities might, no doubt, be adduced to show that it is not binding. But, admitting for the purpose of argument, that it does bind Christians, then, my Lords, you find in that verse that there are the distinct words "in the lifetime" of the wife, which clearly imply, that during the life of the wife a man may not marry her sister; but that after the death of the wife he may do so. The opponents of the Bill have endeavoured to show that there is an inaccuracy in that interpretation of the verse which is given in our own Bible. If I am called upon to give an authority for the opinion I have expressed that the verse is in favour of the views of those who support this measure, I might refer to an opinion which has been often quoted in this Ilouse-I mean the opinion of the Chief Rabbi of the Jews in

were forbidden by the law of God, if they thought those marriages were incestuous, then I say that it would be in the highest degree indecorous to suppose that they would have concurred in Lord Lyndhurst's Act. I think I am, therefore, fully warranted in concluding that the right rev. Bench could not at that time have been of opinion that the word of God forbade these marriages. But, my Lords, if that was the opinion of the right rev. Bench then, what is the opinion of the right rev. Bench now? In the first place, there is the most rev. Prelate the Archbishop of Dublin, inferior, as we must all admit, to none in piety and learning, whose opinion is in favour of legalizing these marriages. Then there is another right rev. Prelate the Bishop of London (who, I understand, unfortunately cannot be present to-night), who, before he was elevated to the episcopal dignity, petitioned this House in favour of a similar Bill to this. Then, my Lords, there is the right rev. Prelate, who was formerly the Rector of St. George's, Bloomsbury, who wrote a letter which I shall afterwards quote, expressing a strong

entirely breaks down.

opinion in favour of this Bill. There is, | own absurdity, and I may fairly call upon besides, a right rev. Prelate, who has the opponents of the Bill to admit that it voted, it is true, against this Bill, but whose opinion I will, with your Lordships' permission, read to the House. The right rev. Prelate the Bishop of St. David's said in 1851-[The noble Lord read the opinion, which stated that in the Bishop's opinion marriage with a deceased wife's sister was tacitly permitted by the words of the 18th chapter of Leviticus.]

My Lords, I will come now to the other class of objections. I know that there are several other points which have been urged on the religious ground upon which I have not touched, but I do not wish to weary your Lordships with them. I come now to consider that which constitutes the chief ground of the objections against the Bill. It is said that if these marriages be legalized a great social evil will be caused to all classes of society. In order to be clear, I will divide that part of the argument into two branches. First, I will refer to the relation of the man with his wife's sister during the wife's lifetime; and, secondly, to the relation of the widower to the sister of his deceased wife. Now, it is said that you would by this Bill altogether put an end to or greatly restrict that close intimacy that at present exists between the husband and his wife's sister; but this argument seems to assume that the only barrier which now prevents a husband from entertaining feelings towards his sister-in-law which were culpable and indefensible would be broken down. But surely, my Lords, there is a much stronger barrier than an Act of Parliament, and that is the existence of the wife. It may fairly be assumed that a man of only ordinary morality and decent feeling would scarcely require the barrier of an Act of Parliament to induce him to abstain from entertaining projects during his wife's lifetime of marry

My Lords, there is a still later opinion which has been expressed by a right rev. Prelate, which is so remarkable that I hope I may be permitted to read it. My Lords, it appears that a deputation, including the Mayor of Manchester, the Aldermen and Town Councillors, and many other influential persons connected with that city, waited upon the right rev. Bishop of Manchester to solicit his Lordships' support on the second reading of the Bill now before your Lordships, and the following is said to be a copy of his reply to the observations addressed to him. [The noble Lord read the reply, which was to the effect that although the right rev. Prelate did not feel bound to support the Bill by his vote, yet that he did not conceive that there was any direct scriptural prohibition of these marriages; and his opinion was, that constructive interpretations of ambiguous passages of Scripture were binding only upon those who in their consciences believed in such interpretation.] So much, then, my Lords, for the opinions of the right rev. Bench. I may, how-ing his sister-in-law. ever, add, that when the Bill was before your Lordships' House last year only seven of the right rev. Prelates voted against it. There is another argument which has been urged against the measure, but which seems to me to be utterly untenable. It is said that on the principle that a man and his wife are one flesh, you must infer that all the relations of the wife become also without limitation the relations of the husband. Now, my Lords, just see to what conclusions this principle, if carried out, would lead you. If, for instance, a man marries a woman, and afterwards his brother marries her sister, the latter would on this principle marry his own sister. If a widower should marry the sister of the wife of one of his sons (and which is a case I have known), that would, according to the same reasoning, be equivalent to marrying his own daughter. I think, my Lords, that such an argument proves its

Then, my Lords, we come to the relations between the widower and the sisterin-law after the death of the wife. It is said, and with very great truth, that there is no more natural guardian for the children of the widower than his sister-in-law. Now, my Lords, how are the facts under the existing law? If the sister-in-law has arrived at what is called a certain age, then no doubt she may reside with him and take charge of his children. But if the sister-in-law is young, still more if the widower is young also, I would ask whether any of your Lordships would like your daughter or your sister to reside with a brother-in-law permanently under such circumstances? I am convinced that, except in some very few cases, such a course would be extremely inconvenient and would be likely to lead to great scandal. I have argued the case thus far, as if I were speaking only of one class, as if I were