step-mother. Mr. Walpole then proceeded, at considerable
length, to discuss these arguments more in detail, on
both grounds, religious and social, and, in conclusion,
implored the house to reject a measure that would
sacrifice the interests of the many to the wishes of a
few, and lead to ulterior consequences at which its
advocates, if they could perceive them, would tremble.—
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, after stating the arguments
on both sides, upon the religious point insisted that the
Levitical law contained no prohibition of these marriages,
but, on the contrary, conveyed an opposite meaning; that
that law, which was adapted to a people among whom the
practice of polygamy existed, applied to a time when the
wife was living, and the Hebrews always considered these
marriages as not forbidden, but permitted by their law.
Looking at the general opinion of the christian world,
he found it, he said, divided in opinion as to the
construction of the Levitical law, and, in this state of
things, instead of one party striving to impose its own
views dogmatically upon others, every man should be
left to the exercise of his own conscience in such a
matter. With regard to the social evils predicted as the
result of this change of the law, he should be the last
man, he declared, to seek such a change if he believed
it would produce the fatal consequences anticipated by
Mr. Walpole; but his own theory he found confirmed
by the best experience throughout the civilised world.
Reversing the picture, he endeavoured to show that,
while the evils apprehended from an alteration of the
law were imaginary, the disastrous consequences of
maintaining the existing prohibition were real, and he
should vote for its repeal, as mischievous, uncalled for,
and tyrannical.—Mr. WIGRAM observed that, whether
the interpretation put upon the Levitical law was
correct or not, the existing law ought not to be lightly
disturbed, which might throw the law of marriage into
an unsettled state, which was a circumstance of great
importance to the general morals of society.—Mr.
COLLIER remarked, that the high ground upon which
this change of the law had been originally opposed,
namely, that it was repugnant to the law of God, had
been evacuated by its opponents, who now sought to
throw upon the advocates of the bill the onus of making
out a justification of the change it proposed. But he
maintained, on the contrary, that the party supporting
a prohibition in restraint of marriage were bound to
justify it. He insisted that the Scripture did not
furnish a foundation for the prohibition, that the canon
law could not be made the basis of our legislation, and
that the social considerations put forward as objections
to the measure were matters of taste and sentiment.—
Mr. NAPIER denied that the religious ground had been
abandoned by the opponents of the bill; his own
opposition was founded upon a conviction that the
present law was based upon the law of God, and while
he would not assume the awful responsibility of laying
down a law of man that might be repugnant to the
Divine injunction, he would not incur the guilt of
perilling social blessings now enjoyed by degrading our
law to meet the requirements of the passions of a few,
and not, as alleged, the interests of the poor. Mr.
Napier appealed to many authorities, lay as well as
ecclesiastical, in support of his objection upon religious
grounds, to a change of the law, arguing this point
at much length, reinforcing his argument by an
enumeration of the evil consequences in a social view
which would, in his opinion, follow a change at variance
with the views of the reformers of our church.—Mr.
MILNES supported the bill, believing, he said, that the
moral sense of the people demanded such an alteration
of the marriage law. There was the strongest
distinction, he observed, between upholding the
advisability of those marriages and their prohibition
by law. He warned the house that, before long,
there would be an immense mass of property
dependent upon contracts of marriage which the law
declared illegal and public opinion regarded as legal.
—Mr. SEYMER, after remarking that the Attorney-
General in supporting this bill, appeared as an
advocate of an ex-post-facto law, legalising acts of
perjury, said, of all the shams which ever came before
parliament none was greater than the plea that this bill
was for the benefit of the poor; if the poor were the
only party concerned, he believed the house would never
have heard of this bill. This was the first attempt, he
observed, to set the law of the land in opposition to that
of the church, and he pointed out the inconvenient position
in which the bill would place the established clergy,
one class marrying within these degrees of affinity, and
another refusing to marry. Having reviewed the
arguments urged in support of the bill—contending that the
balance was in favour of the present law—he
commented upon some points in the bill itself, dwelling
upon the significant exclusion of Scotland from its
operation.—Mr. T. CHAMBERS, putting out of
consideration the evils attributed to the existing law on one
side, and those predicted as the result of a change on
the other, held that the whole question should be
governed by the religious view of it—was marriage
within these degrees prohibited by Scripture, or not?
He denied that these marriages were forbidden by the
18th chapter of Leviticus, which Mr. Napier only
contended forbade them inferentially. To the authorities
cited by that gentleman he opposed the testimony of
the chief rabbi of the jews, whence it appeared that
these marriages were preferable rather than otherwise.
If, as he maintained, these contracts were not unlawful
by the Word of God, then let every man act upon his own
conscience in the matter.—Mr. WHITESIDE, in reply to
Mr. Chambers, showed that the traditional law of the
Jews did prohibit the marriage with two sisters in
succession, and he cited Philo-Judæus, who stated that, by
the ancient law of the Jews, a man could not marry two
sisters, either at the same time or at different periods.
He strongly opposed the bill, which could never, he
said, become the law of the land. The debate was
adjourned until the 9th of May.

On Thursday, April 26, Lord PALMERSTON stated that
huts for 10,000 men would be erected at Aldershott. In
the camp to be formed there would be included twenty
regiments of militia, a few troops of the line, three
battalions of field artillery, and some troops of cavalry, but
no yeomanry.

A series of questions respecting the telegraph between
England and the camp before Sebastopol elicited
statements from Lord Palmerston and Sir C. Wood to the
effect that the telegraphic communication, although not
quite perfect, was sufficiently advanced to transmit
messages between London and the Crimea in twenty-four
hours. Two messages had been received during the
course of that and the preceding day, but they contained
no information respecting the progress of the siege. The
naval and military commanders-in-chief were to be
instructed to forward communications on that subject
from day to day.

A series of bills, involving the several propositions
comprised in the recent financial statement of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, were then successively brought
forward for second reading. Some miscellaneous
comments were offered upon the details of each bill as it
was presented, but ultimately the whole series were read
a second time, one after the other, without serious
opposition.

PROGRESS OF BUSINESS.

House of Lords.—Thursday, March 29.—Intramural Burials
(Ireland) Bill read a second time. Court of Chancery Bill read
a third time and passed.

30th.—Ecclesiastical Courts Bill committed. Charitable
Trusts Bill read a first time. University of Cambridge Bill
read a first time. House adjourned to 16th of April.

Monday, April 16th.—Charitable Trusts Bill read a second
time.

17th.—Cambridge University Bill read a second time.

20th.—Sardinian Convention Bill read a second time.

23rd.—Sardinian Convention Bill passed through Committee.

24th.—Cambridge University Bill passed through
Committee.

House of Commons.—Thursday, March 29th.—Church Rates
Bill brought in and read a first time. Free Schools Bill read
a first time. Parliamentary Representation (Scotland) Bill
read a first time.

30th.—Testamentary Jurisdiction Bill read a first time.
House adjourned to 16th of April.

Monday, April 16th.—Metropolis Local Management Bill
read a second time. Supply, Civil Estimates. Public Libraries
aud Museums (Ireland) Bill read a second time.